FBI director recommends Hillary Clinton not be indicted in email investigation

[dysert]

I don't have a link since I just finished watching it live.

Anyone surprised by this? I'm not.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't have a link since I just finished watching it live.

Anyone surprised by this? I'm not.

Here you go:

Start with this:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/bill-clinton-and-ag-loretta-lynch-meet-privately.7954245/

Then the results here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-days-Clinton-sits-3-1-2-hour-grilling.html

 

[HannahT]

It's not surprising to me at all. Although, the FBI wasn't very nice in what they had to say about how she and her department carelessly handled the information. He did make it clear she was very neglect - along with her department.

 

[dgiharris]

I'm not surprised in the least.

Fact is, high ranking political officials should never be charged in these sorts of cases and matters.

Wait? What?

It is counter intuitive, but once you can hamstring high level officials over stuff like this, you impact the ability of the office of that position to do that job in the future.

At the upper high echelon of political and government office, officials need to be a little bit above the law. Not completely above the law, but somewhat above the law.

Their jobs are harder than you can imagine with the stakes being the very survival of our country. We have to give them some leeway to include making mistakes.

The knee jerk reaction is envy and a desire to "treat them like normal citizens " but they aren't normal citizens.

Note, I used this same argument to defend Bush and his criminally incompetent cronies (despite me hating them) .

This is above politics. Prosecuting the most senior officials for minor or medium breaches of law would give each political party too much ammunition to use against the other...

So, just as I supported Bush and his cronies not being prosecuted, so to do I support not Prosecuting Hillary.

Truthfully, the whole email thing is a mountain out of a mole hill. We've had much much worse breaches of security. I know, that doesn't make it right but it should add much needed perspective.

She should get a pass on this and we should move on to bigger and better things.

 

[HannahT]

Truthfully, the whole email thing is a mountain out of a mole hill. We've had much much worse breaches of security. I know, that doesn't make it right but it should add much needed perspective.

She should get a pass on this and we should move on to bigger and better things.

I don't feel because there has been much worse breaches - although I wouldn't know about those - its not very serious in nature. This practice could have continued after Clinton, and we don't need our information out there for enemies to view and digest. Comey stated, 'But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.' So, in other words our enemies don't leave evidence behind when they hack. It's scary to know they are that good, but we don't need to make it easier for them either.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Hopefully, they will fix that. This to me is serious business. Although being government? I'm not so sure it will be fixed anytime soon. They seem slow as molasses to fix anything at times. It's the nature of the beast, and has nothing to do with politics.

 

[nightflight]

Mission Accomplished.

 

[dysert]

At the upper high echelon of political and government office, officials need to be a little bit above the law. Not completely above the law, but somewhat above the law.

Hmm. The "above the law" defense. How'd that work out for President Nixon?

 

[nightflight]

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that's not what we're deciding now,"- FBI Director Comey

 

[brinny]

I don't have a link since I just finished watching it live.

Anyone surprised by this? I'm not.

LOL!

Nope, not surprised...

just wonderin' what took 'em so long...

 

[brinny]

Mission Accomplished.

LOL!

 

[redleghunter]

It's not surprising to me at all. Although, the FBI wasn't very nice in what they had to say about how she and her department carelessly handled the information. He did make it clear she was very neglect - along with her department.

Yes and neglect in this magnitude is a crime.

 

[PapaZoom]

LOL!

Nope, not surprised...

just wonderin' what took 'em so long...

They had to make it (make that fake it) look like a real investigation and also had to come up with how they were going to spin it.

 

[brinny]

They had to make it (make that fake it) look like a real investigation and also had to come up with how they were going to spin it.

LOL!

They had to reeeeeeeally spin this one in all KINDS 'o ways

 

[redleghunter]

At the upper high echelon of political and government office, officials need to be a little bit above the law. Not completely above the law, but somewhat above the law.

Their jobs are harder than you can imagine with the stakes being the very survival of our country. We have to give them some leeway to include making mistakes.

This is a high pile of compost.

Are you sure your defense was of George W. and not George III?

So the Royals get one set of rules and we get another?

When I was active duty as a commissioned officer and if I violated security protocols for compartmentalized TS information, I would be in Leavenworth right now. It would not matter if I was 'sloppy' or 'did not know', I would be gone to the big house in Kansas.

I had a fellow LTC who served with me. He accidentally sent SECRET NOFORN (no foreign disclosure) to an allied section in Afghanistan. He realized his error, went to the allied fax in time to receive the data, purged the fax cache on both sides but still was officially reprimanded in writing; security clearance revoked; sent back home to the States in disgrace and issued a relief for cause evaluation report. They let him retire, but he will never get that clearance back and his job opportunities limited.

That is what happened to an officer with a stellar record, over 25 years in the Army who indeed made a mistake which investigators said did not compromise the NOFORN information. CID even opened an espionage investigation (he was cleared of that) as STANDARD procedure given the nature of the information involved and who was at the receiving end.
None of the above even a recommendation for Hillary. At the MINIMUM she should have her security clearance revoked and not reissued. She has demonstrated she cannot safeguard classified information and should never be in a position handling highly sensitive information ever again. She is unfit for President of the United States.

 

[PapaZoom]

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

IOW, you or I would face consequences for the same violations. Just not Hillary.

 

[dysert]

This is a high pile of compost.

Are you sure your defense was of George W. and not George III?

So the Royals get one set of rules and we get another?

When I was active duty as a commissioned officer and if I violated security protocols for compartmentalized TS information, I would be in Leavenworth right now. It would not matter if I was 'sloppy' or 'did not know', I would be gone to the big house in Kansas.

I had a fellow LTC who served with me. He accidentally sent SECRET NOFORN (no foreign disclosure) to an allied section in Afghanistan. He realized his error, went to the allied fax in time to receive the data, purged the fax cache on both sides but still was officially reprimanded in writing; security clearance revoked; sent back home to the States in disgrace and issued a relief for cause evaluation report. They let him retire, but he will never get that clearance back and his job opportunities limited.

That is what happened to an officer with a stellar record, over 25 years in the Army who indeed made a mistake which investigators said did not compromise the NOFORN information. CID even opened an espionage investigation (he was cleared of that) as STANDARD procedure given the nature of the information involved and who was at the receiving end.
None of the above even a recommendation for Hillary. At the MINIMUM she should have her security clearance revoked and not reissued. She has demonstrated she cannot safeguard classified information and should never be in a position handling highly sensitive information ever again. She is unfit for President of the United States.

I was a gov't contractor with a TS clearance. I was told that if I left a classified document on my desk and left the room that I could be thrown in jail. There are laws for us peons and different laws for those in power. The "golden rule" strikes again.

 

[crjmurray]

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

IOW, you or I would face consequences for the same violations. Just not Hillary.

You could include the entire statement like nightflight has done. Granted, I don't know what the obsession with it is.

 

[PapaZoom]

You could include the entire statement like nightflight has done. Granted, I don't know what the obsession with it is.

that one quote says it all

 

[redleghunter]

Hopefully, they will fix that. This to me is serious business. Although being government? I'm not so sure it will be fixed anytime soon. They seem slow as molasses to fix anything at times. It's the nature of the beast, and has nothing to do with politics.

It is serious business and the Federal Government HAS put measures in place to deter people from making mistakes or deliberately leaking classified information. The deterrent is the law, the very statutes Clinton and anyone who has ever held a security clearance KNOWS before being granted a security clearance. She broke the law. Does not matter if she 'did not know' (which is a lie) or was 'sloppy.' If you or I were 'sloppy' or 'forgetful' driving 60mph through a 20mph school zone, do you think a cop would care? No, we would get a ticket and have to explain it to the judge.

There is no 'fix' to this blatant disregard for law as long as the 'royals' in our government have one set of rules and we have another set of rules. Americans 240 years ago realized this clearly.

 

[crjmurray]

that one quote says it all

That one quote is incomplete. And seems to be misinterpreted.