It's official; the rule of law does not apply to corrupt politicians.

[civilwarbuff]

Some people just can't refuse the Kool-Aid.......

 

[Circle Christ]

Most of what the SoS deals with is classified at one level or another; the unclassified/low classified stuff get dealt with by her minions.....

What we're suppose to believe is that she never had any classified materials on her server? Not once.

As public as all this has been are the investigations real? Or were they smoke and mirrors like the Benghazi hearings. The public demands action so they give us the dog and pony show so that we think action is being taken.
Hillary wasn't responsible for Benghazi? Hillary didn't lie about the video being cause of a trespass onto an American embassy property, which is sovereign U.S land in Libya, and that resulted in the slaughter of four American's and the dire harm to many other Americans?

And none of it is her fault?
This latest with the emails, non-secure server for a fact, means nothing? When she was the Secretary of State? And all that that means to the office of the President and the nation?

Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence

 

[cow451]

The OP is in error. The Supreme Court already legalized political corruption.

 

[Circle Christ]

"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

Oh, it's clear alright.

 

[Circle Christ]

They had no problem with the violations of law, they said they couldn't prove intent.
How can you NOT prove intent when 20,000 emails are deleted AFTER they are under subpoena?

And wasn't that grant of limited immunity to her computer guy what would have explained that?

 

[super animator]

The FBI just announced that despite violating multiple federal laws that it recommends no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton because they can't prove she intended to do things like delete 20,000 emails after they were under subpoena.

You want them to file charges DESPITE the lack of evidence!? Do you have any idea of what your saying!?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

...it will take another revolution to free the nation from the tyranny of the ruling oligarchy.

How, exactly, do you foresee this revolution happening?

 

[KWCrazy]

And wasn't that grant of limited immunity to her computer guy what would have explained that?

How does one take the 5th if there is no crime with which to self-incriminate?

 

[KWCrazy]

You want them to file charges DESPITE the lack of evidence!? Do you have any idea of what your saying!?

There was plenty of evidence. They said they couldn't prove intent.... which has never applied to any other defendant.

 

[KWCrazy]

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

No, under the law Hillary is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean she's innocent.
Remember, EVERY SINGLE Democrat and six Republicans said her husband was not guilty of the crimes to which he later admitted.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No, under the law Hillary is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean she's innocent.
Remember, EVERY SINGLE Democrat and six Republicans said her husband was not guilty of the crimes to which he later admitted.

So? What does her husband have to do with whether she's guilty or not?

Either we trust the legal system, in which case the FBI have told us there is insufficient evidence, and so Hillary must be presumed innocent under the law.

Or the legal system is corrupt. In which case, God help you.

 

[KWCrazy]

So? What does her husband have to do with whether she's guilty or not?

It proves that Democrats cared nothing for the rule of law.

Either we trust the legal system, in which case the FBI have told us there is insufficient evidence, and so Hillary must be presumed innocent under the law.

YOU trust the system.
The rule of law apparently doesn't apply to the Clintons.

Or the legal system is corrupt. In which case, God help you.

God help us all. America has fallen. There is no republic; only an oligarchy which is above the law.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have a new speeding defense. You can't prove I was intentionally violating the speed limit, I was just extremely careless in how I positioned my foot. No honest prosecutor would pursue charges under such circumstances.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I have a new speeding defense. You can't prove I was intentionally violating the speed limit, I was just extremely careless in how I positioned my foot. No honest prosecutor would pursue charges under such circumstances.

One must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Not any old excuse will do.

Using a private email server falls within the realm of genuine carelessness, not criminal intent.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But they did say she was "extremely careless", which is not necessarily the kind of description a presidential candidate is looking for.

...pretty much this ^

The question is...will the FBI comments reach a wide audience, or will certain media outlets leave that little tasty tidbit out when covering this story.

The FBI is there for a reason, I suppose I'm in no position to question their determination...however, I will say that I do find it odd that a person with a law degree from Yale is playing the "ignorance of the law" card.

It's like a Medical Doctor from Harvard saying "gee, I didn't know you weren't supposed to drink the mouthwash...gee...sorry guys, that's my bad"

...you have higher expectations for a person with certain elevated levels of educational attainment in certain fields, and expect them to know better.

 

[dysert]

Here are some noteworthy Comey quotes from his speech. I notice in particular the words "evidence" and "intent"...

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues
intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is
evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive,
highly classified information.

None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their
presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on
unclassified personal servers not even supported by fulltime
security staff, like
those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a
commercial service like Gmail.

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 email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care
for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the
handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor
would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before
bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the
evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the
context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the
past.

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 is not
what we are deciding now.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

...pretty much this ^

The question is...will the FBI comments reach a wide audience, or will certain media outlets leave that little tasty tidbit out when covering this story.

The FBI is there for a reason, I suppose I'm in no position to question their determination...however, I will say that I do find it odd that a person with a law degree from Yale is playing the "ignorance of the law" card.

It's like a Medical Doctor from Harvard saying "gee, I didn't know you weren't supposed to drink the mouthwash...gee...sorry guys, that's my bad"

...you have higher expectations for a person with certain elevated levels of educational attainment in certain fields, and expect them to know better.

Fox News will go hard on the 'extremely careless' bit. MSNBC won't.

As usual, different messages will reach the different sides of the divided partisan American electorate. It won't make much difference I suspect.

 

[dysert]

Fox News will go hard on the 'extremely careless' bit. MSNBC won't.

As usual, different messages will reach the different sides of the divided partisan American electorate. It won't make much difference I suspect.

No it won't, but the point is, it should!

 

[DZoolander]

99.9% of all political discourse..

Option 1 - Things went well for the guy I oppose
"Blah blah, it's a travesty and proof of corruption. Our forefathers are spinning in their graves."
Option 2 - Things went badly for the guy I oppose
"Blah Blah, it went as it should have gone."
Option 3 - Things went well for the guy I support
"Blah Blah, it went as it should have gone."
Option 4 - Things went badly for the guy I support
"Blah Blah, it's a travesty and proof of corruption. Our forefathers are spinning in their graves."