FBI director recommends Hillary Clinton not be indicted in email investigation

[bhsmte]

Don't you love it when people don't actually care about due process or the rule of law? People are convinced that Hillary is guilty and that is all that matters.

Not criminally guilty, but guilty of ignoring the rules (which evidence shows they knew) and creating risk by not following them.

Bad judgment and probably some of; i can do what i want.

 

[redleghunter]

Don't you love it when people don't actually care about due process or the rule of law? People are convinced that Hillary is guilty and that is all that matters.

Problem was there was no due process. There was a decision not to prosecute Clinton even though every rule in the book was broken. This is a good start from a former federal prosecutor:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

 

[bhsmte]

Problem was there was no due process. There was a decision not to prosecute Clinton even though every rule in the book was broken. This is a good start from a former FBI director:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

Breaking rules and having evidence for criminal charges, are two different things.

 

[HannahT]

"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

Comey is basically saying she could face security or administrative sanctions. That means she could be stripped of her privilege when it comes to viewing classified information - among other things of course.

Do I think that will happen? Nope.

 

[dgiharris]

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

Not so well. He made the mistake of flaunting his attitude to the sheeple and the sheeple were outraged just as many of you in this thread are outraged by my comments.

To be clear, I acknowledge that when lessor worker bees break these laws they should be punished. I held a TS clearance and I know about proper procedure yada yada yada.

Let me back up a bit. I believe that Machiavelli politics are the way of the world. However, Machiavelli politics requires that you successfully hide your dirt from the populace, especially a moral populace because you can only govern with their consent.

This is where Nixon screwed up. You need to give the illusion you are acting within the social contract and for an official that means working within the law and rules.

What I am saying is that the "royalty" is above the law, that is a fact. However they need to "appear" to be following the rules or else we the sheeple will not tolerate them meaning that social unrest gets too bad for them to rule us.

The system actually requires our royalty to have this power, otherwise they would be unable to govern effectively for fear of future retribution should the opposition party gain power next cycle.

As part of the sheeple of course I want to believe the fiction we are all equal but that is not true. And to go a step further, in terms of government stability, our royalty does need to be "somewhat" above the law for the reasons I mentioned. However in order to maintain order, they need to maintain the fiction of appearing to follow the law.

Now before you flame me, realize that what I am saying actually occurs and has occurred time and time again.

How many government officials were convicted of war crimes with torturing prisoners in Iraq? How many government officials are in jail due to the whole housing market scam meltdown bailout fiasco? How about that whole weapons of mass destruction fiasco?

I could go on and on...

 

[redleghunter]

But she *is* guilty. Didn't you read http://www.christianforums.com/thre...rupt-politicians.7955049/page-4#post-69832696 ? Care to comment on it?

Let's put it this way. She is not guilty until proven in a court of law. However, the evidence against her violating key security federal statutes is clear. "Intent" as Comey put it, should not be determined by those investigating (him) but by a court.

 

[redleghunter]

To have the evidence to make a criminal case, would have required intent.

Not for the statutes involved. Good explanation here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

Andrew C. McCarthy III is a columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

 

[PapaZoom]

Don't you love it when people don't actually care about due process or the rule of law? People are convinced that Hillary is guilty and that is all that matters.

The People aren't stupid. We know a farce when we see it.

 

[PapaZoom]

Still, I won't hold my breath. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...-clinton/article/2595612#.V3vjo25c1EU.twitter

 

[redleghunter]

Breaking rules and having evidence for criminal charges, are two different things.

They do have evidence. The FBI decided not to act on the evidence by citing 'intent' even though gross negligence can both be intentional and non-intentional.

If you drive 60mph through a 20mph school zone, a cop stops you and writes a ticket. You protest and say "I did not intend to speed through this zone' the cop will smile and say "tell it to the judge." What the FBI did today was do the job of a grand jury.

 

[redleghunter]

Comey is basically saying she could face security or administrative sanctions. That means she could be stripped of her privilege when it comes to viewing classified information - among other things of course.

Do I think that will happen? Nope.

It won't. Why? Because as a POTUS candidate and potentially the next President Hillary will require classified briefings. Do you see the government denying the President of the United States a security clearance? No. But that should tell we the people that she is not qualified to be POTUS based on her gross negligence of improperly handling the highest secrets of our nation.

 

[redleghunter]

How many government officials were convicted of war crimes with torturing prisoners in Iraq? How many government officials are in jail due to the whole housing market scam meltdown bailout fiasco? How about that whole weapons of mass destruction fiasco?

I could go on and on...

You could but you already come across loud and clear. We the sheeple just need to take our Soma and shut up and accept the spiraling ride into the abyss. Sorry, I go off that ride years ago.

If it matters, and I think it won't, the banksters and POW abusers need to be thrown in the same rat infested cell with the Clintons. It will be happy company for them.

 

[redleghunter]

Still, I won't hold my breath. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...-clinton/article/2595612#.V3vjo25c1EU.twitter

""For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received," he said. "These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."


LOL, he just outlined intent in the above statement. This is getting even more ridiculous. So basically Comey couched his words to mean Hillary was an unfit manager in her capacity as Sec State. Yet, the sheeple won't read between the lines on this.

Gents get a hoot at the above Papa found:

@civilwarbuff @Uncle Siggy

 

[redleghunter]

Still, I won't hold my breath. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...-clinton/article/2595612#.V3vjo25c1EU.twitter

On another note, how do you administratively punish a private citizen? She is no longer in the employ of the government.

 

[HannahT]

It won't. Why? Because as a POTUS candidate and potentially the next President Hillary will require classified briefings. Do you see the government denying the President of the United States a security clearance? No. But that should tell we the people that she is not qualified to be POTUS based on her gross negligence of improperly handling the highest secrets of our nation.

I do agree with what you are saying. She is to big to go down, and I don't say that because she is DEM either. There are plenty of people that are powerful enough within the beltway bubble that they wouldn't take down either - both parties.

Comey's statements tend to say the opposite of what she has been claiming all along. Most of the time in these circumstances they go after the low hanging fruit. So, they may go after some of her staff - not strongly, but enough to make some noise.

This is why people don't trust the government.

The fact he didn't recommend charges? She will claim she is cleared of all this, and people made hay over nothing. Her supporters will repeat the claim, and it no time people will either forget or blow it off. That's is how the political ball bounces. I don't like, but it is reality.

 

[PapaZoom]

On another note, how do you administratively punish a private citizen? She is no longer in the employ of the government.

Maybe that was calculated for future use.

 

[bhsmte]

I do agree with what you are saying. She is to big to go down, and I don't say that because she is DEM either. There are plenty of people that are powerful enough within the beltway bubble that they wouldn't take down either - both parties.

Comey's statements tend to say the opposite of what she has been claiming all along. Most of the time in these circumstances they go after the low hanging fruit. So, they may go after some of her staff - not strongly, but enough to make some noise.

This is why people don't trust the government.

The fact he didn't recommend charges? She will claim she is cleared of all this, and people made hay over nothing. Her supporters will repeat the claim, and it no time people will either forget or blow it off. That's is how the political ball bounces. I don't like, but it is reality.

To prosecute this type of high profile person, the evidence needed to be overwhelming.

A lessor person, may have been prosecuted, i agree with that.

 

[tulc]

Yes and neglect in this magnitude is a crime.

I guess it's one of those "It's a crime because I think it's a crime!!" Not one of those crimes where people actually break any laws sort of crimes?
tulc(suspects no one is ever arrested for those sort of crimes)

 

[PapaZoom]

DOUBLE STANDARD! Five Americans Obama Jailed For Mishandling Classified Information

http://lidblog.com/double-standard-...ailed-for-mishandling-classified-information/

note especially number 5

 

[PapaZoom]