FBI director recommends Hillary Clinton not be indicted in email investigation

[Uncle Siggy]

Sorry, I go off that ride years ago.

So did a lot of other people but the Kool Aid drinkers refuse to believe that...

 

[bhsmte]

Here's Andrea Mitchell's take. She's on MSNBC and look what she has to say.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...disputes-clintons-email-story/article/2595668

Yes, it is pretty well established, she told many lies about this whole email situation.

Also, we know she ignored warnings about the risk and did it anyway.

 

[tulc]

You obviously need to read the statutes governing Clintons gross negligence.

Really? Why? Because, not being a lawyer and the Republicans having a LOT of them, I'm sort of thinking if they could indict her the Republicans would indict her.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[bhsmte]

Really? Why? Because, not being a lawyer and the Republicans having a LOT of them, I'm sort of thinking if they could indict her the Republicans would indict her.
tulc(just a thought)

How would the republicans indict her?

 

[dgiharris]

There will never be another Republican president in my lifetime.

GOP can easily win after Hillary . Simply adhere to the GOP platform, listen to the people, and take back the party from the extremists.

Trump only won the nomination because of the widespread disillusionment with Republican obstructionism and lack of creative new policies.

The biggest disservice GOP can do is trivialize why Trump won the nomination. Trying to handwave his victory away as if he got lucky or the GOP just made a small mistake.

No. Trump won because the GOP party has MAJOR problems and has lost touch, not only with America and the World but it's own constituents.
At the end if the day, the GOP party has to hit rock bottom and needs to look at itself in the mirror much like a blackout drunk who wakes up in a jail cell covered in his own vomit.

The GOP lost its presidential nomination to a loud mouth obnoxious reality TV ego maniac clown. Stop and process that. How mad must GOP constituents be in order for this to happen? How many incompetent front runners is the party supporting in order for that to have happened.

What the heck is wrong with the party and will the party own up to its mistakes and make the appropriate changes, or will it hide behind face saving excuses.

Trump only won the nomination because of the widespread disillusionment with Republican obstructionism and lack of creative new policies.

I wanted to speak to this again. I definitely agree with what you said. I just only wanted to add there is more to it and the GOP needs to seriously reassess just what it has been doing. Particularly in regards to crafting untrue narratives and being obstructionist and being on the wrong side of history for so many issues. Especially the issue of these mass shootings. Every time a mass shooting occurs and every time the GOP resists reasonable gun control measures, it angers the public. Not to derail this to a gun debate thread but that is just one example.

Anyways. America desperately needs the GOP party to be the GOP party and adhere to their principles and not the whims of their extremists.

 

[PapaZoom]

Yes, it is pretty well established, she told many lies about this whole email situation.

Also, we know she ignored warnings about the risk and did it anyway.

Which is the part of "intent" I don't get. She knew the risks, ignored the warnings, so how does she get off on intent? She certainly intended to ignore the warnings and intended to have and use an unclassified server despite the risks. What will she do as President to avoid the FOIA? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[bhsmte]

Which is the part of "intent" I don't get. She knew the risks, ignored the warnings, so how does she get off on intent? She certainly intended to ignore the warnings and intended to have and use an unclassified server despite the risks. What will she do as President to avoid the FOIA? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If this was a lower level person, they likely indict. With a high profile case like this, they like to have lots and lots of evidence.

Likely, they say no malicious intent, just her being stubborn and thinking the rules didn't apply to her.

 

[PapaZoom]

If this was a lower level person, they likely indict. With a high profile case like this, they like to have lots and lots of evidence.

Likely, they say no malicious intent, just her being stubborn and thinking the rules didn't apply to her.

Stubborn seems an understatement. But I think you're right. I know that I can't stand the woman and think her history shows many questionable actions. I made up my mind long ago. Still, I think there would be plenty of prosecutors that would love to have had a chance at her.

 

[bhsmte]

Stubborn seems an understatement. But I think you're right. I know that I can't stand the woman and think her history shows many questionable actions. I made up my mind long ago. Still, I think there would be plenty of prosecutors that would love to have had a chance at her.

Listen, I never liked the women either. I think she is exactly what I said and have for a long time, someone who gets special treatment and it is beneath her to have to follow stupid rules or to answer questions.

I do think, they likely didn't have a strong criminal case and they were not going to be embarrassed, by losing a high profile case like this, with such a prominent person.

Plenty of evidence she lied through her teeth and ignored rules though.

 

[PapaZoom]

Listen, I never liked the women either. I think she is exactly what I said and have for a long time, someone who gets special treatment and it is beneath her to have to follow stupid rules or to answer questions.

I do think, they likely didn't have a strong criminal case and they were not going to be embarrassed, by losing a high profile case like this, with such a prominent person.

Plenty of evidence she lied through her teeth and ignored rules though.

good points and I think you're right on this too

now, should she get a security clearance in the future ? no but if she wins the election, shell get one for sure

 

[pat34lee]

I'm not surprised in the least.
She should get a pass on this and we should move on to bigger and better things.

I'm not surprised either, just disappointed in the legal system.
Money and influence are not supposed to grant our political
servants the status of masters and untouchable.
Never grant a pass for the guilty. We, all the people, should
be making sure she goes to prison, and those helping cover
up her crimes should go with her, including the FBI, if they
are involved. It isn't even as if there were any doubt that
she is guilty. She broke several laws even if she never read
or forwarded sensitive or classified date.

 

[civilwarbuff]

" Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. "

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

"The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond."

"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”"

What They Found

"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."

[So this is the person the Democrats want as the next President. Extremely careless in handling sensitive US classified information.]

[Intent doesn't matter. The law isn't about intent. It's about actions. And she did what she did so that she could avoid the FOIA. So she put the country at risk to avoid FOIA.]

"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. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."

[And of course she knew better. And she lied about all of it]

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

"But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

" 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."

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

[The woman is an incompetent idiot]

The entire script here: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

You don't expect Hillary supporters to actually understand what you posted here, do you?

 

[BadHabit]

good points and I think you're right on this too

now, should she get a security clearance in the future ? no but if she wins the election, shell get one for sure

Well, if it's any consolation, even the POTUS has some serious limits on their security clearance. They only know what they need to know. The idea of her having any kind of security clearance (let alone access to "the football") scares the crap out of me.

 

[pat34lee]

good points and I think you're right on this too

now, should she get a security clearance in the future ? no but if she wins the election, shell get one for sure

No, if she can't get security clearance for cause, she should not be able
to take the oath of office, much less become President. She should not
be able to hold any elected or appointed office again.

 

[pat34lee]

It's time for the states' Attorneys General to begin prosecuting
Clinton if the feds are too corrupt to do it.

 

[nightflight]

Can we start calling her Hillary Coin?

 

[HannahT]

No, if she can't get security clearance for cause, she should not be able
to take the oath of office, much less become President. She should not
be able to hold any elected or appointed office again.

You know how this game goes. If they do anything about her security clearance? It will be temporary, and just in time for her to take office if she wins it will be returned to her. She can't do the job without it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which is the part of "intent" I don't get. She knew the risks, ignored the warnings, so how does she get off on intent? She certainly intended to ignore the warnings and intended to have and use an unclassified server despite the risks. What will she do as President to avoid the FOIA? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bush and Cheney sent all their Executive branch email through a server at the RNC headquarters -- No charges.
Powell used his own email server which sat on his desk and was administered by nobody -- no charges.
Patreus traded classified information for sexual favors -- probation.

And Hillary is so much worse because...? Right -- Clinton.

 

[dgiharris]

Bush and Cheney sent all their Executive branch email through a server at the RNC headquarters -- No charges.
Powell used his own email server which sat on his desk and was administered by nobody -- no charges.
Patreus traded classified information for sexual favors -- probation.

And Hillary is so much worse because...? Right -- Clinton.

Pretty much. I just see this whole email fiasco as a giant nit game of gotcha wrapped in schadenfreude . I worked with high level officials and sometimes yeah they think the rules don't apply to them.

I just don't see this issue as a smoking gun requiring serious attention beyond a hand slap and an across the board re-emphasis on the rules regarding classified info, servers, emails, etc.

I would feel this way regardless of who it was provided we are talking about the Secretary of State or equivalent high level position.

Lastly, saying she doesn't qualify for TS clearance is laughable and ridiculous given the positions she has held.

I know, it is very anti-American to say exceptions should be made for our top public officials but they should.

And when you look at all the cap that happened under Bush with the Torture and WMDs and drone strike collateral damage etc. I just find it incredibly hypocritical for us to actually regard this email stuff as this huge big deal.

Please let's just move on.

 

[HannahT]

I don't agree. I don't think anyone should get special treatment because they work for the government. She - like many before her - won't get a slap on the wrist. She won't get anything.

This is why many don't trust the government, and it really doesn't matter what side of the aisle their on.