Hillary Clinton's scandals explained briefly

[[serious]]

Oh the irony! Anthony Wiener's actions bring down a massive criminal conspiracy.

Not ironic at all. We know him best for exposing things.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

He stated the law, then said why she didn't merit prosecution.

It's not a long document.

Try and read it without contradicting his stated conclusions, then I will stop thinking you are deliberately lying about it.

The conclusion was a contradiction.

"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." FBI statement
.
.

 

[redleghunter]

The conclusion was a contradiction.

"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." FBI statement
.
.

Yes "some pigs are more equal than others.' (Napoleon Animal Farm)

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Yes "some pigs are more equal than others.' (Napoleon Animal Farm)

It's so weird that she thought to run for president after all the things she did wrong as Secretary of State. It seems like pure ambition and arrogance.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

 

[Armoured]

It's so weird that she thought to run for president after all the things she did wrong as Secretary of State. It seems like pure ambition and arrogance.

So, you got the email thing, which turns out to have been common practice for the previous few SECSTATEs. What else ya got?

Oh, and before you post your tired, beaten dead horse timeline thing again, if you're going to mention Syria, you have yet to suggest an alternate course of action likely to lead to a preferable outcome?

 

[redleghunter]

So, you got the email thing, which turns out to have been common practice for the previous few SECSTATEs. What else ya got?

Previous SoS may have used personal email to conduct some business.

However, not to transmit highly classified information from an unapproved, unsecured private server.

Big difference.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Previous SoS may have used personal email to conduct some business.

However, not to transmit highly classified information from an unapproved, unsecured private server.

Big difference.

I agree.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Is this just supposed to be an image or was it supposed to be a video???

 

[Belk]

Is this just supposed to be an image or was it supposed to be a video???

It plays as a video for me.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

It plays as a video for me.

Ok I wondered cause I got tired of the adds and popups so updated my Tracking Protection Lists yesterday...

 

[MrSpikey]

Violation.

Those are facts in the findings. Comey decided to not prefer charges. Stunning.

Saying "violation" lots doesn't make it true.

Actual lawyers who saw the actual evidence reached that conclusion.

You fall into neither category.

I'll go with their opinion, thanks.,

 

[MrSpikey]

The conclusion was a contradiction..

"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." FBI statement
.
.

Indeed. If someone performed the same physical actions, with a different intent, they may face sanctions. That isn't the case here, as the last sentence makes abundantly clear.

 

[redleghunter]

Saying "violation" lots doesn't make it true.

Actual lawyers who saw the actual evidence reached that conclusion.

You fall into neither category.

I'll go with their opinion, thanks.,

If you read the findings, every one of those statutes were violated.
The conclusion by the Director of the FBI was not to recommend indictment even though HRC broke the law.

 

[MrSpikey]

If you read the findings, every one of those statutes were violated.
The conclusion by the Director of the FBI was not to recommend indictment even though HRC broke the law.

He explicitly stated they concluded she didn't reach the threshold for criminal conviction. He explained why they reached these conclusions.

They decided she hadn't broken the law.

It's all in there.

(staff edit)

 

[LivingWordUnity]

He explicitly stated they concluded she didn't reach the threshold for criminal conviction. He explained why they reached these conclusions.

They decided she hadn't broken the law.

It's all in there.
(staff edit)

If she didn't break the law why would he say that if it had been someone else they would have been punished for it? That wouldn't make any sense. Why would you punish someone else for doing the same thing if it wasn't breaking the law?

"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." - FBI statement

Comey only said in the statement that he didn't think she "intended" break the law. But that doesn't mean that no laws were broken. In fact, his statement describes the ways that the law was broken.

 

[MrSpikey]

If she didn't break the law why would he say that if it had been someone else they would have been punished for it? That wouldn't make any sense. Why would you punish someone else for doing the same thing if it wasn't breaking the law?

"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." - FBI statement

Comey only said in the statement that he didn't think she "intended" break the law. But that doesn't mean that no laws were broken. In fact, his statement describes the ways that the law was broken.

Always willing to help those who are struggling with facts. The bit you are looking for is the last sentence (I know I mentioned that in my post, but I'm assuming you don't waste time reading posts from "low information voters"...):

"But that is not what we are deciding now."

Why would that be? It can only be that there might be differences between this case and others.

You correctly highlight the "engaged in this activity" part. So what could that difference be?

Intent.

He spells it out clearly earlier in the statement.

No intent = no charges = no laws broken.

I'm starting to wonder if they might have had a better reception if the statement had pictures.

 

[nChrist]

Hillary Clinton did violate numerous laws, and Comey said so. INTENT was not required for the laws Hillary violated, but Comey ADDED INTENT to the law to justify his recommendation. Anyone with law enforcement experience knows what Comey did was WRONG. The bottom line is simple: Comey let a CRIMINAL go without any charges.

 

[MrSpikey]

Hillary Clinton did violate numerous laws, and Comey said so. INTENT was not required for the laws Hillary violated, but Comey ADDED INTENT to the law to justify his recommendation. Anyone with law enforcement experience knows what Comey did was WRONG. The bottom line is simple: Comey let a CRIMINAL go without any charges.

I'm sure you'll be providing me with an in-depth review of the basis of criminal law and when intent applies or when it doesn't, rather than simply spouting "IT IS TOO!!!!!!" over and over.

Looking forward to it.

 

[nChrist]

I'm sure you'll be providing me with an in-depth review of the basis of criminal law and when intent applies or when it doesn't, rather than simply spouting "IT IS TOO!!!!!!" over and over.

Looking forward to it.

I'll send you a message by carrier pigeon.