Hillary Clinton email scandal

alastair

Iceboy wrote: »

Yep, nothing to see here folks...move along

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDkYB5-bRrI

Nope. A Democratic PAC fundraiser for a Democrat candidate in Virginia last year. The candidate was the wife of a FBI agent, who flagged that his wife was running with his employer, and it might pose some conflict issues with political investigations in Virginia. He was discharged from any VA political investigations for the period of her campaign, and then, after she didn't win, was once again free to work on any investigations. Some time later, he was assigned to the Hillary emails case - which had nothing to do with his wife, or the Democrat PAC that supported her.

No 'funnelling', no 'Clinton surrogate', no story.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Colin Powell signed exactly the same agreement. Destroyed thousands of emails that he'd run on a private email account. Nobody has been employing a witch hunt in his case.

And the FBI were well aware of that agreement when they concluded that there was no criminal case for Hillary to answer.

That clarify matters?

Deflection, as ever. Powell is not running for President, nor is there evidence he mishandled classified materials. If such evidence surfaces, I expect equal levels of scrutiny for him.

Timberrrrrrrr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Deflection, as ever. Powell is not running for President, nor is there evidence he mishandled classified materials. If such evidence surfaces, I expect equal levels of scrutiny for him.

Does this mean you will never mention Bill Clinton again?

Fr Tod Umptious

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Neither is Bill Clinton yet all we have heard from the Trump side for the last few months is "BUT BILL DID....."

Bill is front and centre in Hillary's campaign, he is by her side giving speeches etc.

So he is fair game to a certain extent.

If Hillary gets elected Bill will be back getting blow jobs from interns in the west wing.

AbusesToilets

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Does this mean you will never mention Bill Clinton again?

Can you provide a link to the relevant post of mine where I referenced Bill Clinton?

Thanks

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Deflection, as ever. Powell is not running for President, nor is there evidence he mishandled classified materials. If such evidence surfaces, I expect equal levels of scrutiny for him.

Oh dear. He destroyed thousands of emails - and mishandled every classified document just as Hillary did, by using a private email account.

It doesn't matter that he's not running for president. The point is that he's not subject to the same witch-hunt, for the same actions.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear. He destroyed thousands of emails - and mishandled every classified document just as Hillary did, by using a private email account.

It doesn't matter that he's not running for president. The point is that he's not subject to the same witch-hunt, for the same actions.

Do you have any sources that show he mishandled classified materials? Testimony to Congress per chance, maybe by the Director of the FBI or some other senior figure?

Any sources that show he lied under oath to Congress re: the above?

Any sources at all, for anything, for a change?

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do you have any sources that show he mishandled classified materials? Testimony to Congress per chance, maybe by the Director of the FBI or some other senior figure?

Any sources that show he lied under oath to Congress re: the above?

Any sources at all, for anything, for a change?

I've already posted up the statement from Colin Powell that he wiped all of his SoS emails, and that he used a private email for all his SoS correspondence, which would have included just the same proportion of classified material as any other SoS - Clinton included. Feel free to review.

Who do you believe lied to Congress?

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I've already posted up the statement from Colin Powell that he wiped all of his SoS emails, and that he used a private email for all his SoS correspondence, which would have included just the same proportion of classified material as any other SoS - Clinton included. Feel free to review.

Who do you believe lied to Congress?

So that's a no then for any sources that would give credence to a claim that Powell mishandled classified information.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So that's a no then for any sources that would give credence to a claim that Powell mishandled classified information.

Just to repeat, since it didn't register first time: he ran all his SoS correspondence through a private email account, and then wiped his entire email record on moving on from the job. That's mishandling classified information.

drunkmonkey

alastair wrote: »

Who do you believe lied to Congress?

Have you watched Jason Chaffetz over the last few days, Congress is about to blow it's top, there talking about why she still has security clearance, I wouldn't be overly surprised if she't not disqualified by results day. It's farcical what's going on. They can't let her into the white house.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Just to repeat, since it didn't register first time: he ran all his SoS correspondence through a private email account, and then wiped his entire email record on moving on from the job. That's mishandling classified information.

Sources that show evidence of mishandled classified information? I don't care at all for Powell, if he is guilty, prosecute him.

However, as ever, you are trying to deflect away from Clinton's actions with some whataboutery.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Sources that show evidence of mishandled classified information? I don't care at all for Powell, if he is guilty, prosecute him.

However, as ever, you are trying to deflect away from Clinton's actions with some whataboutery.

I've already provided Powell's statement as to his email use. Sorry if you don't care for him, you did ask.

I'm in no way defelecting from Hillary's actions, it's just you seem to have awful difficulty in grasping that she didn't break any law in those actions.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I've already provided Powell's statement as to his email use. Sorry if you don't care for him, you did ask.

I'm in no way defelecting from Hillary's actions, it's just you seem to have awful difficulty in grasping that she didn't break any law in those actions.

You showed nothing, beyond the fact Powell used a private server. As is standard, your argument boils down to denial and spurious claims with no substance to them.

Timberrrrrrrr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You showed nothing, beyond the fact Powell used a private server. As is standard, your argument boils down to denial and spurious claims with no substance to them.

Is Powells own statement admitting using a private server for all emails and then deleting them not enough for you?

AbusesToilets

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is Powells own statement admitting using a private server for all emails and then deleting them not enough for you?

I never disputed his use of a private server. There has been no evidence put forth that shows he mishandled classified materials.

His actions are not relevant to, nor do they mitigate Clinton's misdeeds.

Timberrrrrrrr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I never disputed his use of a private server. There has been no evidence put forth that shows he mishandled classified materials.

His actions are not relevant to, nor do they mitigate Clinton's misdeeds.

There is no evidence that Clinton (knowingly) did either.

AbusesToilets

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is no evidence that Clinton (knowingly) did either.

There is a world of difference between the two, as you and Alistair well know. Bring up Powell is meaningless, he's not running for office and any misdeeds on his part would have no bearing on Clinton's case.

Utter whataboutery and strawmanning.

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm not actually taking about the law.

I'm talking about the perception of Clinton as a good president.

Its ammo for her opponents to paint her as untrustworthy regardless of what the ultimate legal ruling is.

It doesn't matter what Powell or anyone else did, they are not running.

But she has always had a trust or honesty problem!

Really unless something substantial can be pointed to I can see calming down in a couple of days.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You showed nothing, beyond the fact Powell used a private server. As is standard, your argument boils down to denial and spurious claims with no substance to them.

Don't believe the lying words from the man himself then.

"Spurious" :rolleyes:

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There is a world of difference between the two, as you and Alistair well know. Bring up Powell is meaningless, he's not running for office and any misdeeds on his part would have no bearing on Clinton's case.

Utter whataboutery and strawmanning.

Clinton was investigated and no criminal activity was discovered. The electorate have decided that they really don't care too much about what she freely admits she did and didn't do with her emails, and are going to vote her into the presidency on election day. Some of us don't seem to be able to grasp that reality, and move on. There's your real strawman.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Clinton was investigated and no criminal activity was discovered. The electorate have decided that they really don't care too much about what she freely admits she did and didn't do with her emails, and are going to vote her into the presidency on election day. Some of us don't seem to be able to grasp that reality, and move on. There's your real strawman.

Deflection. Testimony to Congress clearly states Clinton mishandled classified information repeatedly. Do you have anything that shows Powell did that?

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Deflection. Testimony to Congress clearly states Clinton mishandled classified information repeatedly. Do you have anything that shows Powell did that?

Only his own statement.

You do realise that repeating the claim of deflection doesn't make it any more convincing? And you're back to Powell again, when you've already claimed he's a 'deflection'?

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Only his own statement.

You do realise that repeating the claim of deflection doesn't make it any more convincing? And you're back to Powell again, when you've already claimed he's a 'deflection'?

So no evidence then. Thanks for making that clear for everyone.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So no evidence then. Thanks for making that clear for everyone.

Posted it up earlier - as was already repeatedly pointed out to you.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Posted it up earlier - as was already repeatedly pointed out to you.

Oh, did I miss where you linked to a source that showed evidence Powell mishandled classified information?

No, because you posted nothing of the sort. Your "argument" is nothing more than a desperate effort to shift attention away from Clinton's misdeeds.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Oh, did I miss where you linked to a source that showed evidence Powell mishandled classified information?

No, because you posted nothing of the sort. Your "argument" is nothing more than a desperate effort to shift attention away from Clinton's misdeeds.

You're still on the Powell thing, despite claiming it was 'deflection'? Any closer to conceding that the Feds found no case of criminality in her actions?

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You're still on the Powell thing, despite claiming it was 'deflection'? Any closer to conceding that the Feds found no case of criminality in her actions?

Classic. Dodge and evade at every turn. You have been harping on about Powell, and predictably when your claims are shown to without merit, you deflect again.

So to date, you've avoided admiting that Clinton's actions broke the law. Your claim re: possible punishments for mishandling classified materials was shown to wrong and now your latest diatribe about Powell has zero substance to it whatsoever.

Quite the roll you're on.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Classic. Dodge and evade at every turn. You have been harping on about Powell, and predictably when your claims are shown to without merit, you deflect again.

So to date, you've avoided admiting that Clinton's actions broke the law. Your claim re: possible punishments for mishandling classified materials was shown to wrong and now your latest diatribe about Powell has zero substance to it whatsoever.

Quite the roll you're on.

Since you've still managed not to grasp that Hillary didn't break any law, and that was determined after an investigation by the FBI, here it is one more time: she didn't break the law. No amount of your personal theories or suspicions really substitute for the determination of the investigation into that very matter.

And now, surely time for you to repeat your mantra of 'deflection'.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Since you've still managed not to grasp that Hillary didn't break any law, and that was determined after an investigation by the FBI, here it is one more time: she didn't break the law. No amount of your personal theories or suspicions really substitute for the determination of the investigation into that very matter.

And now, surely time for you to repeat your mantra of 'deflection'.

So you're back to claiming that sending classified information on an unsecure network and allowing people without clearances to view said materials doesn't break US Code?

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So you're back to claiming that sending classified information on an unsecure network and allowing people without clearances to view said materials doesn't break US Code?

I see you need additional clarification?

I've never shifted from my view (ie: observing the facts), which is that the FBI made very clear that no criminality applies to her actions. Does that help? Hillary has been very open about what she did and didn't do, and if people have a concern about that, that's fine, but don't pretend that she broke a law - the FBI determined she didn't.

FISMA.

alastair wrote: »

Any closer to conceding that the Feds found no case of criminality in her actions?

... gonna stop you right there. Plenty of criminal acts. She broke several laws.

Comey said there was no intent.

You do not need intent to be guilty of mishandling classified information.

Consider 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.

f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Comey stated that her actions were "extremely careless." How that doesn't meet the standards for gross negligence is probably what is causing many of the leaks from far higher places than WikiLeaks.

For decades, intent has regularly been established by actions such as lies and destruction of evidence.

FISMA.

C'mon lad, you can't be serious???

alastair wrote: »

Hillary has been very open about what she did and didn't do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

drunkmonkey

Don't forget code 2071, that alone will sink her.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I see you need additional clarification?

I've never shifted from my view (ie: observing the facts), which is that the FBI made very clear that no criminality applies to her actions. Does that help? Hillary has been very open about what she did and didn't do, and if people have a concern about that, that's fine, but don't pretend that she broke a law - the FBI determined she didn't.

For somebody who was lecturing another poster on English comprehension, you show a marked inability to grasp what is clearly stated.

Comey pointed out how Clinton had violated the law. He said that the FBI was not recommending prosecution because they couldn't prove she knowingly commited these acts. Which is nonsense imo.

FISMA.

Here's the FBI's 302's on the Clinton case.

FBI 302's are basically summary reports by the interviewing Agent.

Imagine a cop asking a murder suspect "did you do it?"

To which the murder suspect replies "no."

Case closed.

Basically, that's what we have here.

4 pages.

All too often "Clinton cannot recall."

Atlantic Dawn

It's going to be great folks...

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

For somebody who was lecturing another poster on English comprehension, you show a marked inability to grasp what is clearly stated.

Comey pointed out how Clinton had violated the law. He said that the FBI was not recommending prosecution because they couldn't prove she knowingly commited these acts. Which is nonsense imo.

No he did not. He made it very clear that there was no criminal case in the circumstances investigated. The nonsense is your misinterpretation of the statement - which was far from cryptic.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

C'mon lad, you can't be serious???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

I am. But you can't be serious with that video. It's so sloppy with its strategic editing, that it doesn't even reach Fox News level of skew.

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

... gonna stop you right there. Plenty of criminal acts. She broke several laws.

Comey said there was no intent.

You do not need intent to be guilty of mishandling classified information.

No - you either need to act knowingly, or apply gross negligence to have commited a crime. Neither applied in this case, so no crime was committed. No crime having been commited is the only rationale for not recommending a criminal case.

alastair

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't forget code 2071, that alone will sink her.

Just to remind you that she's far from sunk. She's going to be elected president in a matter of days. Keep the Comical Ali routine up.

AbusesToilets

Let's go ahead and post up the full transcript there, since you seem reluctant to do so.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103

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.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails 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. 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).

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.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. 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.

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.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. 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. 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.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

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.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

Read more: http://www.politico.co...225103#ixzz4OEVWKXro
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

I'm on mobile, so i can't bold text or wrap quote tags, however Comey unequivocally lays out Clinton's misdeeds, while also starting they are not recommending prosecution based off of not being able to decisively show she acted "knowingly".

FISMA.

alastair wrote: »

No - you either need to act knowingly, or apply gross negligence to have commited a crime.

Act knowingly?

Now you're just making stuff up.

Nowhere in Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 79318 (U.S. Code § 793) does the word "knowingly" appear.

Here's the code again, nothing about "knowingly" anywhere.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Please define gross negligence so we may discuss that next.

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

Act knowingly?

Now you're just making stuff up.

Nowhere in Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 79318 (U.S. Code § 793) does the word "knowingly" appear.

Here's the code again, nothing about "knowingly" anywhere.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Please define gross negligence so we may discuss that next.

'Having knowledge' is the exact same as 'knowingly'.
'Gross negligence' is clearly a higher bar than 'carelessness', as the FBI determined that there was no gross negligence in this case.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Let's go ahead and post up the full transcript there, since you seem reluctant to do so.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103


Quote:
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.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails 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. 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).

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.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. 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.

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.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. 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. 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.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

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.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

Read more: http://www.politico.co...225103#ixzz4OEVWKXro
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


I'm on mobile, so i can't bold text or wrap quote tags, however Comey unequivocally lays out Clinton's misdeeds, while also starting they are not recommending prosecution based off of not being able to decisively show she acted "knowingly".

No he does not. Regardless of whether you're on a mobile or not, you simply can't support that claim for any of the text here. He's stating that no criminality arises.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

No he does not. Regardless of whether you're on a mobile or not, you simply can't support that claim for any of the text here. He's stating that no criminality arises.

No, he never states there was no criminality involved. He days they are not recommending criminal charges. He then goes on to list their reasoning for that, which was they could not prove gross misconduct or that she knowingly committed these acts.

It's right there in the text, your obdurate attitude in the face of clear evidence is veering into parody at this point.

Timberrrrrrrr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, he never states there was no criminality involved. He days they are not recommending criminal charges. He then goes on to list their reasoning for that, which was they could not prove gross misconduct or that she knowingly committed these acts.

It's right there in the text, your obdurate attitude in the face of clear evidence is veering into parody at this point.

You have a terrible habit of consistently contradicting yourself in almost every post on this subject.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, he never states there was no criminality involved. He days they are not recommending criminal charges. He then goes on to list their reasoning for that, which was they could not prove gross misconduct or that she knowingly committed these acts.

It's right there in the text, your obdurate attitude in the face of clear evidence is veering into parody at this point.

No criminality is the very reason for no criminal charges - as he makes very clear.

AbusesToilets

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You have a terrible habit of consistently contradicting yourself in almost every post on this subject.

Please explain how I have contradicted myself? I am quoting Comey's testimony, since Alastair seems to be having difficulty doing so.

The FBI are quite clear that Clinton committed acts which violate the Law as is laid out in the relevant Codes. They claim that a prosecutor could not definitively show intent on Clinton's part, hence their recommending that charges not be pursued.

It's not that hard to grasp lads.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Please explain how I have contradicted myself? I am quoting Comey's testimony, since Alastair seems to be having difficulty doing so.

The FBI are quite clear that Clinton committed acts which violate the Law as is laid out in the relevant Codes. They claim that a prosecutor could not definitively show intent on Clinton's part, hence their recommending that charges not be pursued.

It's not that hard to grasp lads.

The acts don't violate the law if there's no intent. This has been explained to you ad-nauseam.