What do you think about Hillary Clinton office e-mail charges being cleared by t

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 7 years ago

   What do you think about Hillary Clinton office e-mail charges being cleared by the FBI?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 59

   Johnny James Aposted 7 years ago

   The legal reason behind not recommending charges, “which does not men charges cannot still be handed out,” I can understand based on their statements. The legal standard for the charge does include an “intentional” violation at the time the email issue occurred.  Intentional has a very strict legal definition, and does not simplify mean one had classified email on their server therefore it was intentional. One has to know prior to the sending or receiving of the email that it is not allowed and still do the act.  This is where the rub occurs.  I would have still recommended a case go forward and see if you could meet the definition.  Also, it could have allowed one to see if incompetence was systemic or not. The reason for this failure in getting the recommendation was because the party bringing the issue presented a very foolish approach to the discovery. 2,000 of the emails in question were not given even the lowest level of classified labeling until well after the emails were sent or received, yet these emails were still part of the ongoing focus and valuable resources wasted.  These emails never would have met the legal definition of intentional mishandling of classified material at the time received or sent, as they were not classified at the time of sending. 110 emails in 52 chains were the only ones to have a classification at time of sending/receipt to be an issue.  Now comes the issue if the 52 emails (which bumps up to 110 because the emails were part of a chain or forwarded) are at issue. Did she or someone in her camp know at the time they should have been secured. Possibly or possibly not.  However, a trial at the very least may have brought to light who on the team should have known this server needed to be more secured.  The trial would have come down to (1) Did Hillary know the server should be secured AND (two part test) and was not.  If this is Yes, then she is in trouble.  If either is no, then she is not.  However, one could then look at her staff and see who should have set it up correctly. (2) If she knew the server should have been secured, and thought it was when it was not then you have to go after an underling.  (3) If she did not know the server should be secured, but thought it was secured anyway, when it was not..then again you go after an underling. The case could still be brought up if Trump wins.  So who knows.

   replyreport
   1. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      When they find child pornography on your computer, possession is enough to convict.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Johnny James Aposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That is incorrect brad.  There are cases where people were unknowing conduits for the sending of child porn and were therefore innocent as they had no knowledge of the porn on their computer. Hence, many laws having an "intention" requisite.

      replyreport
   3. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      James
      Intentional Crimes have been watered down over the years, They have imputed, or transferred intent, or as in the case of murder charges for deaths caused by DUI, even no intention to harm is disregarded.
      Mens Rea not a hard element of crimes

      replyreport
3. 0

   LoliHeyposted 7 years ago

   I am not surprised.  I never thought for a minute she was going to get in trouble about it.

   replyreport
4. 87

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   Martha Stewart went to jail for months for less.
   Chelsea Manning (then a man and military member) went to jail for less.

   replyreport
   1. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There is a comparison betw Leona Hemsley and HRC, but Leona went to prison for a mere 1.2 million tax bill.
      Mrs. Helmsley was convicted of evading $1.2 million in federal income taxes but acquitted of scheming to extort kickbacks from contractors an

      replyreport
5. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   Basically what I heard from the FBI is no harm no foul. And based on that reasoning, then Snowden should be in the running for the presidency with a clean slate.
   
   Another point, Hillary Clinton's ONLY method of EMAIL was through her personal server. How else would she get Classified and Secret documents through email.
   
   She also deleted thousands of emails, and said they were personal. Isn't that like shredding documents before the police come. When the evidence disappears, who knows whether they were personal of not.
   
   This is also the way the president Obama runs his presidency. Sloppy and even giving absolution to a very dangerous process. The FBI could have made this decision years ago.
   
   Based on the result of this long and laborious FBI investigation, it makes it more understandable as to why other FBI investigations just fade out as time passes.
   
   It seems like they didn't learn anything from 911, and at that time they were incompetent. It is like a person that is choking but they can't talk or communicate. They have information but they don't process it competently to be useful.
   
   I I will ask again, why wasn't this investigation done under the umbrella of Homeland Security. They were the wrapper that was supposed to capture and coordinate all communications to prevent the folly that was caused by agencies holding and not sharing info resulting in a successful terrorist attack on 911.
   
   I don't see any progress there.
   IF I worked for the FBI, I would be ashamed to tell anyone. I would be too embarrassed  after today's decision. It doesn't seem to be an advantage to have separate agencies like the FBI, NSA and the rest.
   
   It might be a good time to dissolve these agencies into an effective Global agency integrating international and domestic through a single Homeland Security. The game plan has changed, and we need to be proactive and change with it. It is clear that the current system is not working.
   
   Consider that the idea of the FBI was concocted by the AG in 1908. So there are no constitutional boundaries involved in making changes.
   
   Only bureaucracy is in the way.
   
   Is this the way that the majority wants the government to run the country?

   replyreport
6. 53

   peter565posted 7 years ago

   She is a high profile and very powerful woman in the US, even if she don't currently hold office. Unless the FBI got hard evidence and got a very strong case against her, they won't take the risk of pressing charges against her,

   replyreport
   1. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The only email she ever used as SoS was her private Email server. So unless she could prove no one sent her classified or secret level emails, how did she get them?

      replyreport
7. 0

   savvydatingposted 7 years ago

   I am flummoxed, not to mention highly troubled. (That’s putting it lightly.) 
   
   FBI Director Comey, in his live interview, proceeded to outline all of the wrongdoings of Hillary Clinton with regard to her personal email servers. (Turns out there were a few of them). He spoke about how her server could have been hacked, that she had indeed sent classified emails to various people through the unsecured server(s), and that "there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” The list goes on.
   
   Furthermore, it became clear from everything the Director stated, that Hillary Clinton had lied. Actually, she lied and lied and lied. Nevertheless, Comey  then did an about face by stating that he will not recommend that charges be pressed.
   
   Consequently, one is left with the impression that he was influenced by the president, that he was allowed to share his findings, but that his hands were tied afterward... And so, to his credit,  Comey did give Clinton a severe admonition before suddenly dropping the ball.
   
   In his official statement, FBI Director, James B. Comey also stated. “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.”
   
   Very strange. So others might and do suffer consequences for the very same thing or lesser offences, but Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and the Democratic presidential nominee, will not suffer any consequences whatsoever.
   
   Shakespeare’s famous line comes to mind: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” 
   
   When it comes to the Clintons and this administration, what else is new? Still, this decision was wrong. The Clinton’s should not be above the law. Nobody should be---especially anyone vying for the job of Commander-In-Chief.”

   replyreport
   1. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Do you really believe that WTC 1, 2, 7 went down as the speed of gravity from 2 planes and less than an hour. Well that is what the FBI investigation produced. Several thousand FBI agents and hundreds of thousands of "evidence"??

      replyreport