No indictment

[PsyOps]

The fear, the subject of your concerns is the FBI not doing their job, yes? The horrible precedent, the damage to our gummint, faith and trust in it, the implications for the future, yes?

So, there is pressure from the President and the Clinton's to NOT do their job which is to say Obama and Clinton, Inc. don't want the FBI to do their job because it conflicts with the interests of Obama/Clinton which is to say they do not share YOUR concerns which is to say that they see their interests as being more important than the naitons. Agreed?

From there, there is the check and balance thing to help force people to do their job when they don't wanna, in this case the GOP, having ENORMOUS power to scream bloody murder, raise holy hell, for the FBI to do their job. Agreed? And they're NOT doing it, yes? Agreed? Thus, the pressure from Obama and the Clinton's on the FBI to NOT do their job is increased. Agreed?

So, it seems VERY obvious that the GOP then has similar interests as the President and the D nominee, yes?

Now, if we're on the same page thus far, this is where I guess I lost you; at SOME point, the FBI itself has it's OWN interests those being institutional integrity, respect for the bureau and somewhere in there the FBI's ideas of what they are even for, ostensibly, the good of the nation. Nixon crossed the line of acceptability to where people were willing to resign and do THE RIGHT thing.

At some point, Comey, Lynch, hell, maybe even the GOP, though I doubt it, will think of THE RIGHT thing and that it matters more than other concerns.

And here is where Trump comes in. How hard will he press it? And then, how much does that go into the calculation as to FBI people feeling enough pressure to get around to integrity and doing THE RIGHT THING. If they know the GOP isn't going to go hard on this, and that couldn't be more clear right now, then, well, integrity, the RIGHT thing, are all kinda subjective. If Trump is going to relentlessly pound how the FBI failed, how Patreus got more punishment for WAY less, how Obama corrupted the gummint, how it's all a sham, then, at some point, THE RIGHT thing, all other options being exhausted, comes into play.

The primary points are that, clearly, the GOP would rather Hillary than Trump or they would be taking one of the more overt examples of corruption, ever, and making political hay with it BUT, they WANT Hillary over Bernie or Trump. They just, clearly, do. Ryan and McConnell should be screaming for, at the VERY lest, Lynch's resignation and grandstanding about Patreus, equal justice, making it damn clear there is NO way Obama can sweep this away.

So, there is the thing, the point, the risk; to the FBI itself. How much is Comey willing to debase his institution given all those variables and realities? I take you at your word, your OP, that what she has done is WAY over the line and fully demanding of indictment and punishment.

I guess I lost you mixing politics and THE RIGHT thing in the same paragraphs but that is the world we live in.

Well, it's all moot now. No indictment recommendation from Comey.

 

[philibusters]

I don' t know what to think about the lack of the indictment as I have not followed the story closely enough to really know what is going on. Can anybody give an account or link to a story that basically states what the law, what exactly Hillary did, and then give a brief summary of the arguments that she broke the law and did not break the law.

 

[Gilligan]

I don' t know what to think about the lack of the indictment as I have not followed the story closely enough to really know what is going on. Can anybody give an account or link to a story that basically states what the law, what exactly Hillary did, and then give a brief summary of the arguments that she broke the law and did not break the law.

Comey specifically mentioned the two statutes that were in play during his address.

One is a misdemeanor, but the main one covering mishandling of classified government information was what was mostly in play. Comey claims they are letting her off the hook because of a lack of clear harmful intent by her or those she corresponded with or that maintained her systems. However, the gross negligence part should still have applied. Comey mentioned that "other sanctions" might still be brought, but my money is on any of that action being brought on various lackeys and not Grandma.

 

[itsbob]

Comey specifically mentioned the two statutes that were in play during his address.

One is a misdemeanor, but the main one covering mishandling of classified government information was what was mostly in play. Comey claims they are letting her off the hook because of a lack of clear harmful intent by her or those she corresponded with or that maintained her systems. However, the gross negligence part should still have applied. Comey mentioned that "other sanctions" might still be brought, but my money is on any of that action being brought on various lackeys and not Grandma.

I haven't seen the press conference but what I've read is he basically said she's guilty of Gross Negligence but doesn't believe any reasonable prosecutor would take a case with the magnitude of the players.

Basically, she's a part of the Royal Family, and we will NOT prosecute a member of the Royal Family..

 

[PsyOps]

The world I work in, this doesn't happen - EVER! This is really a sad day for justice and a sad day for all of the people that did it right to keep this nation safe. Corruption runs deep in our government for the FBI, of all agencies, to be so easily influenced, to toss aside rules, regulations, and laws that govern the handling of classified. Never in my life have I seen such blatant disregard for the law.

Our next president is going to be a woman who, in my mind, is a criminal. And Americans don't care. They don’t care about national security. They don’t care about what it means to expect our government (who WE put into power) to operate with the utmost integrity and honesty; to honor the laws they promised to uphold; and to honor their promise to support and defend the constitution. They – every one of them – are liars and self-serving pricks.

You people enjoy your lives on here thinking you’re making any damn difference at all.

 

[vraiblonde]

My come to Jesus moment was when Judge Susan Weber Wright dismissed the Paula Jones case. That's when I realized that the powerful can do anything they please - buy off judges, make threats, have people killed, whatever it takes - and screw the common man.

If you're scared of Donald Trump, apparently you don't remember the blatant crony corruption and criminal activity that was the Clinton Administration. There's no way anyone could have really thought that Hillary would be held accountable - she never has been before, so why start now.

 

[Larry Gude]

The world I work in, this doesn't happen - EVER! This is really a sad day for justice and a sad day for all of the people that did it right to keep this nation safe. Corruption runs deep in our government for the FBI, of all agencies, to be so easily influenced, to toss aside rules, regulations, and laws that govern the handling of classified. Never in my life have I seen such blatant disregard for the law.

Our next president is going to be a woman who, in my mind, is a criminal. And Americans don't care. They don’t care about national security. They don’t care about what it means to expect our government (who WE put into power) to operate with the utmost integrity and honesty; to honor the laws they promised to uphold; and to honor their promise to support and defend the constitution. They – every one of them – are liars and self-serving pricks.

You people enjoy your lives on here thinking you’re making any damn difference at all.

Now we see how the 'loyal' opposition feels about this.

 

[Tilted]

I don' t know what to think about the lack of the indictment as I have not followed the story closely enough to really know what is going on. Can anybody give an account or link to a story that basically states what the law, what exactly Hillary did, and then give a brief summary of the arguments that she broke the law and did not break the law.

Perhaps the best way to get a sense of the situation is to read Director Comey's statement itself. It's a bit long but fairly straightforward and he doesn't get lost in the details. It touches on the relevant issues (when it comes to legal charges, not when it comes to, e.g., political concerns) and describes in broad strokes what the investigation involved and found. And I don't think there was much in the way of needless (i.e. legally unimportant) characterization.

Of course, that statement doesn't tell the whole story and people may well think he's full of #### in describing what they found or didn't find.

That said, briefly (according to what he said in the statement or as clear inferences of what he said): There's evidence that Mrs. Clinton or others was extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information. There isn't evidence that she or others intentionally deleted emails that should have been included in what they turned over, but they did find additional emails that should have been included. There was no direct evidence that her personal system was compromised by foreign powers but it is possible that they were, and some emails were compromised on the other end - people that shouldn't have been able to accessed them through parties that Mrs. Clinton corresponded with.

Though there was evidence that classified information was improperly handled, there wasn't evidence that was done intentionally. There wasn't evidence of gross negligence as would be required for felony charges (in the absence of intentionality). They couldn't find instances in the past where someone was charged under similar circumstances - i.e., where there wasn't clear indication of intentionality or the willful mishandling of classified information, or attempts to obstruct justice, or indications of disloyalty to the United States. In other words, other people would not be charged on these same facts. That said, a reasonable person should have known that some of the email conversations found should not have been taking place on an unclassified system.

There's more. You might want to read the statement yourself.

 

[Tilted]

I haven't seen the press conference but what I've read is he basically said she's guilty of Gross Negligence but doesn't believe any reasonable prosecutor would take a case with the magnitude of the players.

Basically, she's a part of the Royal Family, and we will NOT prosecute a member of the Royal Family..

People can, of course, discount all or parts of Director Comey's statement. But it does not indicate that she was guilty of gross negligence. To the contrary, it suggests that she was not - or, at a minimum, that there wasn't sufficient evidence that she was.

EDIT: Also, the assertion (or implication) wasn't that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges because of the magnitude of the players involved. The suggestion was that no one else would be charged based on the facts of this case either. The assertion was that they couldn't find cases where people had been charged under (legally) similar circumstances.

 

[philibusters]

Sounds like it ended up being a judgment call and the FBI chose to give her the benefit of the doubt. Considering not everybody gets the benefit of the doubt that going to (rightfully) draw some ire.

 

[philibusters]

People can, of course, discount all or parts of Director Comey's statement. But it does not indicate that she was guilty of gross negligence. To the contrary, it suggests that she was not - or, at a minimum, that there wasn't sufficient evidence that she was.

EDIT: Also, the assertion (or implication) wasn't that not reasonable prosecutor would bring charges because of the magnitude of the players involved. The suggestion was that no one else would be charged based on the facts of this case either. The assertion was that they couldn't find cases where people had been charged under (legally) similar circumstances.

That is an important distinction, but you could also bring up the point that how many cases are similar to this one, where the actually Sec. of State's email are being compromised. If some GS-9 clerk were to compromise their email that is just not comparable. Even if an ambassador did it, its not really comparable in terms of the overall stakes though obviously that would be closer.

 

[Tilted]

Sounds like it ended up being a judgment call and the FBI chose to give her the benefit of the doubt. Considering not everybody gets the benefit of the doubt that going to (rightfully) draw some ire.

Well, like I've suggested... people certainly can think that some or all of what he said is BS.

But what you're suggesting doesn't accurately reflect what he did say. What he said suggests that no one would be charged on this set of facts. It's not that Mrs. Clinton in particular is being given a benefit of doubt that others would not get. It's that there isn't sufficient evidence that elements required by the law were present. There isn't, e.g., evidence of intentionality or that classified information was willfully mishandled, thus the person being investigated would not be charged regardless of whom they were.

 

[Tilted]

That is an important distinction, but you could also bring up the point that how many cases are similar to this one, where the actually Sec. of State's email are being compromised. If some GS-9 clerk were to compromise their email that is just not comparable. Even if an ambassador did it, its not really comparable in terms of the overall stakes though obviously that would be closer.

From a legal perspective - and that's what he tried to make clear that he was addressing - the elements of the crime would be the same.

Are the stakes greater? Sure. But the questions he was trying to answer related to what was required by the law and what there was evidence of as concerns that.

He didn't seem to be trying to minimize the impropriety of her actions.

 

[philibusters]

From a legal perspective - and that's what he tried to make clear that he was addressing - the elements of the crime would be the same.

Are the stakes greater? Sure. But the questions he was trying to answer related to what was required by the law and what there was evidence of as concerns that.

He didn't seem to be trying to minimize the impropriety of her actions.

I guess to me the stakes matter.

The elements of negligence are

1) there is a duty of care
2) the duty of care is breached
3) that causes
4) harm

I think the higher the stakes, the greater the duty of care.

Granted I just made up that legal theory, but my that is a legal expression of my gut instinct. That it matters that the stakes were higher and that when the stakes are higher there should be a greater duty of care.

 

[Tilted]

I guess to me the stakes matter.

The elements of negligence are

1) there is a duty of care
2) the duty of care is breached
3) that causes
4) harm

I think the higher the stakes, the greater the duty of care.

Granted I just made up that legal theory, but my that is a legal expression of my gut instinct. That it matters that the stakes were higher and that when the stakes are higher there should be a greater duty of care.

We should be clear that, according to this statement, gross negligence is required - not just negligence. Legally they are different things.

I haven't looked at the statute (and related case law) myself, so I can't confirm that's the case. But I'd be surprised if it were not.

 

[itsbob]

Sounds like it ended up being a judgment call and the FBI chose to give her the benefit of the doubt. Considering not everybody gets the benefit of the doubt that going to (rightfully) draw some ire.

Then he's out of his swim lane..

It shouldn't have been left up to him to decide guilt.. that should have been left up to a Jury and a Judge.. FBI found impropriety, FBI found negligence, it shouldn't be up to him to decide guilt of not.. that should be left up to a prosecutor (which he even mentioned).

BUT he did as he was told..

 

[Tilted]

Then he's out of his swim lane..

It shouldn't have been left up to him to decide guilt.. that should have been left up to a Jury and a Judge.. FBI found impropriety, FBI found negligence, it shouldn't be up to him to decide guilt of not.. that should be left up to a prosecutor (which he even mentioned).

BUT he did as he was told..

The FBI didn't find gross negligence, that's much the point. If Director Comey had said there was sufficient evidence of gross negligence but we're still recommending that she not be charged, that would be a much different situation.

Again, of course, we can all think that his statement is BS. But if we're considering the situation based on that statement, then it suggests a lack of evidence of intentionality or the willful mishandling of the classified information.

 

[itsbob]

The FBI didn't find gross negligence, that's much the point. If Director Comey had said there was sufficient evidence of gross negligence but we're still recommending that she not be charged, that would be a much different situation.

Again, of course, we can all think that his statement is BS. But if we're considering the situation based on that statement, then it suggests a lack of evidence of intentionality or the willful mishandling of the classified information.

I would think ONE Top Secret conversation on an unsecured server would meet the smell test for gross negligence.. let alone 8 Top Secret and HIGHER conversations..


But again, not his job to determine guilt or innocence his job is to investigate and provide the findings and the evidence.

 

[Tilted]

I would think ONE Top Secret conversation on an unsecured server would meet the smell test for gross negligence.. let alone 8 Top Secret and HIGHER conversations..


But again, not his job to determine guilt or innocence his job is to investigate and provide the findings and the evidence.

That's what they did.

But gross negligence is a legal concept that means more than something happened that really, really shouldn't have or someone was very careless and should have known better. There's an aspect of intentionality even in the concept of gross negligence.

 

[vraiblonde]

Again, of course, we can all think that his statement is BS.

His statement is BS. He was either threatened or bought off. What we, the American public, know from Hillary's own lips is that she was intentionally negligent and willfully mishandled classified information. So how is it that the FBI can't make that determination?