FBI completes Clinton email probe, recommends no criminal charges

cawacko said:
Using pure was a bad word. I don't disagree with you about the many politicians lacking integrity, especially at a higher level. Even among politicians however the Clinton's are on the low end of having integrity.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it is because they have been put under a microscope and even when nothing is discovered, people still believe they are guilty, Vince Foster, etc. It is what they want to believe and not based on actual facts.
 
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
++
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. 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.
++
and then the recommendation: ( precedent ?)
++
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

( my comments)
so there needs to be "sheer quantity" / "Clear and intentional willful mishandling" or "vast quantities".
The "vast quantities" must be the gross negligence. what is "vast quantities? :whoa:
 
Rana said:
Like I said, it is because they have been put under a microscope and even when nothing is discovered, people still believe they are guilty, Vince Foster, etc. It is what they want to believe and not based on actual facts.
Click to expand...

Facts? As if you're any less defensive or protective of her misdeeds than those who accuse her of doing everything wrong?

If you're goal is to have the first (liberal) woman President everything else be dammed then I can actually respect that because at least you're being honest.

But claiming the Clinton's are somehow on the up and up requires a suspension of reality.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
You have more faith in the electorate than I do lol.

I think the best bet is it will depress democrat turnout in the general. Even without this the Trump people are more energized than Hillary's people. Bernie's people don't like her anyway and the stench from this could be the straw that breaks the camels back with them. If that happens, it could be a game changer.

Time will tell.
Click to expand...

LMFAO# LOL

Dream on loser.

The specter of a Trump presidency will ensure a vigorous turnout.
 
cawacko said:
Facts? As if you're any less defensive or protective of her misdeeds than those who accuse her of doing everything wrong?

If you're goal is to have the first (liberal) woman President everything else be dammed then I can actually respect that because at least you're being honest.

But claiming the Clinton's are somehow on the up and up requires a suspension of reality.
Click to expand...
The FBI disagrees...
 
anatta said:
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
++
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. 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.
++
and then the recommendation: ( precedent ?)
++
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

( my comments)
so there needs to be "sheer quantity" / "Clear and intentional willful mishandling" or "vast quantities".
The "vast quantities" must be the gross negligence. what is "vast quantities? :whoa:
Click to expand...

Funny how you leave out the important qualifiers hackmaster
 
anatta said:
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.
+
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.
+
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

much more in Comey's statement; gross negligence does not require intent!! It makes no legal sense at all.
Click to expand...

Poor twatana.

The FBI disagrees with you.
 
Rana said:
Like I said, it is because they have been put under a microscope and even when nothing is discovered, people still believe they are guilty, Vince Foster, etc. It is what they want to believe and not based on actual facts.
Click to expand...

was it an actual fact that when she told the FBI she had turned over all the emails that she had not in fact done so?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top