First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply FBI REFUSES To Seek Justice Against Crooked Hillary
7413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

Ocale wrote:


voss749 wrote:

What the FBI director said was Clinton was extremely careless but she did not intentionally mishandle the emails.

In other words it was not a criminal act and no prosecutor would charge her. Comey is not going to throw away his professional reputation to let let Clinton off on what would would have been a misdemeanor charge anyway.





Something something gross negligence something something


(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.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#.ViC8z_lViko


According to Comey that wouldn't apply due to all parties in the email chain having security clearance high enough for all the material. He compares it to the Petraeus case where he actually handed all the materials over to his lover to read (a lover with no security clearance) and he recommended prosecution only to see a misdemeanor brought to charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html

"For the investigators, officials said, one of the key factors in the case was that everybody involved in Mrs. Clinton’s email chains was authorized to receive classified information. There was also no evidence that she or anybody else lied about their involvement.

The news conference by Mr. Comey concluded an investigation that began a year ago when the inspector general for the intelligence agencies told the Justice Department that he had found classified information among a small sampling of emails Mrs. Clinton had sent and received.

While the F.B.I.’s recommendation spares Mrs. Clinton and her aides criminal charges, it does not remove the possibility that the government could deny the aides security clearances if Mrs. Clinton is elected and appoints them to jobs that require such clearance."

He listed all the specific reasoning there in that article.
24257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
Why would anyone be surprised by this? I mean, seriously.
4610 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 7/5/16

Ranwolf wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


lawdog wrote:


voss749 wrote:

What the FBI director said was Clinton was extremely careless but she did not intentionally mishandle the emails.

In other words it was not a criminal act and no prosecutor would charge her. Comey is not going to throw away his professional reputation to let let Clinton off on what would would have been a misdemeanor charge anyway.




Intent is not part of the law.

What the hell kind of fantasy country do you live in where that's true?


Probably the same country you and I live in mate . In the Canadian justice system less weight is given to intent then you would think.


I am well aware of the canadian justice system, and while I know that intent isnt as important as in other places, it still fucking matters. In murder cases for example intent can mean the difference between 5 years or 15. And from what I'm told the difference is even greater in the US where this shit is going down.
292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
Comey also added this:

"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."


In other words, laws are for the little people.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

octorockandroll wrote:





I am well aware of the canadian justice system, and while I know that intent isnt as important as in other places, it still fucking matters. In murder cases for example intent can mean the difference between 5 years or 15. And from what I'm told the difference is even greater in the US where this shit is going down.


All well and true but I still agree with the decisions made in this case thus far. At the end of the day she was little more than a careless imbecile, and that is just the grand ole American tradition really. Furthermore this at least gives the Yanks something better to vote for then that whore son bastard that is Trump. I'd rather have a useless imbecile in charge of one the world's largest military power than a man who sounds likes he wants to start world war three ya know.
4610 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 7/5/16

Ranwolf wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:





I am well aware of the canadian justice system, and while I know that intent isnt as important as in other places, it still fucking matters. In murder cases for example intent can mean the difference between 5 years or 15. And from what I'm told the difference is even greater in the US where this shit is going down.


All well and true but I still agree with the decisions made in this case thus far. At the end of the day she was little more than a careless imbecile, and that is just the grand ole American tradition really. Furthermore this at least gives the Yanks something better to vote for then that whore son bastard that is Trump. I'd rather have a useless imbecile in charge of one the world's largest military power than a man who sounds likes he wants to start world war three ya know.


Totally agree. Although if I were an American right now I would be packing my bags not caring who wins.
24257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

DengekiFugu wrote:

Comey also added this:

"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."


In other words, laws are for the little people.


LOL they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
Our criminal justice system is such a joke.
7413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

DengekiFugu wrote:

Comey also added this:

"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."


In other words, laws are for the little people.


Actually he explained that they just make the recommendations. It's the Attorney General's Office that files the charges. That's what he means by "that's not what we're deciding now". He just means the next step is above his pay-grade. Considering the AG already said what the FBI decides she'll go along with it's obvious what the next step will be. Similar to the steps taken against the Bushs (W and Jeb) following the great Florida voting debacle of 2000. When an election is going on most candidates are Teflon-coated when it comes to criminal charges. I'm pretty sure it's why Trump's Trump U (the first one scheduled for November 28) and Alleged rape lawsuits (haven't set a date yet) haven't gone to court yet. I'm beginning to wonder if his whole reason for running is to get out of his court and IRS situations and getting his huge tax cut for the rich (himself).
1298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

DengekiFugu wrote:

Comey also added this:

"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."


In other words, laws are for the little people.


No, the quote from Comey clearly suggests that they decided no laws were broken. That is not the same thing as job related rules. You can screw up on the job and you aren't going to be arrested if the police decide no laws were broken.

So there is it. Hillary broke no laws. She might have done something that would be against workplace regulations(it's not up to the FBI to investigate if so and so didn't put a dollar in the office coffee budget jar), but that is not the same thing as an actual criminal law being broken.
51229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
There are many things wrong with this outcome.

1) I'm not sure how many people defending this decision have read the announcement (I actually haven't clicked on max's link, I just read about this in the NYTimes). It couldn't be any more obvious that FBI director Comey is contradicting himself. He says no prosecutor would have reason to punish Hillary but at the same time he said that anyone else who does the same thing Hillary has done would be punished. It's not possible anymore to deny that Hillary is receiving special treatment when even the FBI director himself admits that he's placing Hillary above the law.

2) Comey's only official reason for letting Hillary off the hook is that he doesn't believe Hillary did this stuff intentionally (which I personally don't believe since it's clear as day she lied multiple times about her emails). As others in this thread have pointed out, that has nothing to do with the actual law at the center of this case. The law only states that she had to have done so recklessly, which she did as even Comey has said so himself. Intent has nothing to do with whether or not she broke that law. His only excuse for letting Hillary off the hook is something that he made up.

3) The timing of this decision is way too suspicious. Hillary spoke privately with the Attorney General just a few days ago regarding this case. Now the Justice Department doesn't have anything to use against Hillary anymore? This is just far too convenient. Comey may be a republican, but even he can be pressured.

4) People have actually gone to jail for stuff like this on a significantly smaller scale. It's ridiculous to say that someone who has committed a crime 100 times greater than normal should be declared innocent.
1298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

PhantomGundam wrote:

There are many things wrong with this outcome.

1) I'm not sure how many people defending this decision have read the announcement (I actually haven't clicked on max's link, I just read about this in the NYTimes). It couldn't be any more obvious that FBI director Comey is contradicting himself. He says no prosecutor would have reason to punish Hillary but at the same time he said that anyone else who does the same thing Hillary has done would be punished. It's not possible anymore to deny that Hillary is receiving special treatment when even the FBI director himself admits that he's placing Hillary above the law.

2) Comey's only official reason for letting Hillary off the hook is that he doesn't believe Hillary did this stuff intentionally (which I personally don't believe since it's clear as day she lied multiple times about her emails). As others in this thread have pointed out, that has nothing to do with the actual law at the center of this case. The law only states that she had to have done so recklessly, which she did as even Comey has said so himself. Intent has nothing to do with whether or not she broke that law. His only excuse for letting Hillary off the hook is something that he made up.

3) The timing of this decision is way too suspicious. Hillary spoke privately with the Attorney General just a few days ago regarding this case. Now the Justice Department doesn't have anything to use against Hillary anymore? This is just far too convenient. Comey may be a republican, but even he can be pressured.

4) People have actually gone to jail for stuff like this on a significantly smaller scale. It's ridiculous to say that someone who has committed a crime 100 times greater than normal should be declared innocent.


Did you read the quote I talked about?



"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."


Comey says nothing about law breaking. He equates the word consequences with workplace related sanctions. Getting fired or demoted on the job is not the same thing as law breaking.
13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
I think a lot of people are drawing parallels between the phrase "extremely careless" and "gross negligence" where it isn't quite that black and white. Here is the legal definition of "Gross negligence":


Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.


The key here is the "likely to cause foreseeable injury or harm to [...] property". I don't think a reasonable person would assume that emails held on a private email server and sent to those with appropriate security clearance would be likely to cause foreseeable harm. While it is careless to not use the systems that are in place, I think it would be quite difficult for a prosecution to prove that these actions were "likely to cause foreseeable harm". I think what Clinton did could possibly be defined as vanilla negligence, but gross negligence holds a higher standard.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

voss749 wrote:

What the FBI director said was Clinton was extremely careless but she did not intentionally mishandle the emails.

In other words it was not a criminal act and no prosecutor would charge her. Comey is not going to throw away his professional reputation to let let Clinton off on what would would have been a misdemeanor charge anyway.


If you mishandle classified information, it is a crime. "Extremely careless" handling of materials, out of the bounds of the very specific means and methods of storage and transmission dictated by government regulation, is a crime. Full stop.

I'm not sure how this could be considered "unintentional" mishandling. Forgetting to spin the dial on a safe is unintentional. Directing IT personnel to build you an email server and then continuously using it is not unintentional.

I recommend that anyone who is not an expert in the legal technicalities, read up on 18 US Code paragraph 793. Specifically sub-paragraphs d) and f). The FBI just said that they find that Clinton actually conducted every single one of the elements of the crime under those sub-paragraphs. If she is guilty of the elements of the crime, she IS guilty of the crime.

This isn't an "oops", it's a major, intentional security breach. It isn't *espionage*, because it wasn't intentionally delivered to foreign actors, but it is still very much a crime.

For those too lazy to google it; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
454 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Winter Springs, F...
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
You say Crooked Hillary, I say Tricky Dick.
You say Benghazi, I say Beirut.
For Republicans, everything that is old is suddenly new again.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.