FBI officially closes Clinton email investigation - she was "reckless" but will face no charges - Polidicks

[t]http://i.imgur.com/5xlmfDQ.jpg[/t] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-investigation[/url] [quote]The threat of criminal charges hanging over Hillary Clinton was finally lifted by the FBI on Tuesday – just hours before the presumptive Democratic nominee for president was due to begin election campaigning with Barack Obama. At a press conference in Washington, FBI director James Comey announced the end of the year-long investigation into whether Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state warranted prosecution under laws designed to protect classified government data. Though highly critical of the “reckless and careless” way in which emails were handled, Comey said the FBI would not be recommending that prosecutors seek charges in the case. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” said Comey.[/quote] Comey pretty much said that although there's not enough evidence to bring any criminal case, a regular person who did this would be fired [quote]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.[/quote] [url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system[/url]

Everyone will just say "as expected" or "corruption" but it's not worth the FBI's time or money to go after a fringe case. They really needed a slam dunk to go after her

Comey did make a few great statements for a Trump ad, too bad Trump's all out of cash.

Cool so anybody else can get their careers ruined or go to jail for far less but because she has influence she gets away with no charges.

So.. she violated security protocol, was reckless and careless with classified data, and there is evidence that state actors gained access to her account as a result, but no consequences? That makes sense to me!

[url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system[/url] full press release from last thread

Fuck Clinton.

[QUOTE=srobins;50650461]So.. she violated security protocol, was reckless and careless with classified data, and there is evidence that state actors gained access to her account as a result, but no consequences? That makes sense to me![/QUOTE] yeah she accidentally removed classified headers from 110 separate emails it's all a big misunderstanding

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50650470]yeah she accidentally removed classified headers from 110 separate emails it's all a big misunderstanding[/QUOTE] Just a tiny, tiny, reckless mistake!

Exactly what was anticipated. A slap on the wrist and a "don't do it again"

gonna have to learn the clinton defense so if i mishandle classified information i can get off scot-free

Great, so I can carelessly decide to not do something, and that's not illegal! Jesus fuck, why.

I expected nothing from this and I'm still disappointed. Fuck Clinton

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50650470]yeah she accidentally removed classified headers from 110 separate emails it's all a big misunderstanding[/QUOTE] This whole ordeal has really been an awakening experience for me as a young American who still had a sliver of hope that my country wasn't completely bought and paid for. At least now when I feel bitter about injustice in my country, I have a good reference point for anyone that doesn't understand why.

[QUOTE=elitehakor;50650484]gonna have to learn the clinton defense so if i mishandle classified information i can get off scot-free[/QUOTE] Don't worry Comey said himself this was a one time thing

Well, now she looks as stupid as possible. Not a criminal, but when previously given access to confidential information, (like what the President is given access to) has shown complete and total ineptitude. Between this and Bill talking to Lynch, could they look more stupid this week?

And with this, Sanders has officially lost.

Must be nice to be above the law.

A little disappointed, but if Comey doesn't want to pursue it then he has a good reason not to. I doubt that they wanted to pursue this case during an election. You really don't want to set a precedent that makes the FBI privy to party politics and gives them undue influence to throw an election. If they had a strong case, they would've followed through. They apparently didn't. The entire Benghazi hearings were partisan political nonsense after a fringe feeling of wrongdoing that turned up nothing, and people like Kevin McCarthy were actually proud that the GOP's actions in those hearings hurt Hillary's poll numbers. Investigations need to be impartial. Benghazi already set a disgusting precedent - that you could spend $7 million and two years investigating something that time and time again showed no wrongdoing just to hurt someone's poll numbers. The FBI shouldn't jump into that party politics nonsense and pursue something that isn't solid enough to prosecute for. That would be a catastrophic precedent.

[Quote]“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” said Comey.[/Quote] Totally not manipulation of the law, guys.

[QUOTE]Critically, the FBI said that other similar cases in which a prosecution had been sought involved evidence “willful or intentional” breaches of the rules, “vast quantities” of data or “indications of disloyalty or efforts to obstruct justice”. “We do not see that here,” he said. [/QUOTE] My favorite part is that she seems to meet all the criteria for prosecution, yet they say no reasonable prosecutor would go after her. Vast quantities of data? Uh, check? Willfull/intentional violation? Is going out of your way to set up a private server hosted in your home not intentional? Did her IT guy slip on a fucking banana peel and accidentally configure a server in her own house on his way down? Did she accidentally delete thousands of emails that were later recovered by the FBI? Did she accidentally strip security headers from emails? Oh, who even cares anymore. Shame on me for being naive enough to hope there's some justice in our country for the elite.

[QUOTE=The Duke;50650509]Totally not manipulation of the law, guys.[/QUOTE] Amazing "we have the evidence that she broke the law but oh well"

[QUOTE=The Duke;50650509]Totally not manipulation of the law, guys.[/QUOTE] Law enforcement make decisions like that all the time. There is no point taking a case forward if even you don't believe it has a chance of succeeding.

[QUOTE=srobins;50650522]My favorite part is that she seems to meet all the criteria for prosecution, yet they say no reasonable prosecutor would go after her. Vast quantities of data? Uh, check? Willfull/intentional violation? Is going out of your way to set up a private server hosted in your home not intentional? Did her IT guy slip on a fucking banana peel and accidentally configure a server in her own house on his way down? Did she accidentally delete thousands of emails that were later recovered by the FBI? Did she accidentally strip security headers from emails? Oh, who even cares anymore. Shame on me for being naive enough to hope there's some justice in our country for the elite.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty certain that the FBI knows far more about whether Clinton had intent or not that anyone in this forum. They've investigated it. We've read blog posts. I trust their judgment.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650530]I'm pretty certain that the FBI knows far more about whether Clinton had intent or not that anyone in this forum. They've investigated it. We've read blog posts. I trust their judgment.[/QUOTE] That's really sweet of you, but I don't. I don't need to "trust" that they have some magical piece of evidence that absolves Clinton of her intent to establish a server. If they have evidence that proves her innocence, they should release it. I'm not going to trust the FBI to make the right decision inside of a black box.

Not surprised. The Clintons are just like the Underwoods. They are above the law, nobody can't touch them.

Haha so much for that Hail Mary indictment then.

[QUOTE=srobins;50650541]That's really sweet of you, but I don't. I don't need to "trust" that they have some magical piece of evidence that absolves Clinton of her intent to establish a server. If they have evidence that proves her innocence, they should release it. I'm not going to trust the FBI to make the right decision inside of a black box.[/QUOTE] You can establish a server without having the intent to use it to skirt rules. John Kerry is the only Secretary of State in history to use a state department email address. Colin Powell used an AOL email - did he have intent to skirt the rules? Why isn't he being investigated? Establishing a private server doesn't prove intent at all. You have to prove that she established a private server [I]with the explicit goal of skirting the law[/I], which is pretty much impossible to do unless she had an email to her IT guy going "yeah fuck the law I want to delete all emails automatically nobody is ever going to know what my private correspondence looked like!!" Which she didn't. Because if she did they'd prosecute.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650571]You can establish a server without having the intent to use it to skirt rules. John Kerry is the only Secretary of State in history to use a state department email address. Colin Powell used an AOL email - did he have intent to skirt the rules? Why isn't he being investigated? Establishing a private server doesn't prove intent at all. You have to prove that she established a private server [I]with the explicit goal of skirting the law[/I], which is pretty much impossible to do unless she had an email to her IT guy going "yeah fuck the law I want to delete all emails automatically nobody is ever going to know what my private correspondence looked like!!" Which she didn't. Because if she did they'd prosecute.[/QUOTE] I'm not doing this, not with you. The one thing I will say is that it's incredibly ironic that this forum's poster boy for BLM, a movement that preaches incessantly about corruption and unreliability in law enforcement, is telling me he wholeheartedly trusts the FBI and that nobody should question their findings.

Prople like to bring up Conaleeza Rice and Colin Powel using a private email, but then explicitly forget that both of them never exclusively used their private email and still used the official government one. But hey, that's totally the same thing as setting up an entire server, stripping classified headers, and deleting nearly half of the emails as she was asked to hand them over. And obviously we can't have her getting prosecuted for breaking the law as she is running for president, cant let a court case get in the way of her turn!