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

They essentially said, "she's guilty, but you shouldn't charge her." Also, intent isn't required.

What a shocking development! They were gonna give her a slap on the wrist before the investigation even started. If it were anyone else they'd get ass fucked.

[QUOTE=Richardroth;50650607]What a shocking development! They were gonna give her a slap on the wrist before the investigation even started. If it were anyone else they'd get ass fucked.[/QUOTE] They didn't even give her a slap on the wrist. She was let go totally scot free.

Glad to know if I held a position in office I could have an insecure private email server that can be easily compromised and face no consequences

What the FBI stated: 110 Emails were classified 8 were Top Secret 36 were Secret 2,000 were classified confidental after they were sent Several thousand work emails were deleted (though not in an effort to hide them, which as a sode note I doubt because she specifically stated all deleted emails were of a personal matter sich as about weddings) Hostile actors possibly breached the server She was extremely careless (sounds just like who I'd want as president!) Any reasonable person would have known this is wrong Yet, she was not prosecuted. What a fucking joke

And now she hops onto Airforce 1 and begins campaigning with Obama on the taxpayer's dollar.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50650636]What the FBI stated: 110 Emails were classified 8 were Top Secret 36 were Secret 2,000 were classified confidental after they were sent Several thousand work emails were deleted (though not in an effort to hide them) Hostile actors possibly breached the server She was extremely careless (sounds just like who I'd want as president!) Any reasonable person would have known this is wrong Yet, she was not prosecuted. What a fucking joke[/QUOTE] This isn't even an exaggeration. They said all of that basically word for word.

I wonder how much bank money she paid for this

[QUOTE=sgman91;50650656]This isn't even an exaggeration. They said all of that basically word for word.[/QUOTE] Heard it on the radio and my jaw dropped when they recommended no prosecution because the way he spoke leading up to that sounded like they were gonna throw the book at her. The final recommendation was a total 180.

fbi confirms that you can leak as many state secrets as you want as long as you only did it negligently i can only wonder at the details of the backroom deal they clearly made

As a German, this is completely ridiculous. Officials here will generally resign over far less (but then again, your reputation here actually [I]does[/I] go down the drain if you abuse your position and it becomes public, and you'd also drag down your party by not stepping down thanks to proportional representation).

You know, for a second, I had just the [I]slightest[/I] bit of hope that maybe the United States wasn't corrupt to its core. We have evidence that what she did was explicitly intentional. We have evidence that she purposefully ignored and mocked security protocols. We have evidence that she intentionally removed security headers off of her documents. We have evidence that her husband met with Loretta Lynch days before the trial. I'm at an entire loss for words. Just, wow.

Comey pretty much painted her as a massive liar and incompetent to run for office.

[QUOTE=No_0ne;50650688]fbi confirms that you can leak as many state secrets as you want as long as you only did it negligently[/QUOTE] Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, and iirc there are laws for negligently leaking state secrets. So the FBIs decision is absolutely baffling. At the time of their sending, she sent 154 emails that were classified then and still are. She also sent 2,000 emails with information made classified after the fact. Like, can you really claim negligence at that point? You don't accidentally send 154 emails, 8 of which contain matieral classified at the highest level.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50650590]They essentially said, "she's guilty, but you shouldn't charge her." Also, intent isn't required.[/QUOTE] more like "she's guilty, but no one in their right mind will prosecute here because it won't go anywhere." [quote]our judgment is that no [b]reasonable[/b] prosecutor would bring such a case[/quote]

i hope wikileaks publishes all the clinton emails uncensored then since it aint such a big deal infact i hope a bunch of major supersensitive uncensored gov leaks happen, since apparently you can't get charged or go to jail for it anymore.

[QUOTE=No_0ne;50650688]fbi confirms that you can leak as many state secrets as you want as long as you only did it negligently[/QUOTE] If you accidentally mishandle state secrets and there isn't a huge scandal about them then yeah, you probably won't go to jail. You'll get fired and lose your clearance, but criminal charges require evidence that you either leaked information willfully or that the information spill led to sensitive data getting to someone it shouldn't have. Comey says as much when he talks about administrative reprimands. If your negligence wasn't intentional and doesn't appear to have damaged national security, then the worst they can do is fire you and revoke your clearance. If you don't work there anymore, then nothing happens. So he's not saying 'this was ok' and he's not saying 'anyone else would be punished', he's saying there's only enough evidence to demonstrate a degree of wrongdoing that would be handled on an administrative level rather than by the DoJ. The real evidence of corruption here is that they somehow weren't able to come up with enough evidence to demonstrate either intent to violate security procedures or evidence that the data was compromised by a hack.

On the bright side atleast Edward Snowden can come home. Oh wait...

remember [media]https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/688917116314120192[/media]

From the report given, basically anyone else would have been charged with Criminal Negligence. The whole report was basically saying it's Criminal negligence, but she's not being charged for it.

[QUOTE=Wii60;50650746]i hope wikileaks publishes all the clinton emails uncensored then since it aint such a big deal infact i hope a bunch of major supersensitive uncensored gov leaks happen, since apparently you can't get charged or go to jail for it anymore.[/QUOTE] Comey pretty much said that the only reason Clinton gets off scot free is because she is a Clinton. So everyone else would get absolutely fucked near-instantly if they would do anything like this, yet because it is Hilary Clinton, she gets away with it all. What an absolute farce this is.

[QUOTE=srobins;50650582]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.[/QUOTE] I trust the head of the FBI and their team of investigators and legal experts far more than I trust Internet news. Why is that a bad thing? If someone who has made a career out of criminal investigations says someone isn't culpable of a crime, I'm going to trust them over a bunch of early-20s forum posters who like to play Garry's Mod.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650790]If someone who has made a career out of criminal investigations says someone isn't culpable of a crime[/QUOTE] He didn't say that, though. He said there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate it. His recommendation that the DoJ not expend government resources pursuing a prosecution that is unlikely to demonstrate the charges beyond a reasonable doubt does not constitute a statement of her innocence.

Funny, in other countries, the people will go on massive protest over such scandals, or press on till they resign. But not America. (except for the watergate scandal)

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650790]I trust the head of the FBI and their team of investigators and legal experts far more than I trust Internet news. Why is that a bad thing? If someone who has made a career out of criminal investigations says someone isn't culpable of a crime, I'm going to trust them over a bunch of early-20s forum posters who like to play Garry's Mod.[/QUOTE] Why is the rest of law enforcement any different then?

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;50650810]Funny, in other countries, the people will go on massive protest over such scandals, or press on till they resign. But not America. (except for the watergate scandal)[/QUOTE] Watergate was huge, watergate changed a lot of people's perception of the president and politicians. You'll never see something like that again, at least in our lifetimes.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;50650810]Funny, in other countries, the people will go on massive protest over such scandals, or press on till they resign. But not America. (except for the watergate scandal)[/QUOTE] First world countries are too comfortable for organised protest, not to mention busy. I'm upset about this case, but what am I going to do about it? I don't have hours in the day to organise or participate in a protest, and even if I did, what of it? No amount of protest would get Clinton in trouble, I'd just get maced and go home. [editline]5th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;50650813]Why is the rest of law enforcement any different then?[/QUOTE] Because this verdict suits his agenda and others do not. When the police are on his side, they're unquestionable and incorruptible. When an armed black man gets shot by police, they're literally demons.

I don't know where people are pulling the idea that the only reason she wasn't prosecuted was because she is a Clinton when Comey specifically says it's because there isn't enough evidence to prosecute her, and that while she broke state department procedures and she ordinarily would be punished administratively, there is no way to do that because she doesn't actually work for the State Department anymore.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50650808]He didn't say that, though. He said there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate it. His recommendation that the DoJ not expend government resources pursuing a prosecution that is unlikely to demonstrate the charges beyond a reasonable doubt does not constitute a statement of her innocence.[/QUOTE] Fair enough - I still trust his judgment not to prosecute over that of Internet investigators. Even if Hillary acted negligently.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50650838]I don't know where people are pulling the idea that the only reason she wasn't prosecuted was because she is a Clinton when Comey specifically says it's because there isn't enough evidence to prosecute her, and that while she broke state department procedures and she ordinarily would be punished administratively, there is no way to do that because she doesn't actually work for the State Department anymore.[/QUOTE] yeah there seems to be a lot of people in here subscribing to some serious wishful thinking, there was little indication that clinton was going to be prosecuted even before this statement today Hilary fucked up, but didn't fuck up bad enough or with such intent that prosecution can be brought, plus there is little to no previous precedent for such a case. The FBI isn't the final word on whether a case will be brought, but winning it is incredibly unlikely so they probably won't bother. Furthermore they cannot punish somebody administratively when they don't work there anymore.