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

[QUOTE=_Axel;50650813]Why is the rest of law enforcement any different then?[/QUOTE] Because the FBI is investigating in this case, not enforcing. I distrust in-house police investigators, just like I distrusted the State Department's internal investigation. The FBI isn't part of the state department, so I trust their independent judgment. I have plenty of complaints about FBI law enforcement, but I can trust their investigation to be impartial.

[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] the 154 classified emails, the "anyone reasonable would have seen this is wrong", she was careless, and hostile actors possibly breached the server. gee, I wonder why people think there's corruption involved with a family who has lied to get out of trouble the in past. [editline]5th July 2016[/editline] at least the fbi has painted her as completely inept and careless, so unsuited for the job of president.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50650869]the 154 classified emails, the "anyone reasonable would have seen this is wrong", she was careless, and hostile actors possibly breached the server. gee, I wonder why people think there's corruption involved with a family who has lied to get out of trouble the in past.[/QUOTE] The FBI investigated the security breaches and determined that they weren't at all a threat to national security, which is one of the major reasons they didn't recommend an indictment. If Hillary was sending real-time GPS coordinates of military groups in Iraq, she'd be in prison because the breach would have been damaging to national security. Nothing that was leaked by he breach was damaging enough to be a national security concern.

Why would anyone try to defend Hitlary at this point. She clearly broke the law and is going to have literally zero consequences, there's no way around that. How in the hell could anyone rationalize this as okay?

[QUOTE=Streecer;50650861]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 [/QUOTE] I think anyone hopeful for an indictment after Obama's endorsement were just fooling themselves. That pretty much confirmed she wasn't going to be punished legally. [QUOTE=bdd458;50650869]the 154 classified emails, the "anyone reasonable would have seen this is wrong", she was careless, and hostile actors possibly breached the server. gee, I wonder why people think there's corruption involved with a family who has lied to get out of trouble the in past. [editline]5th July 2016[/editline] at least the fbi has painted her as completely inept and careless, so unsuited for the job of president.[/QUOTE] Personally I'd rather see evidence of corruption rather than just assume it because things didn't go my way. Like I said in the other thread, if the system is so broken that someone who "obviously" committed a crime and the FBI is lying when they say there isn't enough evidence, why bother with a trial in the first place? Just put her against the wall and be done with it.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50650897]Why would anyone try to defend Hitlary at this point. She clearly broke the law and is going to have literally zero consequences, there's no way around that. How in the hell could anyone rationalize this as okay?[/QUOTE] Because I'd rather have someone too negligent to handle emails properly as president than someone who wants to murder the children of terrorists. It's not too hard to understand.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50650897]Why would anyone try to defend Hitlary at this point. She clearly broke the law and is going to have literally zero consequences, there's no way around that. How in the hell could anyone rationalize this as okay?[/QUOTE] Speaking personally I see no reason to disregard the other half of Comey's statement where he talks about how brazenly she broke administrative statutes and that what she did raises questions about her ability to handle state secrets in the future. You can absolutely hold that against her possible presidency, and I will. I'm not defending Clinton; I'm defending the FBI's judgement because I've been given no reason to doubt it other than FP posters who are mad things didn't go their way.

What I gathered is that they know that if they tried to press charges, her army of lawyers and publicity would make it a pointless loss

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650905]Because I'd rather have someone too negligent to handle emails properly as president than someone who wants to murder the children of terrorists. It's not too hard to understand.[/QUOTE] not just emails, but classified information that's classified at the highest levels. I'd rather not want someone incompetent as president. And to your previous post, you do not need to be purposefully giving classified information away, the fact that information was accessible outside of those with clearance for it is quite alarming. In fact, a major law surrounding the transmission and storage of classified information has a section on negligently letting that happen, as it was not in a "proper place of custody". a server that outsiders were able to get into does not sound like a "proper place of custody" for top secret information to me. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50650901] Like I said in the other thread, if the system is so broken that someone who "obviously" committed a crime and the FBI is lying when they say there isn't enough evidence, why bother with a trial in the first place? Just put her against the wall and be done with it.[/QUOTE] because we have rule of law and she should be punished through the proper channels. [quote][B]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[/B], (1) [B][I]through gross negligence [/I][/B][B]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, [/B]or (2) [B]having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody [/B]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—[/quote] im curious as to why the FBI would believe that her private server would be considered a "proper place of custody", since to any reasonable person they said what she did was wrong. Especially since the electronic transmission of such information requires this [quote]Electronic transmission of classified information largely requires the use of National Security Agency approved/certified "Type 1" cryptosystems utilizing NSA's unpublished and classified Suite A algorithms. The classification of the Suite A algorithms categorizes the hardware that store them as a Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI) under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. CCI equipment and keying material must be controlled and stored with heightened physical security, even when the device is not processing classified information or contain a cryptographic key[/quote] did her server have all of that?

[QUOTE=bdd458;50650957]not just emails, but classified information that's classified at the highest levels. I'd rather not want someone incompetent as president. And to your previous post, you do not need to be purposefully giving classified information away, the fact that information was accessible outside of those with clearance for it is quite alarming. In fact, a major law surrounding the transmission and storage of classified information has a section on negligently letting that happen, as it was not in a "proper place of custody". a server that outsiders were able to get into does not sound like a "proper place of custody" for top secret information to me. because we have rule of law and she should be punished through the proper channels. im curious as to why the FBI would believe that her private server would be considered a "proper place of custody", since to any reasonable person they said what she did was wrong.[/QUOTE] The FBI is "the proper channels." The DOJ is "the proper channels." You need to have an investigation to charge her with a crime. The proper channels didn't find it worthwhile to go through with prosecution. You're saying that the entire DOJ and the entire FBI are not "reasonable persons." People aren't unreasonable just because they don't share your opinion.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50650957] because we have rule of law and she should be punished through the proper channels. [/QUOTE] Right she should be punished. So we know that if it did go to trial and she was found innocent you would still suspect corruption. You would think the system is corrupt all the way until sentencing. I suspect you would probably take an issue with her getting a relatively light sentence, would that be what the DoJ was seeking. All you want to see is someone you presume guilty get punished and the fact that the FBI's findings don't correlate with yours means that there is corruption at play. So what do you do when the "proper channels" are no longer suitable to mete out justice?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650972]The FBI is "the proper channels." The DOJ is "the proper channels." You need to have an investigation to charge her with a crime. The proper channels didn't find it worthwhile to go through with prosecution. You're saying that the entire DOJ and the entire FBI are not "reasonable persons." People aren't unreasonable just because they don't share your opinion.[/QUOTE] These are more than opinions, these are facts, the FBI is not some godly organization filled with reason and free from bias and corruption

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50650950]No bias here.[/QUOTE] I do have a well-known bias towards the concept of innocent before proven guilty, you caught me :v:

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650905]Because I'd rather have someone too negligent to handle emails properly as president than someone who wants to murder the children of terrorists. It's not too hard to understand.[/QUOTE] A president who wants to "murder the children of terrorists" can be held back by congress. Trump would be an ineffectual president as both the Democrats and the Republicans hate him. He's still an awful person, but beyond populism he has very few ways of influencing people. A president who is incompetent would be an active harm to their country. The president has to see information that can only be known by a handful of people. Having someone leak that due to incompetence would be a scandal far larger than having a secretary suck them off. I don't think either Trump or Clinton are good options, in fact I think both are depressingly terrible options. But no would should be in a position where they're saying "I'd rather the leader of the most powerful country in the world be incompetent/negligent..."

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650905]Because I'd rather have someone too negligent to handle emails properly as president than someone who wants to murder the children of terrorists. It's not too hard to understand.[/QUOTE] This is the mindset--the "we can't let [i]the enemy[/i] win, they will [i]destroy everything[/i]"--that allows the Democratic party to not give a shit about this situation. This country is ruled by this mild fear, it's ridiculous.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50650905]someone who wants to murder the children of terrorists.[/QUOTE] Obama does this and Hilary wants to continue his policies.

[QUOTE=Glitchman;50650989]These are more than opinions, these are facts, the FBI is not some godly organization filled with reason and free from bias and corruption[/QUOTE] I know that - I just can't take people seriously when their immediate reaction to not getting the result they want is "corruption! fraud! bias!" It's cheap. It's a shit argument. Show me that Comey had pro-Clinton leanings and find me evidence that the Clintons wired him some money and I'll happily agree with the allegation, but people who just spout that the system is corrupt [I]every single time[/I] they don't get the result they want are being enormously immature. [editline]5th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=-nesto-;50651006]Obama does this and Hilary wants to continue his policies.[/QUOTE] Drones kill innocents, yes. I despise that - which is why I supported Sanders. Trump didn't say that drones killing innocents is acceptable. He said to [I]intentionally target the families of terrorists[/I]. There's a world of difference between the two. [editline]5th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DaMastez;50650999]This is the mindset--the "we can't let [i]the enemy[/i] win, they will [i]destroy everything[/i]"--that allows the Democratic party to not give a shit about this situation. This country is ruled by this mild fear, it's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] If Trump the Republican was the one with an email scandal and Hillary was the one spouting xenophobia and hate, I'd vote Trump. Republicans aren't my enemy. Democrats aren't my enemy. I don't have a "side."

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50650981]Right she should be punished. So we know that if it did go to trial and she was found innocent you would still suspect corruption. You would think the system is corrupt all the way until sentencing. I suspect you would probably take an issue with her getting a relatively light sentence, would that be what the DoJ was seeking. All you want to see is someone you presume guilty get punished and the fact that the FBI's findings don't correlate with yours means that there is corruption at play. So what do you do when the "proper channels" are no longer suitable to mete out justice?[/QUOTE] If she got sentenced with a light sentence I'd be fine, as the max for gross negligence of letting classified information out (ie not having it in the proper place of custody) is 10 years, any many times people don't get the max sentence - but hey, nice attempt at projection :). but it is clear she did wrong by the law. She sent over 150 emails that were classified at the time of their sending on an insecure, unofficial server which I highly doubt, due to the unofficial nature of her server, had the NSA approved systems in place. that alone should be disqualifying her from the presidential race. the question of corruption can only be laid to rest once every scrap is laid on the table for the public to see - every email and letter sent to individuals within the investigation, transcripts from all of the interviews, and other such information that shows there was no collusion, no money changing hands, nothing of that nature. only then will can it be known that justice has actually been done. otherwise a shadow of doubt hangs over her, the fbi, and the doj. but hell, even if the fbi just shows that her server was actually a nice secure little thing with the nsa approved bells and whistles i'd be ok with their decision. but so far that hasn't happened and I have every reason to doubt that their decision was made with the best intentions. oh and to answer your last little question, a restructuring of the individuals in charge - there's no need for violence.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651010] Trump didn't say that drones killing innocents is acceptable. He said to [I]intentionally target the families of terrorists[/I]. There's a world of difference between the two.[/QUOTE] He can say that all he wants. There's still a defined line between a lawful/unlawful order. He won't actually be able to do it even if he did pursue it.

[QUOTE=Glitchman;50650989]These are more than opinions, these are facts, the FBI is not some godly organization filled with reason and free from bias and corruption[/QUOTE] With no evidence proving this bias or corruption though I'm more likely to trust their interpretation of the law over Facepunch posters who decided her guilt at the outset of this investigation and whos experience of law consists of Google and Wikipedia. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50650997]A president who wants to "murder the children of terrorists" can be held back by congress. Trump would be an ineffectual president as both the Democrats and the Republicans hate him. He's still an awful person, but beyond populism he has very few ways of influencing people.[/QUOTE] Actually factually wrong. The military lies under control of the executive which means he could actually conduct his policy of targeted reprisals against innocent civilians, the type Trump has argued for. He would only be as ineffectual as the Republican platform would allow. I've talked about this before but do we really think the party that tried 60 times to repeal Obamacare is going to suddenly agree to keep it when it's the first thing Trump calls for if he was elected? The argument that Congress would work against him in totality for 4 years is bogus. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50650997]A president who is incompetent would be an active harm to their country. The president has to see information that can only be known by a handful of people. Having someone leak that due to incompetence would be a scandal far larger than having a secretary suck them off.[/QUOTE] Fair enough [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50650997]I don't think either Trump or Clinton are good options, in fact I think both are depressingly terrible options. But no would should be in a position where they're saying "I'd rather the leader of the most powerful country in the world be incompetent/negligent..."[/QUOTE] Okay but that is where we are. I'm pretty sure Isak has said in the past that Clinton wasn't his first choice. I doubt she is anyone's first choice on FP. [QUOTE=DaMastez;50650999]This is the mindset--the "we can't let the enemy win, they will destroy everything"--that allows the Democratic party to not give a shit about this situation. This country is ruled by this mild fear, it's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] That's not what he said though, why are you implying he is? Also if you want to blame anyone for the clusterfuck of an election, blame Republican primary voters who let fear drive them to the polls and vote for the guy who would keep the scary brown people out. [QUOTE=-nesto-;50651006]Obama does this and Hilary wants to continue his policies.[/QUOTE] The accidental killing of civilians in drone strikes and other targeted missions is way different from a president enacting a specific, targeted strategy of going after civilians.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651010] Drones kill innocents, yes. I despise that - which is why I supported Sanders. Trump didn't say that drones killing innocents is acceptable. He said to [I]intentionally target the families of terrorists[/I]. There's a world of difference between the two.[/QUOTE] He said "go after them" which is incredibly obtuse and could mean anything. Obama killed a 16 year old American because his dad was a terrorist then said "shoulda been a better father" to justify it. So when you say you prefer someone who would continue this behavior over someone who spouts dumb shit for easy poll boosts you are either incredibly ignorant or hilariously hypocritical.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50651059]He said "go after them" which is incredibly obtuse and could mean anything. Obama killed a 16 year old American because his dad was a terrorist then said "shoulda been a better father" to justify it. So when you say you prefer someone who would continue this behavior over someone who spouts dumb shit for easy poll boosts you are either incredibly ignorant or hilariously hypocritical.[/QUOTE] Or he could simply say "wow that was fucked up Obama why did you do it" like a lot of liberals did and completely torpedo your little attempt at painting someone as a hypocrite.

[QUOTE=l33tkill;50651050]He can say that all he wants. There's still a defined line between a lawful/unlawful order. He won't actually be able to do it even if he did pursue it.[/QUOTE] And I'd rather not have the figurehead of our entire nation be known for publicly advocating for the murder of children. I don't care if he can do it or not - it'd be the most shameful thing for the US's reputation. I'm amazed that people would accept a man who's called climate change a Chinese hoax and claimed vaccines cause autism and advocated for the open murder of innocent women and children over someone who fucks up handling emails. I won't stand to have the figurehead of the country be a man who's openly advocated for child slaughter.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50650711]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.[/QUOTE] In the U.S.: Money is the deciding factor on how guilty you are in the eyes of the "law". Like with the Stanford rape case. Money made "rape is a horrible crime that ought to be punished" to pretty much "you know we can't be too hard, 'cause sometimes a young man just gotta have some pussy, you know?"

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50651058] Okay but that is where we are. I'm pretty sure Isak has said in the past that Clinton wasn't his first choice. I doubt she is anyone's first choice on FP.[/QUOTE] I know that Isak isn't some die-hard Clinton acolyte. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't misunderstanding that I thought Trump would be a better choice than Clinton. It's just that when you're voting for someone you know is at least negligent in some respects (as I assume Isak and you will provided you don't vote third party) and you consider that the better option then things are very sad. I just don't want people to get used to having such shitty choices. The American presidential election system is far from perfect, but it's not often that you're in a situation where everyone was wishing they had better choices.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651079]And I'd rather not have the figurehead of our entire nation be known for publicly advocating for the murder of children. I don't care if he can do it or not - it'd be the most shameful thing for the US's reputation. I'm amazed that people would accept a man who's called climate change a Chinese hoax and claimed vaccines cause autism and advocated for the open murder of innocent women and children over someone who fucks up handling emails. I won't stand to have the figurehead of the country be a man who's openly advocated for child slaughter.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree with this. In no way am I trying to advocate for a guy who wants to kill civilians. I'm merely stating this because people are under the impression that he could do so. For example [QUOTE=Raidyr;50651058]The military lies under control of the executive which means he could actually conduct his policy of targeted reprisals against innocent civilians, the type Trump has argued for.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651079] I'm amazed that people would accept a man who's called climate change a Chinese hoax and claimed vaccines cause autism and advocated for the open murder of innocent women and children over someone who fucks up handling emails. I won't stand to have the figurehead of the country be a man who's openly advocated for child slaughter.[/QUOTE] I'm amazed the BLM's posterboy would accept a woman who's called blacks superpredators, takes money from nations that kill gays and oppresses women, grossly mishandled the nation's secrets and would continue the targeted killing of US citizens(including children) in sovereign countries.

Can someone remind me again why Bernie, the most sane and down to earth candidate, lose?

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50651115]I know that Isak isn't some die-hard Clinton acolyte. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't misunderstanding that I thought Trump would be a better choice than Clinton. It's just that when you're voting for someone you know is at least negligent in some respects (as I assume Isak and you will provided you don't vote third party) and you consider that the better option then things are very sad. I just don't want people to get used to having such shitty choices. The American presidential election system is far from perfect, but it's not often that you're in a situation where everyone was wishing they had better choices.[/QUOTE] I wholeheartedly agree. In a genuine election that didn't necessitate a two-party system, Clinton would probably be at the bottom of my top 5. Neither of the two realistic candidates will institute genuine election reform. It's enormously frustrating. But unlike a lot of people on this forum, I recognize that the system, not the voters, force the two-party system. I'll vote for whichever candidate is closer to me - and that's Clinton. I wish it was different, but I'm a strong advocate for political compromise. I disagree with Clinton on a lot of things, but the system mandates that I pick the lesser of two evils. I won't be changing the system by voting for someone else or not voting at all. I hate it, but I'll deal with it.

[QUOTE=l33tkill;50651127]I absolutely agree with this. In no way am I trying to advocate for a guy who wants to kill civilians. I'm merely stating this because people are under the impression that he could do so. For example[/QUOTE] I don't think there is a serious, detailed implementation for such a plan to even begin with but the fact that he is even calling for it raises serious red flags. I wouldn't wait for Trump to become president and merely hope that red tape stops him from enacting such a policy. That was also a specific reply to Janus thinking Congress would get in the way of such operations, which isn't true.