Countdown til Hillary is Officially off the Hook for violating NDA

[SDHornet]

Those who were going to vote for her didn't give two shits whether she was found guilty or not...

No, most of them just need an out to justify voting for her even with all this (additional) proof of incompetence, corruption, and lies...the FBI not recommending charges is just the out they need.

Although I do agree with the points that the skelly article makes, there is a shit-ton of fodder for Trump to hammer away on...of course considering its coming from Trump lightens its impact quite a bit.

[JoltinJoe]

Disgusted, but not surprised.

This.

[Ibanez]

I think I was coming up on the character limit

Even the system knows the limits of your character.

True. I got close and then this message appeared, "Hillary Clinton Error 6.93: No Character Left."

[Ibanez]

USA Today breaks it down pretty well

While some of the emails Clinton sent have been declared classified retroactively, Comey said 110 emails in 52 email chains were classified at the time they were sent.

Of those:
• Eight email chains contained "top secret" information.
• 36 chains contained "secret" information.
• Eight email chains contained "confidential" information, the lowest classification level.

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," Comey said.

Clinton and her lawyers handed over to the State Department 30,000 emails that they said were the business-related emails from her private system. The personal emails were deleted. But Comey said that in this process, it is "likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce ... that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices." The FBI could not recover these.

Comey said there was no direct evidence Clinton's email was hacked, but other people she corresponded with were hacked, and her use of a private email system was well-known. She also used her email while traveling "in the territory of sophisticated adversaries." Thus, he said, "it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account."

The story of Clinton's emails has been about her use of a private server to run her own email system, but Comey said, "Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email." Old servers got decommissioned as new equipment was brought online, and information on old devices was scrapped.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86709530/


I thought Clinton didn't want to use 2 cell phones? I thought our top diplomat never sent or received classified emails.

[Ibanez]

Those who were going to vote for her didn't give two shits whether she was found guilty or not...

No, most of them just need an out to justify voting for her even with all this (additional) proof of incompetence, corruption, and lies...the FBI not recommending charges is just the out they need.

Although I do agree with the points that the skelly article makes, there is a shit-ton of fodder for Trump to hammer away on...of course considering its coming from Trump lightens its impact quite a bit.

Legally: She's off the hook

Public Opinion: It's on record that she lied, the FBI proved it but is too gutless to do anything.

[BDKJMU]

Bottom line: Hillary is reckless, careless and has poor judgement, but she's not a criminal. Which means she's likely to be our next POTUS.



Gross

Oh she's a criminal. But one that is above the law.

[BDKJMU]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws[/youtube]

Those who were going to vote for her didn't give two shits whether she was found guilty or not...

True for 40-45% of the electorate. But there's the 15-20% of those who will end voting in Nov who either claim they are now undecided or who claim to now back one candidate or the other, but will vacillate back and forth at least once to several times between now and Nov..

[DSUrocks07]

[BDKJMU]

White collar crime. If you're wealthy and powerful... they have to prove intent and knowledge you were breaking the law.

For everyone else... ignorance isn't a defense.

Indeed, not a Democrat or Republican thing, just a wealthy thing. If you're wealthy, there are different rules. We all know this.

Guess being a 4 star general (Petreas) doesn't make you wealthy enough..

[Baldy]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws[/youtube]

Those who were going to vote for her didn't give two shits whether she was found guilty or not...

Raise your hand, houndawg.

[CID1990]

Disgusted, but not surprised.

I feel the same way, and I knew I was going to feel this way ahead of time.

I see this crap all the time in these banana republics I work in, but it takes some getting used to to see it happen in good ol Murica.

[BDKJMU]

Disgusted, but not surprised.

I feel the same way, and I knew I was going to feel this way ahead of time.

I see this crap all the time in these banana republics I work in, but it takes some getting used to to see it happen in good ol Murica.

That probably goes for many, if not most of us on here. Most of us knew an indictment was highly unlikely no matter how damning the evidence..

[Ivytalk]

Disgusted, but not surprised.

I feel the same way, and I knew I was going to feel this way ahead of time.

I see this crap all the time in these banana republics I work in, but it takes some getting used to to see it happen in good ol Murica.

Some National Review writer -- David French, maybe -- just came up with that one too. Pretty accurate, under the circumstances. Just strengthens my resolve to vote third party this year, and maybe beyond. I may even switch my registration to LP, after I vote in the fall Republican primary to try to save the DE GOP from a truly awful governor candidate.

[JohnStOnge]

Its' as I wrote in another thread: For those who aren't die hard either way, this is another Republican "cry Wolf" thing. The narrative coming from Republicans, at least as I perceived it, is that there was no way the Justice Department was going to charge her. There was an implication that the FBI would recommend charges but political considerations would cause the Justice Department to go against the recommendation.

Meanwhile both sides were expressing confidence in the FBI. Both sides said FBI Director James Comey is a straight shooter, Just this past weekend I saw Corey Lewandowski, who is still an ardent Trump spokesman now employed by CNN, say that he trusted Comey to do the right thing.

Trump can go ahead and try to make something of this but I think the only people he'll impress by doing so are in the choir that already had its mind made up. Others, I think, will take a "there they go again" view of Trump and other Republicans trying to make something of this now. They will, I think, be viewed by those who aren't already on their side as trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The argument that this was a political decision is severely undercut by the fact that the FBI did not recommend charges.

[Pwns]

Its' as I wrote in another thread: For those who aren't die hard either way, this is another Republican "cry Wolf" thing. The narrative coming from Republicans, at least as I perceived it, is that there was no way the Justice Department was going to charge her. There was an implication that the FBI would recommend charges but political considerations would cause the Justice Department to go against the recommendation.

Meanwhile both sides were expressing confidence in the FBI. Both sides said FBI Director James Comey is a straight shooter, Just this past weekend I saw Corey Lewandowski, who is still an ardent Trump spokesman now employed by CNN, say that he trusted Comey to do the right thing.

Trump can go ahead and try to make something of this but I think the only people he'll impress by doing so are in the choir that already had its mind made up. Others, I think, will take a "there they go again" view of Trump and other Republicans trying to make something of this now. They will, I think, be viewed by those who aren't already on their side as trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The argument that this was a political decision is severely undercut by the fact that the FBI did not recommend charges.

There's no crying wolf here, no objective person can say Clinton didn't break the law. The words Comey spoke are pretty blatant.

But you are right, there's not going to be any political traction to be had here. Most of the ding-dongs that were going to vote Hilldog before today are still going to support her either because "fuq da facts" or because the Republicans are running a clueless buffoon with a nuclear-powered ego.

[DSUrocks07]

Its' as I wrote in another thread: For those who aren't die hard either way, this is another Republican "cry Wolf" thing. The narrative coming from Republicans, at least as I perceived it, is that there was no way the Justice Department was going to charge her. There was an implication that the FBI would recommend charges but political considerations would cause the Justice Department to go against the recommendation.

Meanwhile both sides were expressing confidence in the FBI. Both sides said FBI Director James Comey is a straight shooter, Just this past weekend I saw Corey Lewandowski, who is still an ardent Trump spokesman now employed by CNN, say that he trusted Comey to do the right thing.

Trump can go ahead and try to make something of this but I think the only people he'll impress by doing so are in the choir that already had its mind made up. Others, I think, will take a "there they go again" view of Trump and other Republicans trying to make something of this now. They will, I think, be viewed by those who aren't already on their side as trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The argument that this was a political decision is severely undercut by the fact that the FBI did not recommend charges.

That's the exact opposite of that, if you claim that for anyone else you would throw the book at them, but for Clinton you're going to look the other way is paramount to it being a political decision.

#JSOShillsforHill



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

That's the exact opposite of that, if you claim that for anyone else you would throw the book at them, but for Clinton you're going to look the other way is paramount to it being a political decision.

The set up is that both sides said Comey is a straight shooter and the FBI can be relied upon to provide an honest determination. The narrative was that the FBI was going to recommend charges and the Justice Department was going to opt not to charge. THAT was the "political" angle.

But now the guy both sides said is a straight shooter said charges are not justified.

[clenz]

That's the exact opposite of that, if you claim that for anyone else you would throw the book at them, but for Clinton you're going to look the other way is paramount to it being a political decision.

The set up is that both sides said Comey is a straight shooter and the FBI can be relied upon to provide an honest determination. The narrative was that the FBI was going to recommend charges and the Justice Department was going to opt not to charge. THAT was the "political" angle.

But now the guy both sides said is a straight shooter said charges are not justified.

That's we he recommended but he straight out said anyone else would have charges pressed. Anyone else would be in trouble. Anyone else is in jail. He admitted she broke every law she could.

He didn't press charges because of the political agenda.

He doesn't want to end up "suddenly and mysteriously" dead.

[Ibanez]

I'd like to hear Ivys, professional take in this.

[Ivytalk]

I'd like to hear Ivys, professional take in this.

Thanks for the compliments, but the FBI misread a very clear statute that permits indictments for the very type of grossly negligent conduct that Comey recognized in his speech. Heck (to quote Gannon), I just try business cases, and even I would have taken a crack at prosecuting Hildabeast on those facts.

Sad day for the American legal system.

[JohnStOnge]

I think that there's a good chance that the Republicans will end up looking like the ones politicizing this. I'm seeing signs that they're going to do things like call Comey up for hearings and such. I think if they do that it'll come off as them throwing a tantrum because they didn't get the result they wanted. This kind of thing has happened to the Republicans over and over again. If they are smart they are going to leave Comey alone. But it looks like they might not.

[JohnStOnge]

I'd like to hear Ivys, professional take in this.

Thanks for the compliments, but the FBI misread a very clear statute that permits indictments for the very type of grossly negligent conduct that Comey recognized in his speech. Heck (to quote Gannon), I just try business cases, and even I would have taken a crack at prosecuting Hildabeast on those facts.

Sad day for the American legal system.

What I'm seeing is that former prosecutors who tend to be Republican think it's an outrage while former prosecutors who tend to be Democrat think it's reasonable. Like I'm watching CNN right now and they have this former Federal Prosecutor on CNN Jeffery Toobin saying it's a specific intent crime and she had to know she was dealing with Classified Information in order to be prosecuted. And he's citing the way Courts have interpreted the law.

I suspect he's probably got a Democrat lean but I don't know. Anyway this idea that intent is required seems to be in dispute. I'm seeing some say it is and some say it isn't.

Biggest thing is Comey, who appears qualified as anyone to say, said they didn't have sufficient evidence to charge.

And again: Before he gave them a result they didn't like Republicans were singing his praises.

[Ivytalk]

Thanks for the compliments, but the FBI misread a very clear statute that permits indictments for the very type of grossly negligent conduct that Comey recognized in his speech. Heck (to quote Gannon), I just try business cases, and even I would have taken a crack at prosecuting Hildabeast on those facts.

Sad day for the American legal system.

What I'm seeing is that former prosecutors who tend to be Republican think it's an outrage while former prosecutors who tend to be Democrat think it's reasonable. Like I'm watching CNN right now and they have this former Federal Prosecutor on CNN Jeffery Toobin saying it's a specific intent crime and she had to know she was dealing with Classified Information in order to be prosecuted. And he's citing the way Courts have interpreted the law.

I suspect he's probably got a Democrat lean but I don't know. Anyway this idea that intent is required seems to be in dispute. I'm seeing some say it is and some say it isn't.

Biggest thing is Comey, who appears qualified as anyone to say, said they didn't have sufficient evidence to charge.

And again: Before he gave them a result they didn't like Republicans were singing his praises.

Jeffrey fucking Toobin is the biggest liberal asshole in the legal commentariat. And he's wrong about it being a specific intent crime. You are so far up Hillary's bunghole that even forceps couldn't get you out.

[JohnStOnge]

Jeffrey **** Toobin is the biggest liberal asshole in the legal commentariat. And he's wrong about it being a specific intent crime. You are so far up Hillary's bunghole that even forceps couldn't get you out.

He's not the only one I've seen say that sort of thing. And there's the fact that Comey said it.

You said that criminal law is not really your thing. But now you're saying Toobin is wrong about a criminal law question even though he's a former Federal prosecutor. Or is that not true?

Having said that, yes, I know that other former Federal prosecutors have disagreed with Tobin. But Comey is himself a former Federal prosecutor. There certainly seems to be disagreement on this issue.

[clenz]

Come my said anyone else who did the same would face legal issues...just not Hilary.