FBI Director Comey press confrence - Update: Recommends no charges for Clinton

[IceSpear]

No charges. No charges. No charges.

That is what counts. All this trying to spin lint into gold is pathetic and sad.

Not really. There are still political consequences, and deservedly so.

You lost, so sit down and be quiet.

I scoff that you think that the Republicans "lost" on this. Just wait for the campaign commercials. This decision just reinforces how "corrupt the political class" is in Washington. Just watch. Trump will beat this like a rented mule.

The campaign commercials where Hillary will outspend Trump 2:1 (at least)? Yeah, I'm sure she's shaking in her heels.

I recommend you drink some water. All this salt can't be good for your body.

[IceSpear]

So no indictment. Thank goodness. Given my earlier comments, I clearly have to reassess the lens by which I look at politics. Maybe my critics are right that I'm too much of a chicken little. I will make an effort from here on out to be more objective and self-critical when examining what biases are affecting my analysis.

While it's a little strange to be celebrating one's own candidate not being indicted, from Mr. Comey's comments it's clear that this wasn't a close call. There was no intent to undermine national security or hide anything from investigators. There was only what you would expect from 30,000 emails - that there would be some mistakes in classifying them made by Clinton. 110 emails out of 30,000+ had some level of classification at the time they were sent or received. That's 0.4%. She's human, we are all human.

Her real mistake was having the private servers in the first place. That was wrong, and she was right to apologize for it. But given that her predecessors or their aides also used private e-mail of varying degrees and neither had government e-mail, it's fair to say that this was only allowed because compliance policies at State were sloppy and ill-defined. It seems clear that all sorts of sloppiness in many different agencies at all levels of government would be uncovered, if they were all subject to the same degree of scrutiny as Clinton. Hillary Clinton has been the most investigated, scrutinized public figures in modern history. Literally dozens of books and tens of thousands of pages of documents exist on her. There's probably more information out there about her than she even remembers about herself. Yet no "smoking gun" has ever been found - just one dead end investigation after another. The only time either of the Clintons were "gotten" was when it involved a blue dress. Go figure.

However, this incident should be a warning to all of our public officials to be scrupulous with classified information, no matter one's rank. If Hillary can be seriously damaged politically by something like this, than any public official who isn't careful to follow procedure strictly can be. And it must be a warning to both the Clintons and the people around them not to make unforced errors in the future - they can learn from the current president, Obama, who has been relatively scandal-free.

Just remember Beet, the sky won't be falling just because Trump leads after the RNC.

Good post though. I agree the private server was a mistake, but not criminal. It's all water under the bridge now, except among the people who still casually chat about the murder of Vince Foster.

[Lyin' Steve]

lol, I've had to hop in a Lambo just to keep up with how fast the goalposts are moving today.  I thought Hillary was a criminal who shouldn't be allowed to run for president and was going to be in prison?  Wasn't H.A. Goodman saying just a few days ago that Hillary was about to endorse Bernie for president after she got convicted?  Wasn't Chris Christie saying that she committed treason by recklessly allowing foreign nationals to hack her server and retrieve state secrets?  Steve McQueen doesn't forget, you idiots.  By the way if you go find my post from like November 2015 about this scandal, she was let off for exactly the reasons I gave.

The real question you should ask yourself is, if you hated Clinton because she committed all these oh-so-awful crimes with her e-mail server, and then it turns out she didn't actually commit any crimes at all, why do you still hate her?  Some people are just desperate to be hateful and unhappy I guess.  The GOP is using the classic sales tactic of low-balling and you're all falling for it.  The technique is that you make an initial strong offer, let the target build up their own other justifications for making the purchase, then take away your strong offer (usually a low price guarantee) and the sale will stand on just the justifications the target wrote for themselves.  They told you Hillary was a criminal because of her e-mail server, you bought into it hook, line, and sinker and built up all these other reasons to hate her in your head now that you'd decided you wanted to hate her, and now they say "oops actually we were wrong about that" but you'll still hate her anyway.

[Hammy]

Just remember Beet, the sky won't be falling just because Trump leads after the RNC.

Good post though. I agree the private server was a mistake, but not criminal. It's all water under the bridge now, except among the people who still casually chat about the murder of Vince Foster.

I'll add that the people still opposing her over the server are people who would've never supported her under any circumstances to start with. If it wasn't this, it would be something else.

[IceSpear]

Anyway, the timing of all this is very fortunate for Hillary. She'll take a hit in the polls for the next week or two, but who cares? The conventions will reset the race regardless, and by then it'll all be a distant memory.

[Hermit For Peace]

Anyway, the timing of all this is very fortunate for Hillary. She'll take a hit in the polls for the next week or two, but who cares? The conventions will reset the race regardless, and by then it'll all be a distant memory.

In the meantime, Trump will continue spewing his gems and pearls and will keep the troops entertained.

[fhtagn]

"In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

It's pretty silly that intent was ever considered. She went through a lot of training on handling classified information, she should be held accountable for it. It does not matter in any way, shape, or form whether she meant harm or not.

It's also pretty silly that Clinton supporters are celebrating this as if it looks good that their corrupt candidate is "extremely careless". Because that's clearly the type of person who belongs in the White House.

Also consider the FACT that she lied to her supporters and to voters this entire election cycle regarding this whole situation. How do you honestly expect voters to trust someone who isn't even honest to the people who are blindly following her?

[ProudModerate2]

Geez, looking at his (Comey's) comments there is SO much red meat for republicans to work with.

This is true.
This is going to hurt, at least in the short-run (about 1 month).
Hillary will probably fall in the polls for the next 2-4 weeks, and probably bring the polls close to a 50-50 basis.
After that, she will more than likely regain the lead.

[SillyAmerican]

"In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

It's pretty silly that intent was ever considered. She went through a lot of training on handling classified information, she should be held accountable for it. It does not matter in any way, shape, or form whether she meant harm or not.

It's also pretty silly that Clinton supporters are celebrating this as if it looks good that their corrupt candidate is "extremely careless". Because that's clearly the type of person who belongs in the White House.

Also consider the FACT that she lied to her supporters and to voters this entire election cycle regarding this whole situation. How do you honestly expect voters to trust someone who isn't even honest to the people who are blindly following her?

Wow, I'm left scratching my head.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the problems uncovered during the FBI investigation include:
 (1) Hillary says no messages on her server were sensitive in nature and classified at the time, when in fact 110 messages contained information that were classified at the time.
 (2) There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.
 (3) People in lower-level positions who do things similar to what Hillary Clinton did would at the very least be subject to security or administrative sanctions.
 (4) Any reasonable person sending/receiving these messages should have known better.

Yet what conclusion is reached? No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

But why is that? Why is it "unreasonable" for a prosecutor to bring the case? It sure sounds as though a case could be made against Hillary Clinton with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 793 (Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, subsection F avoiding the need to show intent), involving transmitting and/or retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. A prosecutor's charging document would normally include felony counts under 18 U.S.C. § 793 against each transmitting individual, as well as separate counts against each receiving/retaining individual. A violation of this provision of the U.S.C. is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years. The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

Ok, I gotta admit, I'm more than a little confused. While he found evidence of problems, Comey still could find no reason to recommend moving forward with an indictment?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

The Email Probe  is now officially closed, as Loretta Lynch declines to press charges against Hillary Clinton.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-emails-no-charges/index.html

[Devout Centrist]

"Come on, Comey you were our trump card. What the hell man?!"

[Fuzzy Bear]

No charges. No charges. No charges.

That is what counts. All this trying to spin lint into gold is pathetic and sad.

Not really. There are still political consequences, and deservedly so.

You lost, so sit down and be quiet.

I lost? How did I lose? The people lost. It's not even about the server or about her conduct while in office, look at the misinformation she spread for the past year on this issue. Basically all of her assertions about her conduct were rejected by both the State Dept and the FBI. Okay, she's not a criminal, but she's a flagrant liar. That matters.

This is the bottom line on Hillary, and it should matter.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Okay, she's not a criminal, but she's a flagrant liar. That matters.

This is the bottom line on Hillary, and it should matter.

Not in a world where a president lied about Iraq and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of US soldiers lives.  You have to put it in perspective.



To somehow draw the line at emails kind of cheapens the lives of 4,490+ US soldiers killed in Iraq... Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Republican outrage is very selective...  Those poor, poor emails... sob, sniff

[Santander]

Okay, she's not a criminal, but she's a flagrant liar. That matters.

This is the bottom line on Hillary, and it should matter.

Not in a world where a president lied about Iraq and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of US soldiers lives.  You have to put it in perspective.

So now you're pushing Trump's disgusting conspiracy theory that Bush lied about WMD to get us into Iraq? Sorry, you'll have a hard time finding support for that even among Democrats.

And tell that to all of the British and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies which were fooled about Saddam's WMD bluff even before the US government was.

[Sir Mohamed]

No charges. No charges. No charges.

That is what counts. All this trying to spin lint into gold is pathetic and sad.

Not really. There are still political consequences, and deservedly so.

You lost, so sit down and be quiet.

I lost? How did I lose? The people lost. It's not even about the server or about her conduct while in office, look at the misinformation she spread for the past year on this issue. Basically all of her assertions about her conduct were rejected by both the State Dept and the FBI. Okay, she's not a criminal, but she's a flagrant liar. That matters.

A liar? Well. How much does the candidate you support lie? He lies all the time. A few quick examples:


- “Most illegal immigrants are criminals, rapists and drug dealers”. Big lie.

- “We’re the highest taxed nation on earth”. Complete lie.

- “Muslims cheered on 9/11 in New Jersey”. What a hoax, no proof.

- “Obama is born in Africa”. Doesn’t need to be commented.

- “Refugees are not vetted, have no paper work”. LOL, they are strongly vetted. Lie! Lied also about the numbers Clinton wants to let in. Lied also about sky-high crime in Europe. Not true.

- Trump University. The whole thing is a fraud.

- “I always opposed the Iraq War”. Wrong, he supported it in 2002.

- “I never went bankrupt”. Remember Atlantic City?

- “Climate change is a hoax”. Well, ask 99% of scientists.

- “The whole world is laughing at us”. Wtf?

- “We give Iran 150 billion dollars”. Just no. At least not directly from the US Treasury as he implies.

- "If Bernie gets in, you'll have a 97% tax". Way off. Blunt lie!

- “The real unemployment number is 25% or even 42%”. LOL. No, though the official 5% are also not correct.

- “Our military is a disaster. We have the least prepared military in histoty today!" Uhm, no.

- “I gave millions to charity”. The facts tell otherwise. The million dollar check for veterans was only written after the press exposed it. In return, he insulted the press for exposing his lie.



More to be found at politicalfactcheck.org

[Joe Republic]

Okay, she's not a criminal, but she's a flagrant liar. That matters.

This is the bottom line on Hillary, and it should matter.

Not in a world where a president lied about Iraq and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of US soldiers lives.  You have to put it in perspective.

So now you're pushing Trump's disgusting conspiracy theory that Bush lied about WMD to get us into Iraq? Sorry, you'll have a hard time finding support for that even among Democrats.

  That's been the general consensus for about ten years.  This is one of the rare examples of Trump being not too far off base.