Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you are talking about a governmental action this is exactly the wrong type of thinking.If the situation is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" one, better to say less than to say more.
As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges
and then didnt
it is as if he was saying
i would if i could
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF
Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.
Opinions, assumptions, and wishful thinking.No charges were brought because influence peddlers like the Clintons bought their way out of it. The FBI director just states that he doesn't recommend prosecuting her, not that she was innocent of anything, and he goes to announce that others will be prosecuted for doing the same thing she did, and that this is just a special Hillary pass that no one else will get. He thinks she will win and he's covering his ass like any other career bureaucrat will, and doesn't want the Clinton smear machine hanging a target on his back. You spin and bloviate and dissemble all you want, she was guilty and the report says so.
As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges
and then didnt
it is as if he was saying
i would if i could
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF
Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.
The careless way the State Dept has been handling classified material didn't start with Clinton. It's been going on for years. She certainly should have paid more attention and insisted on secure servers for all employees including herself.As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF
Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.
carelessness is not necessarily a crime.
well it is when it comes to government secrets
and the trust the public puts on public officials
not to jeopardize secret information
As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges
and then didnt
it is as if he was saying
i would if i could
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF
Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.
Do we want an unqualified property developer?Do we want a "careless" President?
The careless way the State Dept has been handling classified material didn't start with Clinton. It's been going on for years. She certainly should have paid more attention and insisted on secure servers for all employees including herself.As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges."our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF
Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.
carelessness is not necessarily a crime.
well it is when it comes to government secrets
and the trust the public puts on public officials
not to jeopardize secret information
The careless way the State Dept has been handling classified material didn't start with Clinton. It's been going on for years. She certainly should have paid more attention and insisted on secure servers for all employees including herself.As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.
Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.
carelessness is not necessarily a crime.
well it is when it comes to government secrets
and the trust the public puts on public officials
not to jeopardize secret information
that is not really what fbi said
but who wants an extremely careless prezbo anyhow
As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF
Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.
Having worked in the intelligence field for some time, I can tell you carelessness with classified material most certainly is a crime. There are several behind bars now for that very reason. After Bill met with the potential prosecutor and Hillary rode on Air Force One with the one who appointed the FBI director this is simply a way to let a Clinton skate once again.
The careless way the State Dept has been handling classified material didn't start with Clinton. It's been going on for years. She certainly should have paid more attention and insisted on secure servers for all employees including herself.As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.
carelessness is not necessarily a crime.
well it is when it comes to government secrets
and the trust the public puts on public officials
not to jeopardize secret information
that is not really what fbi said
but who wants an extremely careless prezbo anyhow
Comey is going in front of Congress today....somebody needs to ask this question.
You said Clinton not only used private servers, and deleted work-related e-mails, but also did so “in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” That is a violation of federal records laws, and obstruction of justice, isn’t it?
The careless way the State Dept has been handling classified material didn't start with Clinton. It's been going on for years. She certainly should have paid more attention and insisted on secure servers for all employees including herself.As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.
carelessness is not necessarily a crime.
well it is when it comes to government secrets
and the trust the public puts on public officials
not to jeopardize secret information
that is not really what fbi said
but who wants an extremely careless prezbo anyhow
Comey is going in front of Congress today....somebody needs to ask this question.
You said Clinton not only used private servers, and deleted work-related e-mails, but also did so “in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” That is a violation of federal records laws, and obstruction of justice, isn’t it?
well it used to be a crime
The careless way the State Dept has been handling classified material didn't start with Clinton. It's been going on for years. She certainly should have paid more attention and insisted on secure servers for all employees including herself.carelessness is not necessarily a crime.
well it is when it comes to government secrets
and the trust the public puts on public officials
not to jeopardize secret information
that is not really what fbi said
but who wants an extremely careless prezbo anyhow
Comey is going in front of Congress today....somebody needs to ask this question.
You said Clinton not only used private servers, and deleted work-related e-mails, but also did so “in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” That is a violation of federal records laws, and obstruction of justice, isn’t it?
well it used to be a crime
It still would be for the "little people"
in other cases it certainly was a crime
Despite my Aspergers, I would venture to guess that 2A was asking what is commonly known as a 'rhetorical question'.What did comey say again?
making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,
I know what Dir. Comey said; I posted his remarks from this morning's press conference in the OP. I don't know why, with the OP quoted in your post, you have asked, "What did comey [sic] say again?"
But there is a galactic light years distance between a clumsy nonproffessional amateur politician being too blunt vrs a criminal, lying Politically protected corporate shill who is too incompetent to be entrusted with our nations secrets.Both sides can slam the other's candidate all they want.
The PROBLEM is they're BOTH right.
.
