FBI should bring charges or not bring charges -- trash talking Clinton is inappropriate

[Blackrook]

The FBI's job is to either recommend an indictment or not recommend an indictment. Trash talking the subject of an investigation and then NOT indicting is inappropriate. The FBI director should be FIRED for incompetence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously you and others on the right have no idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are.

 

[Blackrook]

Clayton, if you think it's funny say why, and come up with a coherent legal argument. Otherwise, you just look stupid.

 

[Blackrook]

Obviously you and others on the right have no idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are.

So you think it's appropriate for a law enforcement official to say "This person is NOT GUILTY, but here's all the bad things we think they did, but aren't prepared to prove, and we're going to put it all out there and defame him and open up the government to a lawsuit."

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The FBI's job is to either recommend an indictment or not recommend an indictment. Trash talking the subject of an investigation and then NOT indicting is inappropriate. The FBI director should be FIRED for incompetence.

He should be fired for not recommending indictment.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Obviously you and others on the right have no idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are.

You have no idea what kind of criminal Hillary is. She is guilty as if she boxed up US secrets and delivered them to the doorstep of the Chinese embassy.

 

[Blackrook]

Clayton, let me ask you this: Do you believe the FBI enjoys qualified immunity when they choose NOT to recommend indictment, but then hold a press conference and publish defaming facts about the target of an investigation, that they have decided to close?

Qualified Immunity: How It Protects Law Enforcement Officers

 

[Blackrook]

Let's stick to the topic of the thread, because there's other threads discussing whether or not the FBI should have recommended indictment.

The topic of this thread is this: Does a law enforcement officer enjoy qualified immunity when he gives a press conference, makes statements of fact damaging to the reputation of a target of a criminal investigation, but then announces that charges won't be pursued?

I think not, because that's an abuse of the powers of a law enforcement officer. His job is to bring charges, or not bring charges. If he chooses to bring charges,then he is permitted to explain why, and those statements are protected by qualified immunity. But there is no reason to grant qualified immunity to a law enforcement official to get qualified immunity when he defames the reputation of a person who he has cleared of all wrongdoing.

Forget this is Hillary and think about the question as if this were just a normal, every day citizen.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[RandallFlagg]

Obviously you and others on the right have no idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are.

Obviously, you have no idea what a fucking idiot you are....

 

[Blackrook]

It's about what's fair.

I recall an Alfred Hitchcock movie called "I Confess."

A priest was framed for murder, and prosecuted. The jury returned this verdict "Not guilty, for lack of evidence."

The cop said to another cop, "They should have just said 'Not guilty.'"

Sure enough, the community was outraged and a vigilante mob formed to attack, and possibly kill, the priest when he exited the courthouse.

When law enforcement, a judge, or a jury says "Not guilty" that should be the end of it. No qualifiers added to throw doubt on that conclusion. It's not fair to ruin a person's reputation with anything less than an unqualified "not guilty."

When the FBI director chose to NOT indict, but engage in badmouthing Clinton, he was engaged in vigilante justice. He should be fired for incompetence. If he thought Hillary Clinton was a guilty of a crime, he SHOULD have brought charges. Otherwise, he should say "No indictment recommended," and leave it at that.

 

[candycorn]

In case you missed it in your "I hate liberals" bullet points this morning, the FBI Director addressed why he was making the rec's public during his press conference.

 

[candycorn]

Obviously you and others on the right have no idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are.

Obviously, you have no idea what a fucking idiot you are....

Pot Meet Kettle.

 

[Blackrook]

In case you missed it in your "I hate liberals" bullet points this morning, the FBI Director addressed why he was making the rec's public during his press conference.

How is this a "I hate liberals" thread?

I am bringing up valid legal points.

It is not just for a law enforcement officer to say "He's not a criminal, but here's all the reasons you should hate him any way."

 

[theHawk]

Obviously you and others on the right have no idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are.

So you think it's appropriate for a law enforcement official to say "This person is NOT GUILTY, but here's all the bad things we think they did, but aren't prepared to prove, and we're going to put it all out there and defame him and open up the government to a lawsuit."

He did not say that she is "not guilty", in fact he said that the law was broken, it's just really a matter of being able to prove intent. Them not recommending to press charges, at this time, in no way means they think she or her staff are "not guilty". It clearly was because of politics that they weren't allowed to do their job, and they are upset about it. He basically said that Clinton and her staff were either guilty, or insanely stupid. Apparently liberals are OK with someone that insanely stupid or guilty running for President.

 

[BULLDOG]

You should know better than to bring up a logical point.

 

[theHawk]

Let's stick to the topic of the thread, because there's other threads discussing whether or not the FBI should have recommended indictment.

The topic of this thread is this: Does a law enforcement officer enjoy qualified immunity when he gives a press conference, makes statements of fact damaging to the reputation of a target of a criminal investigation, but then announces that charges won't be pursued?

I think not, because that's an abuse of the powers of a law enforcement officer. His job is to bring charges, or not bring charges. If he chooses to bring charges,then he is permitted to explain why, and those statements are protected by qualified immunity. But there is no reason to grant qualified immunity to a law enforcement official to get qualified immunity when he defames the reputation of a person who he has cleared of all wrongdoing.

Forget this is Hillary and think about the question as if this were just a normal, every day citizen.

An every day citizen would had been charged and convicted long ago. An every day citizen doesn't have an ex-President as a spouse that is allowed to directly meet with the Attorney General.

 

[BULLDOG]

Let's stick to the topic of the thread, because there's other threads discussing whether or not the FBI should have recommended indictment.

The topic of this thread is this: Does a law enforcement officer enjoy qualified immunity when he gives a press conference, makes statements of fact damaging to the reputation of a target of a criminal investigation, but then announces that charges won't be pursued?

I think not, because that's an abuse of the powers of a law enforcement officer. His job is to bring charges, or not bring charges. If he chooses to bring charges,then he is permitted to explain why, and those statements are protected by qualified immunity. But there is no reason to grant qualified immunity to a law enforcement official to get qualified immunity when he defames the reputation of a person who he has cleared of all wrongdoing.

Forget this is Hillary and think about the question as if this were just a normal, every day citizen.

An every day citizen would had been charged and convicted long ago. An every day citizen doesn't have an ex-President as a spouse that is allowed to directly meet with the Attorney General.

Just how big is the conspiracy you are talking about? How many people do you think are involved in breaking the law to help Hillary? Why don't you come forward with any proof you have of such a massive conspiracy?

 

[Vigilante]

A different prospective...well thought out!

• Allen West explains why he 'can't thank' FBI 'enough' for not recommending charges against Clinton
  Business Insider via AOL ^ | July 6, 2016 | Oliver Darcy
  Former Florida Congressman Allen West wrote in a blog post Wednesday that he was "delighted" the FBI will not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system as secretary of state. "I can't thank Director [James] Comey enough for coming to this decision," West wrote. The conservative firebrand said he "always" had "concern" President Barack Obama would "release the hounds" on Clinton in an effort to replace her as the presumptive Democratic nominee with Vice President Joe Biden. Biden, West contended, would have been far more difficult for Donald Trump to defeat in November. "That...

 

[Blackrook]

Obviously you and others on the right have no idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are.

So you think it's appropriate for a law enforcement official to say "This person is NOT GUILTY, but here's all the bad things we think they did, but aren't prepared to prove, and we're going to put it all out there and defame him and open up the government to a lawsuit."

He did not say that she is "not guilty", in fact he said that the law was broken, it's just really a matter of being able to prove intent. Them not recommending to press charges, at this time, in no way means they think she or her staff are "not guilty". It clearly was because of politics that they weren't allowed to do their job, and they are upset about it. He basically said that Clinton and her staff were either guilty, or insanely stupid. Apparently liberals are OK with someone that insanely stupid or guilty running for President.

He was trying to have his cake and eat it too, which was NOT prosecute, but say she's guilty anyway.

He's either corrupt, incompetent, or both, and he SHOULD BE FIRED.