FBI won't apply the law to Hillary

[A Perez]

Intent is only required when the law requires specific intent. These laws did not. Clinton acted with gross negligence and reckless disregard. Comey gave an excellent analysis of hill's wrongdoing. Then said that no prosecutor would ask for an indictment. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of her innocence. It was enough for the NY Post to claim that the fix is in. Which is something we knew all along.

Those who thought that Comey really said there was no wrongdoing are wrong. They can read the transcript. This is the kind of thing that will percolate for a couple of months before the full effect will be felt.

Not all wrongdoing is a crime.

 

[yiostheoy]

All these far right wing fringer's are going to cry about this for the next 4 and 1/2 years I am guessing.

 

[Clementine]

she can't claim "no intent" she was advised to stop

She was advised to stop what exactly?

Initially, she was told she could not conduct official business on a personal server, but she did it anyway.

There were security concerns and she was told she needed to use a secure email and phone. The server was hacked several times. It never occurred to the dumb bitch that national security is something that she should seriously focus on instead of putting her own convenience first.

Is she so dimwitted that someone has to spell it out for her? When you have an insecure server that keeps getting hacked, maybe it's not a good idea to keep using it for classified and top secret emails, considering what is at stake. Anyone who even needs to be advised that it's a stupid idea should not be allowed to use matches, let alone be president.

 

[Slyhunter]

All these far right wing fringer's are going to cry about this for the next 4 and 1/2 years I am guessing.

Only until November once Trump gets Elected and come January he'll have his AG prosecute her.

 

[CowboyTed]

she broke the law.

she can't make the claim she had no intent because the State Department told her to stop

the FBI refuses to prosecute her.

people have been jailed for far less.

it's up to the public now.

I think you forgot to post your Law Degree there... I think the FBI know the law...

 

[CowboyTed]

Why did the Law was applied to Petraeus and not to the Witch Clinton?

WHY ???????????


Are there two laws in America?????


Are there????

Patreaus admitted he knew he was breaking the law. The 411 he gave his mistress was for a book she was writing.

Clinton didn't gain anything from her careless use of her e-mails.

There were not two different "laws". There were two different situations.

I really dislike the Clintons but just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you have to convict them unless they actually commit a crime. You WANTING her to be convicted is hardly proof she broke the law.

I think it would have been a hoot if the FBI had found something they felt they could prosecute her on. Wouldn't THAT have been an astonishing development?

Here is a plan you can exercise to get back at Hillary: Work your ass off to see trump gets elected. It's really that simple. Stop whining and frigging get busy. She can be beaten. But it won't be with sour grapes. It will be by convincing the majority of American voters that Trump can be trusted. He has said and still says some pretty crazy shit. That works for some people but not the majority. Trump needs to get off his wack job soap box and start acting presidential. He still has time IMHO but he had better do it quick. He needs to be told to think first and speak afterwards. Apparently nobody in his camp has the guts to tell him the truth about winning people over that don't want to hear his bluster.

Do you really want a president who needs to be told to think first and speak afterwards?

It is kind of important that he learnt that in the previous 70 years of his life...

 

[Meathead]

Do you really want a president who needs to be told to think first and speak afterwards?

It is kind of important that he learnt that in the previous 70 years of his life...

How about one that doesn't recklessly (oops, extremely carelessly - sorry) compromise national security?

 

[Skull Pilot]

she broke the law.

she can't make the claim she had no intent because the State Department told her to stop

the FBI refuses to prosecute her.

people have been jailed for far less.

it's up to the public now.

why does this surprise any of you

the fix was in from day one like it is with all politicians

 

[JQPublic1]

she broke the law.

she can't make the claim she had no intent because the State Department told her to stop

the FBI refuses to prosecute her.

people have been jailed for far less.

it's up to the public now.

The FBI is not in the business of prosecuting anyone..

Your short but succinct statement went right over the heads of the RW peanut gallery. Indeed, the FBI is supposed to investigate and make a report of findings to the US Attorney General. The FBI responsibility ends there. The decision to prosecute was incumbent upon Loretta Lynch but Bill Clinton made that impractical with his impromptu "meeting" with Lynch. So we have the bizarre scene where the FBI director appears to be acting as a surrogate for the US prosecutor in announcing there will be no charges. Unbelievable and highly improper.

 

[owebo]

FBI Director James Comey seems to disagree with you.

There was no evil intent by Hillary.

There was no self enrichment.

That the one server of several she turned over shows.....

Good thing is Trump can complete the job......

 

[LeftofLeft]

FBI Director James Comey seems to disagree with you.

There was no evil intent by Hillary.

There was no self enrichment.

Just say, "I didn't mean to". You Liberals just proved that negligence is ok. It's going to bite you in the ass.

 

[The Professor]

Intent is only required when the law requires specific intent. These laws did not. Clinton acted with gross negligence and reckless disregard. Comey gave an excellent analysis of hill's wrongdoing. Then said that no prosecutor would ask for an indictment. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of her innocence. It was enough for the NY Post to claim that the fix is in. Which is something we knew all along.

Those who thought that Comey really said there was no wrongdoing are wrong. They can read the transcript. This is the kind of thing that will percolate for a couple of months before the full effect will be felt.

Not all wrongdoing is a crime.

Irrelevant.

What Clinton did was a crime.

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[Clementine]

All these far right wing fringer's are going to cry about this for the next 4 and 1/2 years I am guessing.

Only until November once Trump gets Elected and come January he'll have his AG prosecute her.

The FBI has a good case against Hillary, in fact, one that is better than most. It was clear that she lied regarding the types of communications. She broke the law by not turning over the emails. She broke the law by destroying government emails. She did everything she stood accused of and people have been prosecuted for much less. The FBI basically said she was guilty and laid out the reasons why, which were many.

The only difference in this case is Lynch having the final say, which we all knew would be in Hillary's favor. That meant changing the rules just for Hillary.

In order to drop the case, it was necessary to add a new provision that had never been previously used. Amazingly, they dropped the case because there was no evidence of intent to harm. That never has been necessary for prosecutors to prove and never should be. No one can read minds and any rational person who knowingly and deliberately breaks laws either thinks they are above the law or aren't capable of understanding the dangers of such irresponsible behavior. Either way, she has proven that she is not worthy of our trust.

Many military efforts failed because of leaks. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed because terrorists found out where he and his staff were hiding. There is a good chance it was Hillary's personal server that provided the needed information to the terrorists.

Hillary, who the left thinks is a very smart woman, had to know the potential consequences of playing fast and loose with classified and top secret material. If not, then she should probably be in a retirement home where the important decisions can be made for her and someone can help her sign on to the internet since she is easily confused by modern technology, such as using the State Dept. secure server. The last thing on earth we should do is put her in a position where we will have to trust her even more than we do now. I wouldn't trust her with the key to my garden shed, let alone our nation's security.