FBI recommends no charges against Mrs Clinton: let the accusations begin. Will this help or hurt HRC?

[maxparrish]

What is interesting is that Director Comey seems to be making a point of separating general State Department email correspondence and the 110 alleged classified emails. It sounds like there was nothing whatsoever wrong with having the private server, only that it should not be used for classified information (which then goes back to the exact nature and knowledge of those 110 emails).

Also per FBI Director Comey, HRC did not break any laws. He was very clear that he was not stating 'difficult to prosecute' but that she did not break any laws.

First, I did not hear or read any quote of Comey asserting that Ms. Clinton did not break any laws; I heard him say that there was insufficiently clear evidence that she intended to violate criminal laws (which he says is required for 'gross negligence' prosecution), and that a prosecutor will require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Insufficient evidence does not mean she didn't break criminal law, just that (he says) you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, it also seems she did violate administrative law-rules (e.g. the requirement to use an approved server/system) which, as he alluded to, carries employment penalties.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nothing. The "follow up" isn't actually any kind of follow up. It's more political gamesmanship.

This is an inquiry by the State Department, under Tony "Abe" Blinken, not an investigation called by congressional opposition.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/7/12...email-investigation-state-department-reopened

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/236057.htm

Well, the only person who can revoke that clearance is Obama and he gives even less of a crap about this bullshit than Clinton does. There'll be a few weeks of noise but then all anyone will really remember is that she wasn't charged with anything.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What is interesting is that Director Comey seems to be making a point of separating general State Department email correspondence and the 110 alleged classified emails. It sounds like there was nothing whatsoever wrong with having the private server, only that it should not be used for classified information (which then goes back to the exact nature and knowledge of those 110 emails).

Also per FBI Director Comey, HRC did not break any laws. He was very clear that he was not stating 'difficult to prosecute' but that she did not break any laws.

First, I did not hear or read any quote of Comey asserting that Ms. Clinton did not break any laws; I heard him say that there was insufficiently clear evidence that she intended to violate criminal laws (which he says is required for 'gross negligence' prosecution), and that a prosecutor will require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Insufficient evidence does not mean she didn't break criminal law, just that (he says) you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, it also seems she did violate administrative law-rules (e.g. the requirement to use an approved server/system) which, as he alluded to, carries employment penalties.

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

First, I did not hear or read any quote of Comey asserting that Ms. Clinton did not break any laws; I heard him say that there was insufficiently clear evidence that she intended to violate criminal laws (which he says is required for 'gross negligence' prosecution), and that a prosecutor will require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Insufficient evidence does not mean she didn't break criminal law, just that (he says) you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, it also seems she did violate administrative law-rules (e.g. the requirement to use an approved server/system) which, as he alluded to, carries employment penalties.

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

There are plenty of laws that do not require intent: manslaughter, culpable negligence in Florida (that I thought Zimmerman should be charged with), and reckless endangerment to name 3. Negligence itself doesn't sound like it requires intent but rather recklessness and gross negligence sounds like it might require deliberate recklessness, not deliberate outcome. Note the difference.

 

[maxparrish]

First, I did not hear or read any quote of Comey asserting that Ms. Clinton did not break any laws; I heard him say that there was insufficiently clear evidence that she intended to violate criminal laws (which he says is required for 'gross negligence' prosecution), and that a prosecutor will require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Insufficient evidence does not mean she didn't break criminal law, just that (he says) you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, it also seems she did violate administrative law-rules (e.g. the requirement to use an approved server/system) which, as he alluded to, carries employment penalties.

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

Wrong. If I think there is insufficient clear evidence of intentionality in order to convict her, it does not mean I must believe she didn't break the law. I may very well believe that she likely or possibly broke the law, but also believe I just don't have the evidence necessary to convict.

See the diff, Tonto?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

Wrong. If I think there is insufficient clear evidence of intentionality in order to convict her, it does not mean I must believe she didn't break the law. I may very well believe that she likely or possibly broke the law, but also believe I just don't have the evidence necessary to convict.

See the diff, Tonto?

That was racist.

 

[maxparrish]

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

There are plenty of laws that do not require intent: manslaughter, culpable negligence in Florida (that I thought Zimmerman should be charged with), and reckless endangerment to name 3. Negligence itself doesn't sound like it requires intent but rather recklessness and gross negligence sounds like it might require deliberate recklessness, not deliberate outcome. Note the difference.

Excellent point. The question of the need for "intent", and "intent of what", is being robustly debated in the opinion class. I think a strong case can be made for deliberate negligence or indifference, but it is difficult to prove she intended that to result in her housing and transmitting classified information.

Hillary was unaware of the Top Secret SAP material or the other classified information she was discussing ...

 

[maxparrish]

Wrong. If I think there is insufficient clear evidence of intentionality in order to convict her, it does not mean I must believe she didn't break the law. I may very well believe that she likely or possibly broke the law, but also believe I just don't have the evidence necessary to convict.

See the diff, Tonto?

That was racist.

Ummm...perhaps you missed that he riffed me as "kemosabe", which is a quote of Tonto to the Lone Ranger. I replied in the same spirit (i.e. role play).

 

[Harry Bosch]

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

Wrong. If I think there is insufficient clear evidence of intentionality in order to convict her, it does not mean I must believe she didn't break the law. I may very well believe that she likely or possibly broke the law, but also believe I just don't have the evidence necessary to convict.

See the diff, Tonto?

Please demonstrate why I should follow your interpretation of the law rather than the Bush appointed attorney with a law degree James Comey.

- - - Updated - - -

That was racist.

Ummm...perhaps you missed that he riffed me as "kemosabe", which is a quote of Tonto to the Lone Ranger. I replied in the same spirit.

Yea, I'll give you a mulligan as I'm a scalp hunter!

 

[RavenSky]

This is an inquiry by the State Department, under Tony "Abe" Blinken, not an investigation called by congressional opposition.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/7/12...email-investigation-state-department-reopened

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/236057.htm

Well, the only person who can revoke that clearance is Obama and he gives even less of a crap about this bullshit than Clinton does. There'll be a few weeks of noise but then all anyone will really remember is that she wasn't charged with anything.

You are so optimistic

You forget that they dragged out Whitewater >>> Lewinsky for more than 8 years

 

[Harry Bosch]

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

There are plenty of laws that do not require intent: manslaughter, culpable negligence in Florida (that I thought Zimmerman should be charged with), and reckless endangerment to name 3. Negligence itself doesn't sound like it requires intent but rather recklessness and gross negligence sounds like it might require deliberate recklessness, not deliberate outcome. Note the difference.

According to Comey, intent was required. Secondly, according to Comey, "gross negligence" has never been used to convict a person of violating secrecy laws. If Comey is wrong, should be easy to provide evidence.

 

[RavenSky]

Uhh, negative kemosabe! To violate the requires that HRC deliberately lied about classified material. You can't convict unless it's deliberate.

There are plenty of laws that do not require intent: manslaughter, culpable negligence in Florida (that I thought Zimmerman should be charged with), and reckless endangerment to name 3. Negligence itself doesn't sound like it requires intent but rather recklessness and gross negligence sounds like it might require deliberate recklessness, not deliberate outcome. Note the difference.

Doesn't really matter what any of us armchair prosecutors (or any of the Republicans in congress) think... the FBI Director said that, per their findings, she did not break any laws and that this is why he did not recommend prosecution. He made it excruciatingly clear that he was NOT simply saying "not enough evidence to convict"; but rather not enough evidence of any laws being broken. He specifically stated that this would be his finding whether it was her or some lowly FBI employee or anyone else.

I know that won't satisfy you or plenty of others, but that is what he (the Bush appointee) said

 

[Ford]

There are plenty of laws that do not require intent: manslaughter, culpable negligence in Florida (that I thought Zimmerman should be charged with), and reckless endangerment to name 3. Negligence itself doesn't sound like it requires intent but rather recklessness and gross negligence sounds like it might require deliberate recklessness, not deliberate outcome. Note the difference.

According to Comey, intent was required. Secondly, according to Comey, "gross negligence" has never been used to convict a person of violating secrecy laws. If Comey is wrong, should be easy to provide evidence.

Ah, yes, but remember that Comey is a liberal plant, plucked out of academia by the ultra-liberal Obama administration to push their Social Justice Warrior agenda on the American people!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the only person who can revoke that clearance is Obama and he gives even less of a crap about this bullshit than Clinton does. There'll be a few weeks of noise but then all anyone will really remember is that she wasn't charged with anything.

You are so optimistic

You forget that they dragged out Whitewater >>> Lewinsky for more than 8 years

Yes, they're going to drag it out. My point is that dragging it out won't work.

 

[RavenSky]

According to Comey, intent was required. Secondly, according to Comey, "gross negligence" has never been used to convict a person of violating secrecy laws. If Comey is wrong, should be easy to provide evidence.

Ah, yes, but remember that Comey is a liberal plant, plucked out of academia by the ultra-liberal Obama administration to push their Social Justice Warrior agenda on the American people!

Was he a liberal plant before or after he was GW Bush's choice for United States Deputy Attorney General

- - - Updated - - -

You are so optimistic

You forget that they dragged out Whitewater >>> Lewinsky for more than 8 years

Yes, they're going to drag it out. My point is that dragging it out won't work.

It might succeed in driving me to throw my laptop through the television though

- - - Updated - - -

You are so optimistic

You forget that they dragged out Whitewater >>> Lewinsky for more than 8 years

Yes, they're going to drag it out. My point is that dragging it out won't work.

It might succeed in driving me to throw my laptop through the television though

 

[Harry Bosch]

According to Comey, intent was required. Secondly, according to Comey, "gross negligence" has never been used to convict a person of violating secrecy laws. If Comey is wrong, should be easy to provide evidence.

Ah, yes, but remember that Comey is a liberal plant, plucked out of academia by the ultra-liberal Obama administration to push their Social Justice Warrior agenda on the American people!

It's more complicated than that buddy! We conspired to vote for Nader, which allowed Bush to be elected, who appointed Comey.

 

[Deepak]

This is an inquiry by the State Department, under Tony "Abe" Blinken, not an investigation called by congressional opposition.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/7/12...email-investigation-state-department-reopened

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/236057.htm

Well, the only person who can revoke that clearance is Obama and he gives even less of a crap about this bullshit than Clinton does. There'll be a few weeks of noise but then all anyone will really remember is that she wasn't charged with anything.

The State Department, though a division of the Executive, is generally capable of handling this sort of stuff on a daily basis without Obama's intervention. In fact it would be inordinate for the pres to intervene in these sorts of matters which are handled by careerists in much the same way that Lynch would have respected the decision of the careerists under her. Since it's not a criminal investigation I don't even think a Presidential pardon would be effective.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the only person who can revoke that clearance is Obama and he gives even less of a crap about this bullshit than Clinton does. There'll be a few weeks of noise but then all anyone will really remember is that she wasn't charged with anything.

The State Department, though a division of the Executive, is generally capable of handling this sort of stuff on a daily basis without Obama's intervention. In fact it would be inordinate for the pres to intervene in these sorts of matters which are handled by careerists in much the same way that Lynch would have respected the decision of the careerists under her. Since it's not a criminal investigation I don't even think a Presidential pardon would be effective.

That has nothing to do with her security clearance, though. That can be revoked by Obama and only Obama and he's not going to do it over this garbage.

 

[Will Wiley]

Another view of things
The FBI, Credibility, and Government

This gets me to FBI Director James Comey’s decision to drop the case against Hillary Clinton for her e-mail security lapses. To the great puzzlement of everyone in America, and around the world, Comey announced two things:

1. Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence.

2. The FBI recommends dropping the case.

From a legal standpoint, that’s absurd. And that’s how the media seems to be reacting. The folks who support Clinton are sheepishly relieved and keeping their heads down. But the anti-Clinton people think the government is totally broken and the system is rigged. That’s an enormous credibility problem.

But what was the alternative?

The alternative was the head of the FBI deciding for the people of the United States who would be their next president. A criminal indictment against Clinton probably would have cost her the election.

How credible would a future President Trump be if he won the election by the FBI’s actions instead of the vote of the public? That would be the worst case scenario even if you are a Trump supporter. The public would never accept the result as credible.

That was the choice for FBI Director Comey. He could either do his job by the letter of the law – and personally determine who would be the next president – or he could take a bullet in the chest for the good of the American public.

He took the bullet.

Thanks to Comey, the American voting public will get to decide how much they care about Clinton’s e-mail situation. And that means whoever gets elected president will have enough credibility to govern effectively.

Comey might have saved the country. He sacrificed his reputation and his career to keep the nation’s government credible.

It was the right decision.

Comey is a hero.

Personally I think even if or when Hillary is elected she will always have a credibility problem. I also don't think anyone as old as her will be able to change her ways. It will be more of the same. It's very difficult to just change that late in life

 

[Derec]

The alternative was the head of the FBI deciding for the people of the United States who would be their next president. A criminal indictment against Clinton probably would have cost her the election.

The Democrats do not have to nominate her if indicted. Thus, it would have cost her the election, but not the Democratic Party.