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

[Tristan Scott]

According to Comey the emails that contained classified information were not marked as such in the header, and that paragraphs in the body of the email would begin with a (c) if that particular paragraph contained confidential information. Comey said his impression was that Clinton was not aware of that.

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.

By the book thrown at them, I assume you mean jail? I don't think so. I challenged posters earlier and they found one case of an officer in the military who got probation for moving secret material to his home computer-but that was a military court. If she were still in state they may do in house discipline, in fact that may still happen to anyone involved who is still at state.

Look, I know you and all the republicans are really upset that they didn't prosecute her, but the fact is she didn't do any fucking thing to get prosecuted for, so deal with it. Quit throwing tantrums. Grow up and move on.

- - - Updated - - -

Dear Mods:
Please consider creating an "I hate Clinton" subfora where all irrational Clinton bashing can be stored. Thank you.

Actually, they should get their own sub-section so the rest of us don't even have to deal with their insipid whining.

 

[Harry Bosch]

According to Comey the emails that contained classified information were not marked as such in the header, and that paragraphs in the body of the email would begin with a (c) if that particular paragraph contained confidential information. Comey said his impression was that Clinton was not aware of that.

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.

You are incorrect. As has been pointed out numerous times, you are in legal trouble if you intentionally mishandle classified material or if you exhibit "gross incompetence". According to Comey, no person has ever been arrested for gross incompetence in the handling of classified material. But you are free to find an example.......... If you can.

- - - Updated - - -

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.

a) Then she and/or her staff sent (and stored) 110 emails containing classified material "unintentionally" (including 8 emails with top secret SAP material).
b) Then she and/or her staff "unintentionally" forgot that they were retaining thousands of emails that were likely to be upgraded to classified.
c) And her lawyer, later, "unintentionally" covered her tracks by erasing all other data (thousands of which we now know was work related), by accident.

Comedy tonight!

Yes, 110 e-mails out of more than 30,000.

 

[RavenSky]

According to Comey the emails that contained classified information were not marked as such in the header, and that paragraphs in the body of the email would begin with a (c) if that particular paragraph contained confidential information. Comey said his impression was that Clinton was not aware of that.

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.

Nope. Per Comey's further statement, the emails should not have even contained the little (c)'s, so HRC did not send classified material at all.

So she did not get special treatment... unless by "special treatment" you really mean a fucking 20-something year long harassment campaign against her

 

[Will Wiley]

Look, I know you and all the republicans are really upset that they didn't prosecute her,

Well I'm not a Republican, but nice attempt to poison the well. (Bernie Sanders is my preferred option)

but the fact is she didn't do any fucking thing to get prosecuted for,

You don't know what she did. How would you know? Do you know what was in the thousands of emails she deleted?

so deal with it. Quit throwing tantrums.

You are the one throwing tantrums.

Grow up and move on.

These issues are not going away and they are worth discussing.
She is on the brink of becoming one of the most powerful people in the world, in charge of armed forces that have bombed and invaded more than a few countries in recent years, and killed too many innocent civilians to count.

Hillary Clinton has shown she is not the right kind of person for that kind of job.

I would not be so sure it is going away. Wikileaks are due to release some emails, and apparently are releasing "insurance files". Apparently the last time they did that was before the Bradley Manning release.

Plus Guccifer said he got into Hillary Clinton's home server and there have been persistent rumours going around that the Russians did too.
Even if not released they could be used to blackmail or apply some kind of pressure.
She really fucked up, seemingly because she thinks she is above the law.

 

[Will Wiley]

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.

Nope. Per Comey's further statement, the emails should not have even contained the little (c)'s, so HRC did not send classified material at all.

Really?...care to link to a source showing all the emails that contained a little (c) were marked that way in error? Hillary Clinton herself said that not all of them were marked in error only some of them.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkNIHKHzlrY[/YOUTUBE]At the 5 minute mark

 

[Will Wiley]

On a lighter note



Hillary Clinton: I sent personal emails to my husband. Bill: I don't use email


Facts around Hillary's 30,000+ deleted 'personal' emails, and why the the intent to coverup might be worse than the crime.

 

[Will Wiley]

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.

You are incorrect. As has been pointed out numerous times, you are in legal trouble if you intentionally mishandle classified material or if you exhibit "gross incompetence". According to Comey, no person has ever been arrested for gross incompetence in the handling of classified material. But you are free to find an example.......... If you can.

.

Think about the precedent. The precedent now will be that someone can be "grossly incompetent" handling classified material, and all they get is a stern talking to. There is no punishment or loss of privileges. In fact the person goes on to an even more responsible role.
All because technically they didn't do exactly precisely what other people did.

You are destroying the fabric of the security protocols that have been put in place to protect classified information...for what? To protect a corrupt politician who has enriched themselves and cheered on the slaughter of innocent people all around the globe.
It's sick!

 

[Keith&Co.]

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

Yeah, happens all the time.

I'm a safe custodian. I left my safe unlocked one day. I did everything but spin the dial. Security found it open, i got called in. The first time, an official reprimand was put in my record. If it happened a second time, i'd be fined. A third time i might be fired.

On the other hand, a coworker has a job where he forwards important status of the Fleet through the organization. The Navy generates it, forwards it to contractors. My friend forwards it to other workers in our company. Several times, the command who generated the message has decided post-transmission that the accumulation of data in the message should have been classified. Everyone who got the message has the inconvenience of having their computers wiped. Any printer that printed the message gets to print a blank page a certain number of times (depending on the model). And we all have to work without our computers for a day while IT plays catch-up with the post-script classification upgrade.
No one gets any jail time. We just get a new officer at SP sending out the status messages while the violator gets yelled at.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Think about the precedent. The precedent now will be that someone can be "grossly incompetent" handling classified material, and all they get is a stern talking to.

But that's only a 'precedent' if other people went to jail for 'gross incompetence.'
Do you have an example of that?

 

[Will Wiley]

Think about the precedent. The precedent now will be that someone can be "grossly incompetent" handling classified material, and all they get is a stern talking to.

But that's only a 'precedent' if other people went to jail for 'gross incompetence.'
Do you have an example of that?

Edited as the reply was veing done: I didn't mention jail. I did mention having the book thrown at her, so I can see why you thought that, but I mean some kind of punishment at least

 

[Keith&Co.]

But that's only a 'precedent' if other people went to jail for 'gross incompetence.'
Do you have an example of that?

Why are you mentioning going to jail? I didn't mention jail

Fine, word games.

Okay. All kinds of people get arrested and then spend court time proving they shouldn't have been arrested.

So. As a 'precedent,' being arrested isn't really an issue. Just embarrassing. Especially if they can turn around and sue for false arrest.

Being convicted is an issue.

Has anyone been convicted (and the associated punishment, whatever that may be, applied) for gross incompetence?

 

[Will Wiley]

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

Yeah, happens all the time.

I'm a safe custodian. I left my safe unlocked one day. I did everything but spin the dial. .

I really don't think you can think a momentary lapse like yours is anywhere near as bad as all the things Clinton did over such an etended period of time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, happens all the time.

I'm a safe custodian. I left my safe unlocked one day. I did everything but spin the dial. .

I really don't think you can think a momentary lapse like yours is anywhere near as bad as all the things Clinton did over such an etended period of time.

Okay.
My point was that the first time i came under scrutiny by security, i did not get convicted of a security violation.

Now, do you have any examples of people being convicted of accidental lapses? Can you show that the way they're treating Clinton is setting a precedent?

 

[Harry Bosch]

You are incorrect. As has been pointed out numerous times, you are in legal trouble if you intentionally mishandle classified material or if you exhibit "gross incompetence". According to Comey, no person has ever been arrested for gross incompetence in the handling of classified material. But you are free to find an example.......... If you can.

.

Think about the precedent. The precedent now will be that someone can be "grossly incompetent" handling classified material, and all they get is a stern talking to. There is no punishment or loss of privileges. In fact the person goes on to an even more responsible role.
All because technically they didn't do exactly precisely what other people did.

You are destroying the fabric of the security protocols that have been put in place to protect classified information...for what? To protect a corrupt politician who has enriched themselves and cheered on the slaughter of innocent people all around the globe.
It's sick!

So you think that Comey, a republican appointed Director, should now establish precedent by indicating the nominee of the other party, months before the election? Surely it would be less disruptive to find at least one precedent in our history?

 

[RavenSky]

Nope. Per Comey's further statement, the emails should not have even contained the little (c)'s, so HRC did not send classified material at all.

Really?...care to link to a source showing all the emails that contained a little (c) were marked that way in error?

Ziprhead already did... so did I... twice... in two different threads. Not doing it again.

There were only 3 alleged emails in question regarding these markings. Two have already been acknowledged by Comey as errors - i.e. they did not contain classified information and should not have contained portion markings indicating they did, and in any case failed to have the appropriate header markings.

The third email may have never existed. Comey said "three". His people later said "two"

 

[Artemus]

Think about the precedent. The precedent now will be that someone can be "grossly incompetent" handling classified material, and all they get is a stern talking to. There is no punishment or loss of privileges. In fact the person goes on to an even more responsible role.
All because technically they didn't do exactly precisely what other people did.

You are destroying the fabric of the security protocols that have been put in place to protect classified information...for what? To protect a corrupt politician who has enriched themselves and cheered on the slaughter of innocent people all around the globe.
It's sick!

So you think that Comey, a republican appointed Director, should now establish precedent by indicating the nominee of the other party, months before the election? Surely it would be less disruptive to find at least one precedent in our history?

Actually, Comey was appointed FBI director by Obama (  James_Comey#FBI_Director). He was assistant US attorney general under W. Bush. He is about as non-partisan as they come.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually, Comey was appointed FBI director by Obama (  James_Comey#FBI_Director). He was assistant US attorney general under W. Bush. He is about as non-partisan as they come.

So why does he confuse not using two devices at once with one device over time? Why doe he say not true when he also says she was ineffective with internet, probably also a bit hazy on security when doing government business, as apposed to her comments on personal posts where I'm pretty sure she never sent anything classified?

Turds are everywhere in the political season.

 

[Artemus]

Actually, Comey was appointed FBI director by Obama (  James_Comey#FBI_Director). He was assistant US attorney general under W. Bush. He is about as non-partisan as they come.

So why does he confuse not using two devices at once with one device over time? Why doe he say not true when he also says she was ineffective with internet, probably also a bit hazy on security when doing government business, as apposed to her comments on personal posts where I'm pretty sure she never sent anything classified?

Turds are everywhere in the political season.

You'll have to ask him that directly. Non-partisan does not mean "immune to mistakes" (assuming that he was indeed mistaken on some details).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nobody is actually surprised that she lied, or that she broke the law, or that she got away with it. She's Hillary.

The Clinton Contamination

In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.

It’s quaint, looking back at her appointment as secretary of state, how Obama tried to get Hillary without the shadiness. (Which is what we all want, of course.)

The president and his aides attempted to keep a rein on Clinton’s State Department — refusing to let her bring in her hit man, Sidney Blumenthal.

But in the end, Hillary’s goo got on Obama anyhow. On Tuesday, after Comey managed to make both Democrats and Republicans angry by indicting Clinton politically but not legally, Barry and Hillary flew to Charlotte, N.C., for their first joint campaign appearance.

Obama was left in the awkward position of vouching for Hillary’s “steady judgment” to run an angry, violent, jittery nation on the very day that his F.B.I. director lambasted her errant judgment on circumventing the State Department email system, making it clear that she had been lying to the American public for the last 16 months.

Hillary Clinton Never Changes and Always Skates - The Democratic nominee's problems with personal honesty are a feature of her personality, not a bug.

When FBI Director James Comey publicly revealed his recommendation to the Department of Justice last week that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted for espionage, he unleashed a firestorm of criticism from those who believe that Clinton was judged by different standards from those used to judge others when deciding whether to bring a case to a grand jury.

The FBI investigation had a bizarre ending to it. FBI recommendations are never made public as this one was. Attorney General Loretta Lynch had been compromised by her politically disastrous but legally consequential meeting out of the view of the media with Bill Clinton just one week before Comey's announcement. Whatever they discussed, the overwhelming public impression was such that Lynch removed herself and her senior aides from the case, effectively leaving the FBI to have the final say. This is unheard of in the post-Hoover FBI.

The Comey announcement itself gave two reasons for recommending against indictment. One was that "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the case. That is not a judgment the FBI gets paid to make. The FBI's job is to gather, present, and evaluate facts and evidence, not predict what prosecutors might do with it. The other stated reason for recommending against indictment was that though Clinton may have been "extremely careless" in handling state secrets, she was not "grossly negligent," which is the standard required by the espionage statute.

Yet Comey also acknowledged that Clinton sent state secrets to nongovernmental colleagues who lacked national security clearances, that those people were hacked by hostile intelligence services, and that she used her numerous non-secure mobile devices recklessly while inside the territorial borders of those hostile governments. If all that is somehow extremely careless but not grossly negligent, then many who have done far less than Clinton — and have been prosecuted and convicted — were wrongly prosecuted.

Since Comey's announcement last week, several new factors have come to light. One is that the DOJ never presented any evidence to a grand jury. It never sought subpoenas from a grand jury. This is unheard of in major criminal investigations because the FBI alone has no subpoena power and needs a grand jury to issue subpoenas for it.

And when the truth is revealed, the public sighed with resignation instead of disgust.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody is actually surprised that she lied, or that she broke the law, or that she got away with it. She's Hillary.

Or nobody is surprised that yet another GOP witch hunt failed to find anything substantial.