FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

originally posted by: Nikola014
POST REMOVED BY STAFF.

Perhaps you should be grateful that this situation was handled just like previous cases have been. No special treatment for a politician.

Just because you don't like the decision does not mean it was not just.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: IAMTAT

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information

They have evidence that she broke the law. So, what the heck?

Comey KNEW DOJ fix was in and if he recommended indictment...nothing would happen.

I disagree. Comey's statements are very much in-line with how previous cases have been handled, in regards to handling of sensitive material.

Don't you think he knew that before he spent all that time, effort, and money on the Investigation??

Yes, but he still needed to find the facts.

His facts boiled down to: No one else has ever had to deal with this much pressure in a case even remotely similar to this one.

Sure. Spies have gone to jail.

Hillary's an egomaniac ... and a stoopit one at that.

That's your opinion. I'll stick to the facts.

a reply to: butcherguy

She's always had my vote. And my support. I've stood firmly behind her.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: BlueAjah
He completely neglects to mention that she did willfully use an insecure system, knowing it was insecure, and being told it was insecure.

How much more intent does he need?

It's all very strange, don't you think. He talks about all the negligence, the SAP material she was well aware of, the use of servers that were inadequately secured which Hillary had to have known, and then says they could not prove intent.

Put simply...if "carelessness" was the standard for prosecution here vs. "intent"...then thousands of people in DC across agencies and both houses would be prosecuted. Virtually no member of Congress sitting on any committee privy to classified information would survive similar scrutiny without prosecution if "carelessness" was the standard.

The good news is that this was a wake-up call for government at large..Was she "careless" with information? Sure...ditto thousands of other folks working in government that didn't have a 20 Million dollar microscope applied to them.

Just my opinion

a reply to: IAMTAT

Thank you for sharing, I wasn't able to access it, but was able to retrieve my quotes from you.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

Can someone please explain to me how Comey reached a decision not to indict based on his own quoted words above regarding their investigation? 

Edit add: or even more so with his following statement?

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. 

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). 

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. 

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

the FBI found evidence that she violated both of those statutes and yet a reasonable prosecutor wouldn`t be able to get a conviction? maybe that particular prosecutor should find a new line of work, I hear Walmart is hiring greeters.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Just curious how supportive you'd be with a president Trump.

I wouldn't be happy, but I'd put America first. I certainly wouldn't act like how Obama's detractors or Hillary detractors have acted.

When Bush Jr. was POTUS I certainly didn't participate in the childish, immature rantings I've been seeing from the Trump fans and anti-Obama people the past 8 years. The man can't even eat a bag of chips without being told he's ruining the country with is chip-of-choice.

I sure as hell never acted like that when I detested Bush Jr. I made the best of it and was critical on intelligent issues, and even then didn't make low-brow personal attacks on idiotic, nonsensical issues.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: kaylaluv

Tell that to Petraeus.

Who knowingly and WITH INTENT passed State secrets to a private party.

Can you folks REALLY NOT see the glaring difference there?

a reply to: introvert

That was the key remark I got out of his announcement. They could not find intentional and willful mishandling despite doing what she did.

"She should have known," but that does not imply wrong intent.

This woman did not just fall off of a turnip truck but she is being pardoned by the FBI for serious and repeated errors in judgement as Secretary of State and the recommendation to the DOJ is to not prosecute.

OK, Director Comey, I've got it.

a reply to: BlueAjah

No I didn't notice he looked angry. I think you're projecting.

a reply to: introvert

If you as an American, don't have any problem with your potus candidate leaking classified information, then why should I care?

She should at least be fired from her position. She's un capable of conducting such a delicate work, and how on earth can you trust that woman?

a reply to: BlueAjah

This decision was made way before that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't know of a single legal statute written that says anything about the intent of the law breaker.

a reply to: Excallibacca

Not similar in actions. His intent to pass on classified info to someone not qualified to receive it was willful. He did it intentionally and purposefully.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

I agree.

Referencing the U.S. Code Section 793: "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" subsection (f), intent in this case is not required for prosecution:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Clinton is an elite, she will be protected as such. Can't say I was holding my breath on this one. It's pretty clear how this world works.

And yes, if anything she should be banned from the election. Intent or not, this is a fail of epic proportions. Leaving no reason to trust her to act as POTUS.

originally posted by: Nikola014
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Don't worry, most people see that the gloating is pathetic.

I'd feel the same way if an indictment was recommended and people were gloating about it.

This was not Hillary's finest moment being rebuked by the FBI -- regardless of the decision to not recommend an indictment. No one should be gloating.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see the difference. However, that does not mean I am implying anything in favor of Mrs. Clinton beyond that.

a reply to: Nikola014

If you as an American, don't have any problem with your potus candidate leaking classified information, then why should I care?

She didn't leak classified information.

She should at least be fired from her position. She's un capable of conducting such a delicate work, and how on earth can you trust that woman?

She does not currently hold any position. She is a candidate for president.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: introvert

If you as an American, don't have any problem with your potus candidate leaking classified information, then why should I care?

She should at least be fired from her position. She's un capable of conducting such a delicate work, and how on earth can you trust that woman?

I don;t think she has a job at this moment.