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

a reply to: mobiusmale

The interview and this decision were scheduled way before that meeting. They already said that.

a reply to: Indigo5

Some of us have pointed out that it didn't really matter what the FBI recommendation was, that "HILLARY IS GUILTY" would be screamed from every right-wing pinnacle, anyway.

Sometimes, I hate being right.

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?

Evidence of potential violations. A prosecutor would have to further prove that Hillary had the intent of violating the law.

That would be very difficult to do.

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?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not a Clinton supporter (currently) however, it brings a twinkle to my eye and and curl to my smile to watch the histrionics of Americans that no matter if the speech was is Cantonese, they will profess to the death it was in Italian lol! I find it kinda weird the partisan obsessions of Americans and that they allow it to define them.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: BlueAjah

It's like that part from the star wars movies, when they say "These are not the droids, you're looking for..."

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

I can assure you that most of us are not Hillary fans, where just smart enough to smell horse manure even when it comes with a cute red bow on it.

Shes a lying witch but she aint the anti christ,better luck next time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sometimes, I hate being right.

It is taking everything I have not to jump up and down and scream "i told ya so", but I figured that would not be well-received.

I take pride knowing that my assessment of the laws and how they are applied were pretty spot on.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcathdra

He'll say 2 things.

1. No indictment.
2. Tender his resignation.

*drops mic*

Good guess.

It would have been frikkin' hilarious to see Lynch snatch the mic from ... and fire him on the spot.

ETA: I expect that will happen behind closed doors.

"No pension for you, Asshat."

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.

This whole FBI conference was staged, playing the public for stupid, distracting the blame away from Lynch and Bill's meeting to the FBI recommendation.... ...

our government needs to be gutted.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

This is the most important part.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information

Intent was key and has been crucial to the cases that were taken to court in previous instances.

Yes. They must look at precedent. That's the way law works. You can't all of a sudden change how and why you prosecute just because it's Hillary.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I submit that for some of our friends here, their desire to see Clinton destroyed is blinding their ability to see the simple truth.

Director Comey has been very clear and very thorough in the explanation of exactly what the FBI found.

this last paragraph of his statement struck me as something many here should digest...

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us.

Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way.

Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.

I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

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.

Very very strange the more you think about it all. I don't know what the hell is going on, but it isn't over methinks.

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.

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.

Now we know why Clinton wants to keep Lynch on at the DOJ.

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?

I don't know what the hell is going on, but it isn't over methinks.

It is in fact, over. Lynch stated she would accept the recommendation, no matter what it was.

This one will not ahave 9 investigations. It is done.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

No there was no evidence to indict. Not there wasn't enough. There was none. There was no criminal intent.
No reasonable prosecutor would try to make the case.

Said the drunk to the family he killed while driving. "There was no criminal intent, please! I'm innocent"

I'm sure a reasonable prosecutor would put a drunk like this away for years.

The FBI either didn't have the backbone, or was somehow blackmailed and extorted into rendering their weak decision.

You do understand that people that work for the DOD, would have gone to federal prison for a fraction of what Hillary compromised.

The Grand Jury will hopefully see through this crap.

This right here - another broken law:

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

First of all, he does not mention what we have been told before - that these attorneys did not have security clearance to have access to the emails.

Second - she did not comply with statutes requiring preservation of government records.

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??