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

a reply to: Sparkymedic

The Supreme Court ruled on this aspect in a 1941 case.

Intent was key.

Honestly this boils down to... do you believe she's a complete idiot or was she choosing to use this insecure system to leak information in a way that could not lead to her being held legally responsible.

Those are two pretty different things here. I think she's technologically challenged, and not competent to hold the office of POTUS. Those who are arguing she had intent, really need to think this through and understand that they're not being reasonable.

You're in effect saying she masterminded her perceived incompetence, in order to sell out the US. It's just not a reasonable position.

I do think that even though she perhaps shouldn't be charged, she should at least have the decency to admit her faults and step out of the election, but ... that's just not happening. It's up to the american public to realize she is far too untrustworthy, & incompetent to hold the position of POTUS. That being said, I feel the same way about Trump, and if people were ready to truly step outside the two-party rigged system, would fill in a vote of no confidence by voting for fictitious characters, as the two "electables" are deplorable individuals.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'm not so sure that's true , in fact record numbers of people have had to jump through hoops to change their party affiliation in order to vote in the Primaries. Not that it made a difference in CA for Bernie supporters...but that's just another scandal that's being sweep under the rug in MSM.

For myself, integrity "trumps" policy and party affiliation at this point ....Fixing our corrupt Political system in America is the priority. I'll be voting 3rd party. Clearly neither Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders could get the nomination within this corrupt 2 party system !

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Gryphon66

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

The theory of intent is all over US law. It is normally used to decide to bring charges or not and if so, what charge.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Obviously she didn't commit any crimes.
They're not indicting her.

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.

So she didn't intend to send classified information over an unsecured network?

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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

The FBI reached a decision to not recommend the DOJ to indict. However he began by saying: "After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision."


The DOJ could still indict. But that seems extremely unlikely.

Let's go with the idea that Hillary didn't have any intent and she was innocent.

Do we want a person this neglectful, willfully ignorant, and callous as the President of the USA?

originally posted by: CynConcepts
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? 

That's easy...it was the part you did not include in your cut and paste from the earlier post?

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of:
clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;
or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct;
or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.

We do not see those things here.

originally posted by: Bone75

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.

So she didn't intend to send classified information over an unsecured network?

That is not what I said. The law states that the individual would have to "knowingly and willing" share information with the purpose of damaging the security of the US.

a reply to: Nikola014

No I saw it on the news. Many people who know her said this. She's got a reputation to worry about. She would never compromise that.
Comey said it was decided before that meeting.

originally posted by: Realtruth
Let's go with the idea that Hillary didn't have any intent and she was innocent.

Do we want a person this neglectful, willfully ignorant, and callous as the President of the USA?

That's your call. Vote for whomever you wish.

a reply to: reldra

So, she's just plain stupid? It's beyond my mind how anyone can believe in that possibility.

But, when she needs money from the terrorist funding countries, then all of a sudden, she becomes smart?

Maybe she's a schizophrenic? Being dumb when she needs to deal with stuff that is not bringing her money? But when it's about money, she's suddenly able to give speeches for a couple of million dollars?!?!?!?

a reply to: DBCowboy

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

Country first

Dump Trump

originally posted by: nobunaga
i dont understand why we need to see intent for her breaking the law? if you violate the law, then your guilty.

i mean its like i get caught in public smoking a joint, and all i have to do is say i never intended to light the joint, but the flame accidently touched the rolling paper thus igniting the weed filled cigarette.

she sent emails containing saps... which are higher than top secret. she did this on a private email server, which we all know got hacked by someone. now that someone needs to step up.

i say mean things all the time. and im sure we have all said this :

" not to sound like a rascist but..."

just because you said your not rascist, doesnt mean that what follows that line isnt rascist.

criminal... liar... cheat... bigot.. rascist...power hungry... lame excuse for a human being this lady is.

First off all, possession of marijuna would be illegal in that instance, therefore there is intent to possess. Depending on quanity, there can be an argument as to intent to distribute. Secondly, if you put the joint to your lips, regardless of how it was lit, the intent to consume is there. You can say you never intended to light it but a prosecutor would tear that lie apart.

The most scrutinized part of the emails, legally, was distribution of classified material. Considering every report I've seen was all information included was not classified at the time, there is no intent.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

It doesn`t matter whether she did it out of intent or from gross negligence and extremely poor decision making, either way she isn`t fit to hold the highest office in the land.she`s old and her judgement and decision making isn`t going to improve as she gets older.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

Obviously she didn't commit any crimes.
They're not indicting her.

Just because they did not indict by no means, means she didn't commit crimes.

But by all means, you and the others should celebrate.

This is something that many of us said would happen, not because she is innocent, but because our system is corrupt.

You and the others will be celebrating a corrupt system.

a reply to: Nikola014

I'm very far from ignorant.