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

a reply to: introvert

No they didn't. We went over this before a military case has no application to the civilian side.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.

You make me laugh. Out loud. Do you know how stupid your statement is? Apparently not.

She doesn't give a damn about her reputation. She considers herself above the law, which means reputation is irrelevant.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Of course the government is corrupt.

That didn't start in 2009 and it won't end in 2016.

It won't begin or end with either a Trump or Clinton Presidency, or Sanders or Johnson or anything else.

For god's sake can we at least be real for 5 minutes???

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

Yes us shills are dancing in the streets with another communist win, but you found us out, now we must go back in hiding

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

That's the most sickening thing about this whole thing. for the record I have always voted Democrat, but Hillary Clinton makes me puke in my mouth, as does Trump.

People celebrating their willfully blind ignorance, just because they have chosen a side. We truly are doomed here in the USA.

a reply to: Sillyolme

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

How can one not read in the above quote that the FBI thinks she is guilty and should face consequences that is just because it is Hillary they are going to let it slide?

a reply to: Sillyolme

HILLARY 2016

Obviously...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

No there was no evidence to indict. Not there wasn't enough.

Wrong

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.

There was evidence they are just choosing to not indict as was expected since it involves a corrupted politician with money and power. Probably having Bill clinton meet with lynch over the weekend and offering her a job under Clinton didn't hurt either.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: reldra

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

Then what do you believe. Put it out in a reasonable paragraph your thoughts. Are you telling me she took on the risk of this political heat in order to sell out the US? You're telling me she used an insecure system to give our enemies a way in? You think that makes more sense than leaking secret information by another means?

Now ask your self. Do you have a reasonable position?

My thought: After nearly 20 years were are getting an understanding as to what "is" is.






But your honor, while my comments may have been irresponsible I did not intend for them to be seditious and therefore illegal.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Thank you Mystic. I find appalling the lack of respect for the Office of the President these days.

I didn't track this whole email mishandling from the beginning. Has Hillary ever given a plausible explanation for why she needed a private server? Not the 'other previous Secretaries did it' nonsense. (they had private email accounts, not servers)

I want to hold my nose and pretend for a moment that her reasoning was not to hide some sort of malfeasance on her part. What was it about the government's internal email system she didn't feel was adequate?

Did she use a private server thinking she could limit snooping by parties that would use any information gleaned against her in this election cycle? That would be my guess.

Or, screwing my tin foil hat on way too tightly, is it possible she isn't the wicked witch we despise, and she was trying to keep certain info from nefarious elements within the government? (haha, that was hard to type....so implausible)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I'm enjoying everyone who is cheering this decision. It also says a lot about their character.

LOL...It's like: "HOORAY...Our candidate repeatedly lied to the American people and was extremely reckless with National Security!"

Obvious shills are

So, just to be clear in our definitions ...

"Agrees with you" = ATS Member in good standing

"Disagrees with you" = Paid shill.

That about right?

Hey could you make sure my check is in the mail, i think they forgot me again last week, i need that extra money to finish my shrine to MAO STALIN and OBAMA

a reply to: Indigo5

so the recommendation as to prosecute or not prosecute a case is based on similar past cases and not on the merits of the present case itself? rather than take a chance that an individual case might be successfully prosecuted and set a precedence he just rubber stamps cases based on similar past cases.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.

She obviously has never cared about her reputation, only that she feels entitlement to be the first woman president. To hell with everything and everyone else. Why should she care about her reputation now, except to be disingenuous and say anything to get votes?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Apparently she didn't .

originally posted by: Olivine


Or, screwing my tin foil hat on way too tightly, is it possible she isn't the wicked witch we despise, and she was trying to keep certain info from nefarious elements within the government? (haha, that was hard to type....so implausible)

Is it really so implausible that there might be bad guys in government?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

No they didn't. We went over this before a military case has no application to the civilian side.

The Military aspect has nothing to do with it. The SCOTUS set the precedence for the future. Here is what they said:

we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”

a reply to: Olivine

agreed, the founding fathers would be very displeased with our stewardship of their hard won republic.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Not at all. I find it harder to swallow that Hillary could be one of the good gals. but I was trying.