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

originally posted by: Kargun


So he says she did break the law but no one will prosecute her.

He said no one would prosecute criminal charges because there is no evidence of willful intent to release sensitive info to enemies. He also said this doesn't mean there won't be other sanctions against her (or her staff), but that this press conference would not address that.

a reply to: queenofswords

The whole "she is guilty as sin, but I'm not going to recommend prosecution",

That's what you heard? Do you speak English?

We also found out that it was more than one server. There were actually four! Maybe some of you knew that already, but it was new information to me.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Once more. The FBI is not investigating the Clinton Foundation.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

I am starting to think your mission is to derail this thread, so that we don't talk about this shameful decision we just witnessed and instead, talk about things that don't matter.

Hillary got away with a crime, and you want to talk about Russia or my personal life?

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: kaylaluv

No sane prosecutor would take the case because they know they would end up Arkancided

Just as you say. FBI Director James Comey announced.
"Are judgment is NO reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".

a reply to: Tardacus

I may be wrong but I think it`s not the FBI`s call as to whether there is enough evidence to prosecute a case that`s up to the prosecutor. S

For the common folks it's up to grand juries to decide.

HERE is a Transcript of Comey's conference this morning:
www.fbi.gov... personal-e-mail-system

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: queenofswords

The whole "she is guilty as sin, but I'm not going to recommend prosecution",

That's what you heard? Do you speak English?

That's what I "heard" and I do speak English. It was a subjective meaning...duh.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Seriously, J. Edgar is who you're holding up as a bastion of law and justice?

J Edgar didn't give a crap who it was.

Unlike the Comey's.

LOL.

The one thing I can say about Director Comey was that I trusted him to follow the law, not only in letter, but in spirit.

The funny thing is, your guy J. Edgar would have just pulled a file out of his safe with "dirty pics" and none of this would have ever come to light.

Another prime example of ignoring the facts in favor of partisan nonsense.

Let's look at this as if our Country is like our Child, and the POTUS is their day care provider.....how much "careless" behavior would you tolerate before you yanked your child out of that daycare?

1st - your kid gets lice, but hey, it could happen, so you forgive them......kinda like ole Bill has given us "lice".

2nd - other children in their care end up harmed and a few die in unusual "accidents".......I'm personally done at this point, my kid would be yanked....but let's say you are somehow convinced these were just horrible "accidents" and continue to take your kid to this daycare......sound similar to anything?

3rd - you discover your kid is being left un-supervised outside to play with aggressive pit-bulls ( I love all dogs, btw ) , the yard is filthy, covered in dog crap, no shade in 100 degree weather, no water...lol...you get the point..

WTF will it take for you to yank your kid !!!!!!

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Honest question why are people shocked by this news, when is the last time that such a high ranking politicized person ever been to jail.

She wasn't going to jail, we all new it.

I'm not shocked. I'm not even really disappointed. But I did predict a recommendation for indictment so I was wrong about that. The alternative to Hillary is just so bad, IMO, that i am content to go back to feeling completely apathetic.

Also, I am happy for all the girls and women in the U.S. who will get a boost of confidence from Hillary's candidacy and probable win. I don't think that's any small consolation prize.

I guess Hillary has won the first battle to stay out of jail. She now needs to win the presidency to avoid jail time.

originally posted by: queenofswords
The more I listen to Comey and re-listen, the more strange this seems. The whole "she is guilty as sin, but I'm not going to recommend prosecution", the stranger this seems.

I wonder if he was made an offer he couldn't refuse... Or, he has dirt, and once this made it to his desk, the Clinton's knew exactly where to stick the dagger... Or maybe I've just watched too much TV/Movies in my day...

just thinking out loud..

a reply to: queenofswords

Well It's not what was said, so perhaps you should listen to it again.

a reply to: Nikola014

That's just it, they won't. They want political correctness to rule, not commonsense laws. They want to bring in thousands of unvetted "immigrants". They want feelings to be the yard stick against which every thing is measured. Just walking toward someone is micro aggression and may trigger a retreat to their safe space. [eyeroll ]
Gun Rights? lol. What Rights? We can expect to see a massive effort to change those. There are no terrorists here. Just a bunch of gun nuts who just happen to mumble something about loyalty ISIS while shooting a crowd of people.
Shh. Go back to sleep. All is well and Big Brother knows best.

404'D
Good thing I captured it:

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing. Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State. 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.

What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice. This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.

Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say. I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case.

Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

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.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

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.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did

Reckless and careless, eh?

"Officer, I didn't intend to kill anyone while driving home drunk. At this point, what difference does my BAC make?"

Bottom line is, I know the law and shouldn't conduct myself in that way or fear the consequences. I would be putting people in danger whereas Hillary put an entire country at risk. Not intending to break the law means you either don't know it or didn't expect to get caught. Both should disqualify you from holding office.

This will only increase the corruption in our political system after knowing now that laws our elected leaders are sworn to uphold are not always laws they need to remember or be aware of. In fact, it would help them to forget as many laws as possible in order to unintentionally handle themselves in a careless manner.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The one thing I can say about Director Comey was that I trusted him to follow the law, not only in letter, but in spirit.

Well isn't that just simply precious.