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

a reply to: Dfairlite

What I'm suspecting is that FBI didn't think they could get a conviction on the intent requirement.

If the FBI is going to recommend an indictment to a candidate for POTUS, they want to be sure a grand jury will move to indict, and a jury would convict -- as it would be a huge loss (maybe the biggest in US history) for them and wreak havoc on their credibility and give them a terrible black eye.

I think that is what they were thinking.

I don't know why conservatives are up in arms. This is probably only going to help Trump...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah, I've run across a lot of folks on here claiming security clearance and intimate knowledge.

No, I haven't done anything of the sort, and if you really can't parse information better than this, I can't think of one positive thing to say to you.

Director Comey stated that they found 110 emails out of well over 30,000 that actually were "classified" at the time on the Clinton email servers. I have not disputed that fact in any way, shape form or fashion.

I have also repeated Gen. Powell's comment that went DIRECTLY to the issue of "classified" material being in emails that he received as well as Secretary Clinton.

These are two different people saying two different things. I have noted them both.

I need a "remedial" class? LOL. Ah, the ad hom starts. Rage quit coming soon.

You're trying to make a case on what Director Comey said. You stated that he made a distinction that he did not make.

You were mistaken. And now you're sputtering about your unprovable "security clearance" ...

I'd point out that is the ultimate example of "augment from authority" ... but I don't gather that would matter to you.

/shrug

I only brought up my security background to discredit your attempt to use said tactic.

Again I never stated he made that distinction, you're a flat out liar. If you're not, then quote me and link to the post.

originally posted by: neo96
So much for the 'vast right wing conspiracy'.


Sanders supporters melt down over FBI's Clinton decision

Gosh ... you think Sanders' supporters might have some ... I dunno ... BIAS in the matter?

And, four or five folks on TWITTER? That's your evidence?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

We'll see what the MIC intelligencia have to say about it.
I expect a plane crash or two.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Dfairlite

What I'm suspecting is that FBI didn't think they could get a conviction on the intent requirement.

If the FBI is going to recommend an indictment to a candidate for POTUS, they want to be sure a grand jury will move to indict, and a jury would convict -- as it would be a huge loss (maybe the biggest in US history) for them and wreak havoc on their credibility and give them a terrible black eye.

I think that is what they were thinking.

I don't know why conservatives are up in arms. This is probably only going to help Trump...

I agree with their thinking here, but there's no intent requirement. Further I think they gave themselves a much bigger black eye than they would have by at least proceeding with the recommendation that a grand jury decide.

But yes, I think this helps reps almost as much as an indictment.

a reply to: neo96

Great toon, and it says so much more about the first
hallmark of tyranny-- its absolute and blatant hypocrisy.

My only post so far since Comey came out to finally
reinforce for me our two tiered (FACED) system.
It's Horse Apples and NO ORANGE JUMPSUIT. Fine.

I got that. Comey isn't recommending on behalf of
the FBI because dubious intent to break the law by
an elite is no longer just cause to be indicted under it.

I really became disgusted before the thread grew up
long enough to get the official statement in print.

This day more than any other in my adult life proves
to an American who is childless why he or she did
the right thing by not reproducing-- I personally have
no wish to leave a loved one behind in what IS COMING.
That was not melodrama, just a brief prediction of what
I'm sure is history repeating only worse every time.

This time in November may just do it all.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

The only major flop was trusting Comey to do the right thing.
He failed miserably.

No. The only flop here is that the FBI came out today and said exactly what some of us have been saying, backed it up with link after link to the opinions of legal experts and previous rulings, and you guys are now asking how this could have happened.

Perhaps if people were willing to look at facts, while taking the political blinders off, they may have seen what was in front of their face the entire time.

Comey said she broke the law. Which is what we have been saying.

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

The second part of that is the puzzling part. Translated - no prosecutor in the current DOJ will prosecute it, because Hillary owns them.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Except ... you haven't discredited anything. Your argument looks like you're pulling at desperate straws.

You weren't the one alluding to the difference between exposed and compromised in regard to what Director Comey said???

In several posts above?

Hmmm. Okay.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Dfairlite

What I'm suspecting is that FBI didn't think they could get a conviction on the intent requirement.

If the FBI is going to recommend an indictment to a candidate for POTUS, they want to be sure a grand jury will move to indict, and a jury would convict -- as it would be a huge loss (maybe the biggest in US history) for them and wreak havoc on their credibility and give them a terrible black eye.

I think that is what they were thinking.

I don't know why conservatives are up in arms. This is probably only going to help Trump...

I think you are right. It's going to play out well for Trump because there will be no day in court and this looks like a double standard (even if it is not).

a reply to: introvert

I'm wondering how Bryan Nishimura and Jason Brezler to name a few people feel right now...

Nishimura got 2 years probation, lost his clearance, and had to pay a $7,500 fine for mishandling SECRET documents related to briefings from his time on deployment.

Brezler, sent a single report via UNCLAS methods to warn his fellow Marines about a dangerous threat (that led to 3 Marine deaths) and immediately reported on himself when he realized what he had done, and was recommended for discharge from the Marines.

Yet, here we have Clinton, knowingly using a private server to house TOP SECRET / SAP information, the FBI deems what she did as "extreme carelessness", and the statutory language states that "gross negligence" is still actionable as a felony when it comes to handling classified information.

I understand that case law and precedent is referred to when deciding to prosecute, but it is clear Hillary violated the US Code (according to the FBIs own findings), and that there is precedent out there of people doing way less and facing harsher penalties...

I hope she wins so I can pop some pop corn and watch the Hilary pain train come down and hit those who for some reason feel this person that has failed at everything, lies her way through anything and thinks she knows what is better for us all poor ignorants is somehow a great pick for America.

With 150 billion democrats you can pick from, really the wife of a former president? At least if you all said "well we can get old Bill back in" I might understand some, but Hilary...lol

I was bullet proof under Obama, unlike about 60% of America, and I'll be bullet proof under her too, but I'm thinking 80% this time will feel the pain...

Well deserved though...

a reply to: BlueAjah

The second part of that is the puzzling part. Translated - no prosecutor in the current DOJ will prosecute it, because Hillary owns them.

This is the part that people refused to accept when we were telling you about similar cases/decisions.

Yes, there were violations, but the sort of violations we are talking about rarely become a criminal matter.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Hardly comparable.

Nishimura admitted to FBI and Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents that he had transferred approximately 200 megabytes of classified data and satellite imagery to his personal electronic equipment while in Afghanistan, had traveled within that country carrying the equipment containing the data and had returned to the United States with the data in May 2008, the court papers say. He also told agents that he had “destroyed and disposed of personal electronic devices and storage media containing ... classified data between approximately February and April 2012,” immediately after his initial statement to Navy personnel. He “admitted that he knew that the manner in which he had destroyed these United States classified records was not a method approved or sanctioned by the U.S. Navy,” according to the court papers. Read more here: www.sacbee.com...=cpy

Well folks I GUESS UFOs and other SAP info is out there for the pickings!
WE HAVE OUR legal PRESIDENT!
I am sensing these dimwits don't get what happens when you usurp your OWN intelligence system,in favor of their politics.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
G regg Jarrett: FBI Director calls Clinton ‘careless’. His recommendations make no sense

It makes no legal sense. I suspect attorneys across America are scratching their heads.
...
“Whoever, being entrusted with… any document relating to the national defense… through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 793-f)

James Comey is a former U.S. Attorney. Yet, he exhibited an astonishing ignorance of the law. He laid out a case of gross negligence constituting a crime, defined it with the words “extremely careless” and then promptly proceeded to ignore the law.

The key phrase is “gross negligence”. What does it mean? Every lawyer and judge in America knows its meaning. It is defined in standard jury instructions and just about every legal treatise that exists.

Black’s Law Dictionary is the legal bible upon which attorneys rely. Check it out. You’ll find that gross negligence is described and defined as extreme carelessness. At least, my edition does.
...
Since Comey, by his own words, all but declared that Clinton broke a criminal law, how could he then say he would not recommend criminal prosecution? Again, it makes no sense.
...
I have been a lawyer for 36 years. Never have I witnessed such an illogical rationale and conclusion.

It makes me wonder whether Comey slept through his first year course entitled, “Criminal Law.”

To be honest, I feel no ill will to Comey. I am actually thankful. He knew he had no choice but he was going to make sure America understood that while he cannot find justice for us, he will provide enough info that Americans can serve some justice via this election.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

Except ... you haven't discredited anything. Your argument looks like you're pulling at desperate straws.

You weren't the one alluding to the difference between exposed and compromised in regard to what Director Comey said???

In several posts above?

Hmmm. Okay.

Why would the straws be desperate?

Anyway, here's what happened, just to prove that either
A) you're incompetent when it comes to reading OR
B) you're a liar, desperate to "win" an argument

Here you were the first person to use the term "exposed" and you used it improperly. You said: " The FBI after a year of investigation stated clearly that they had no evidence that any classified or sensitive material was exposed."

I then corrected you here
Now, here is where you get confused, you took my saying that the FBI found that it was exposed to mean that the FBI used the word exposed (an understandable, but weird, mistake since you're the one that used the word). That's not the case, they did not use the word exposed when talking about Hillary. However, she did expose it but we are unsure if it was compromised. That's been my only point on this issue.

a reply to: introvert

How is that not comparable? Hillary had her own private servers, she deleted boat loads of emails, lied about what emails she turned over, including 110 different emails as well as Top Secret / SAP info.

The difference here is the two folks I mentioned took accountability of their actions, where as Clinton did not.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: introvert

How is that not comparable? Hillary had her own private servers, she deleted boat loads of emails, lied about what emails she turned over, including 110 different emails as well as Top Secret / SAP info.

The difference here is the two folks I mentioned took accountability of their actions, where as Clinton did not.

Read the SD transcript of Comey's speech. He says it all towards the end. I've been trying to tell you guys the difference for months and I fail to see the logic in feeding it to you all over again.

If you couldn't understand it then, you probably wont now.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I don't have any ill will towards Director Comey either. I believe the FBI did its best in this particular situation. He knows prosecution won't get a conviction because of not being able to prove intent and he doesn't want to recommend prosecuting unless he's darn sure a conviction can be had.

He revealed a lot.

I'm OK with that for now. I'm not happy about it but I'm OK with it for the time being.

Ms. Clinton is not off of the hook yet. A lot can happen in a week or a month or even a day.

Does this mean Loretta will make a statement very soon or is she not obligated?