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

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Maybe they are going for more fish...

People have been talking for a while that the Clinton Foundation investigation was more serious than the emails. I guess we will find out at some pint.

As for the FBI press conference.

They only addressed the emails. They have not addressed the perjury issue.

Not exonerated, not recommended for indictment.

/shrug

I may be reading too much into it, but it dictated like a bad novel. Dramatic even. He went pretty deep into the number of classified emails and the server itself. At the end declared no "reasonable prosecutor" would come forth with charges (is there more than one that can?).

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Not exonerated, not recommended for indictment.

/shrug

Thats based on 18 USC 793 - F

Comeys explanation met the requirements for that statute (as well as the misdemeanor charge) that requires only gross negligence.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Not exonerated, not recommended for indictment.

/shrug

Thats based on 18 USC 793 - F

Comeys explanation met the requirements for that statute (as well as the misdemeanor charge) that requires only gross negligence.

And you think the Director of the FBI is ignorant of this Federal statute?

Not recommended for indictment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

EXACTLY our point of complaint...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ignorant? No.

Improperly applied the wrong standard for a violation? Absolutely.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ignorant? No.

Improperly applied the wrong standard for a violation? Absolutely.

I thought you realized that Director Comey was not making the decision to indict or not ... merely the recommendation based on the investigation of evidence.

You certainly have the right to have whatever opinion of Director Comey and the FBI that you wish ... I've always found him to be just, even though he is a Republican and does seem to have it in a bit for anything "Clinton."

I don't think we should hold that known bias against him in this case, though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I hold nothing against Comey. All I said is he applied the wrong standard - intent - instead of the correct standard - gross negligence.

No law enforcement officer / entity can "indict" a person. He can only recommend, as all law enforcement does when submitting probable cause statements to the PA.

The PA is the ultimate authority on whether charges are brought or not. Its Comey's recommendation that no charges be filed. While I absolutely disagree with his decision I take particular exception to the misapplication of the standard for 18 USC 793.

A person can kill another person in cold blood with thousands of witnesses present, be arrested by the police, the suspect gives a full confession and the PA can still say we arent prosecuting.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

I hold nothing against Comey. All I said is he applied the wrong standard - intent - instead of the correct standard - gross negligence.

And again, he isn't making the decision to indict or not.

The Director made a recommendation based on a year-long investigation. I'm pretty sure he understands the ramifications of Federal laws as well or better than most in this country.

I.e. I'd bet on the Director's knowledge and understanding over that of others, particularly those that are politically motivated in this matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand how indictments work and who can trigger one. Secondly your response to my post about ignorant and applying the wrong standard missed the mark. I was pointing out he used the wrong standard.

I don't like Hillary however its not because she is a Democrat. It's because of her unethical behavior, her lies and the other law violations going back to Arkansas.

If she were a Republican I would still be making the same argument. Please keep that in mind when you subtly suggest I dont like Clinton because of politics.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I fully expect to be dragging TRUMP over the coals if he acts like BUSH or any OTHER oligarch stooge.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am pointing out that your opinion is your own.

A person is not guilty because they receive bad press because of partisan attacks.

Perhaps you're trying to state to me that your position isn't primarily political because it's not matter of Democrat vs. Republican. Fair enough. There are more meanings of the word "political" than just "partisan."

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Xcathdra

I fully expect to be dragging TRUMP over the coals if he acts like BUSH or any OTHER oligarch stooge.

Agreed.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I am not the one who has made arguments where I stated she is guilty although some people keep thinking violation of a law and guilty are the same thing (which they are not).

My position is based on her illegal behavior over the years. As I said if it were a Republican who did this my posts / views would not change.

When a person breaks the law its not because they are a Democrat or Republic. It's because they broke the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You make a lot of fine distinctions based on your own take on the issues. Often, I'm sure, it seems I am disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreement. Actually, that's not true.

So, let's see. What's the important distinction between stating that someone has "violated the law" and that someone is "guilty of violating the law."

There is nothing, in what Secretary Clinton did, that happened in a vacuum. To pretend like there is, to pretend like whatever culpability might exist is solely hers is a political approach to the matter. It simply is.

There is no indication, and this is from the primary entity in our government that investigates possible breaches of national security, that any action taken by Mrs. Clinton has damaged the United States or any individual.

No intent, no damage, no victim ... no crime.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Again intent is not required to violate the espionage act. Thats not an opinion but fact based on the statute itself.

A person who violates the law is innocent until proven guilty "in a court of law". A person who is "guilty of violating the law" is where a court finds them guilty.

Guilt is determined by the courts. Since law enforcement is not a part of the judicial branch we have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. My argument that she broke the law has nothing to do with guilt.

a reply to: Sillyolme

And if you vote for this Nit wit criminal, what does that say about you?!?!! I mean you are proud of someone like that...Who was warned repeatedly warned to STOP using her personal email to conduct official business only to have her thump her nose and tell security to F.O.!!!!

For the life of me I cannot understand why you would support a piece of trash like this...How can you have respect for that woman? Do you have such little self respect that you just think this is funny? Are you really that self absorbed? Do you NOT see the impact of what this decision means for America?

What good is a liar and treasonous President gonna do you? You honestly think she cares about you?? For the love of this country and our freedom, I pray you and any other Clinton supporters come down with an illness that prevents you from getting to the polls to vote!

If you can knowingly put your trust and faith in a criminal, liar then you should lose your right to vote, forever!!

Pax

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again intent is not required to violate the espionage act. Thats not an opinion but fact based on the statute itself.

A person who violates the law is innocent until proven guilty "in a court of law". A person who is "guilty of violating the law" is where a court finds them guilty.

Guilt is determined by the courts. Since law enforcement is not a part of the judicial branch we have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. My argument that she broke the law has nothing to do with guilt.

I do see the semantic difference in your distinction; I don't see it's importance in this context.

We've already had a discussion on our different opinions of the rules of evidence, so I'm not going to go into that with you again particularly as you've couched it in terms of "we, in law enforcement."

So where's the evidence that the Espionage Act was violated?

a reply to: Gryphon66Secretary of State Clinton was in direct violation of the agreement between her and the United States of American outlined on the Standard Form 312, section 4. She sent classified information outside of a server with the classification needed to keep the information she was sending secure. Her actions have created a major security violation and could potentially be used by enemies of the state.