FBI Director Comey says agency won’t recommend charges over Clinton email

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

They went through 650k emails in less than a week? AND they've ALREADY come to a conclusion?

Not sure where that 650k figure came from but they were looking at emails to and from Clinton. That's not too hard to filter. Not hard to match what they've already seen.

Why would you limit it to just those communications?

Because the investigation was/is about the use of Clinton's email server.

And if you were investigating this mess you'd ONLY look at emails sent and received to and from her?

There might be evidence in related emails.

Unless the communications were between Clinton and Huma they would be hearsay in regard to the Clinton case.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: imwilliam

Name one case in which someone was prosecuted without evidence of intent.

Simple request.

Every manslaughter charge. Ever.

Which has nothing to do with the law about classified information handling. A law which specifies intent.

Oh really?!??!?!?!

I did not realize it specified intent. CAN you quote the law wherein intent is required, please?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The people who support Trump were doing so because they know the system is corrupt.
This just solidifies that and will encourage people to get out and vote more than ever.

Those who support Clinton - they already don't care that they are voting for a criminal, so this won't change anything.

I'll take a criminal over a pedantic moron everyday. Too bad the Republicans were stupid enough to nominate a guy who uses such rhetoric that a criminal would be allowed into office.

a reply to: Tempter

CAN you quote the law wherein intent is required, please?

You're quite the researcher, aren't you?

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

www.law.cornell.edu...

Or Vote TRUMP in. And by now issuing a letter of no charges will further fuel the anti-HC sentiment and further demonstrate that the system is totally broken and corrupt thus there's only one way for the people to change it and that's to elect TRUMP!

Remember 8 years ago when OBAMA promised so much change that he would almost create a paradise for the US folk and then he delivered just more of the same misery and status quo. Well Hillary has promised sh.t all in policy or change and that is because its not possible for the Democrats to be re-elected if she did so! So we have no change and more corruption ahead! And that is why TRUMP will be elected! If he isn't then the US electorate who voted for HC deserve all that will beset them. I just feel sorry for those who voted for TRUMP if that happens because for the 1st time in 30 years the US electorate had a BIG chance to get the change that they need!

Good luck on Tuesday.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

They went through 650k emails in less than a week? AND they've ALREADY come to a conclusion?

Not sure where that 650k figure came from but they were looking at emails to and from Clinton. That's not too hard to filter. Not hard to match what they've already seen.

Why would you limit it to just those communications?

Because the investigation was/is about the use of Clinton's email server.

Phage is right - in the narrow scope of this issue re: Comey's letter.

But there are at least 4 other investigations related to the Clinton's from what I've read. The most potentially damning of which is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Comey may have had to do this for this investigation at this time - whether you agree with what he did or not.

But it may very well be a case of HRC winning this battle pre-election but losing the war post election (whatever the results may be)...in a devastating fashion.

Then again - that too may get whitewashed although I believe that will be much harder to do.

We'll see how things play out. Pitchforks and torches are not out of the question in this mess.

People are really angry - for a variety of reasons.

Oh look, now it's been looked into 2x. And dropped. 2x. Tarmac meeting be damned. POTUS fit be damned. Hillary can't ask for more than that. Now go vote for her, nothing to see here. Cheese pizza for everyone!

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The people who support Trump were doing so because they know the system is corrupt.
This just solidifies that and will encourage people to get out and vote more than ever.

Those who support Clinton - they already don't care that they are voting for a criminal, so this won't change anything.

I'll take a criminal over a pedantic moron everyday. Too bad the Republicans were stupid enough to nominate a guy who uses such rhetoric that a criminal would be allowed into office.

At least you accept she is a criminal and that she is the lesser of two evils. That is a subjective opinion of course, but your right to believe.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

CAN you quote the law wherein intent is required, please?

You're quite the researcher, aren't you?

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

www.law.cornell.edu...

Whoever knowingly communicates.....


You can stop right there.

OR are you saying she didn't know she had a private server?

And there's no reason to insult my researching skills. THEY don't exist.

So Barrett Brown gets prison, Hillary not so much, actually none.

A trove of millions of Stratfor emails from the hack, including authentication information for thousands of credit card accounts, was shared by the hacker collective LulzSec with whistleblower site Wikileaks.

While Hammond pleaded guilty and received the maximum sentence of ten years in federal prison for the hack itself, Brown faced up to 45 years in federal prison for allegedly sharing a link to the data as part of Project PM, after a presumed FBI entrapment maneuver.

He did plea bargain and many charges were dropped but if he could have been punished for 45 years for a link, one would think the whole email fiasco would be much worse.

Wikileaks actually published them. Non government people doing less are convicted with less.

Government protects it's own, it would seem.

Those FBI guys are amazing. 9 days and 650k emails. 72222 a day. 3,009 an hour. 50 EVERY minute.

Give those boys a raise.

*that's working 24/7 too!*

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Oh look, now it's been looked into 2x. And dropped. 2x. Tarmac meeting be damned. POTUS fit be damned. Hillary can't ask for more than that. Now go vote for her, nothing to see here. Cheese pizza for everyone!

If HC is elected then bad things are going to happen!!!!!

a reply to: Riffrafter

More realistic: Comey toes the line no matter what. Cuz Petraus.

Or worse, maybe its child porn being planted, instead of simple NSA snooping.

None of us is free of dirt, and somewhere in our texts, emails, or phone calls is something embarrassing or damaging to us. And if any amongst us remains unstained....its pretty easy to plant information that makes you revolting even to your cellmate.

Or you can just be "suicided". The toolbox here is full.

Oh my I am so shocked!!!

Not.


Like I said, wouldn't trust Comey as far as I could throw him.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

They went through 650k emails in less than a week? AND they've ALREADY come to a conclusion?

Not sure where that 650k figure came from but they were looking at emails to and from Clinton. That's not too hard to filter. Not hard to match what they've already seen.

Why would you limit it to just those communications?

Because the investigation was/is about the use of Clinton's email server.

And if you were investigating this mess you'd ONLY look at emails sent and received to and from her?

There might be evidence in related emails.

Unless the communications were between Clinton and Huma they would be hearsay in regard to the Clinton case.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule: Link

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

sounds like we have some folks to let out of jail, and a few more overseas to repatriate.

I was thinking the same thing amigo.

I would not be surprised if the lawyers for those folks are now furiously preparing motions for re-trials, vacated verdicts, etc.

What a god damn mess this creates.

But I think it's time for the mess. We need to face the larger issue as a people. Are there one set of laws for most of us and a completely different set of laws for a few elite?

That's not the America I want. And I don't think I'm alone in that feeling.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: imwilliam

Name one case in which someone was prosecuted without evidence of intent.

Simple request.

Every manslaughter charge. Ever.

Which has nothing to do with the law about classified information handling. A law which specifies intent.

Lol phage intent isnt nessary in 99 percent of the cases and mens rhea has been thrown out of cases just like hers. The military has something called the clinton defense that doesny work for active military
. Proved intent is what happened on reddit when her server admin asked how to strip her name off emails. because the DOJ is in bed with clinton and all of america knows it.

a reply to: In4ormant

Don't forget The Clinton Campaign at Obama Justice Dept

The fix was in from the start, Podesta and Kadzik!

a reply to: Tempter

You can stop right there.

No, you can't.
You have to prove that she intended to transmit classified information to an unauthorized person.

a reply to: marg6043

It's good that you guys still have that second amendment up ,you never know if you need it soon I guess?