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

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter

Yes, I would agree. If there were a different set of laws for different people it would be dangerous.

But that is not the case here. It was applied equally and there is case history of only people with intent, or actions that prove intent, of being prosecuted.

Well if intent is the benchmark under which the law applies, do you agree that the law should be changed to reflect that?

Otherwise our legal system makes no sense...and makes us fools and hypocrites in the eyes of ourselves and the world.

Once we allow any of our laws to be selectively enforced as to charges and prosecution, where does it stop?

This is an extremely important issue and goes to the structure of our legal system upon which rests the foundation of our republic.

I hope people are paying attention.

I think they are....but I've been disappointed before. More than a few times...

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter

Yes, I would agree. If there were a different set of laws for different people it would be dangerous.

But that is not the case here. It was applied equally and there is case history of only people with intent, or actions that prove intent, of being prosecuted.

Well if intent is the benchmark under which the law applies, do you agree that the law should be changed to reflect that?

Otherwise our legal system makes no sense...

That is not for me to decide. It appears that the FBI and the DOJ are doing just fine as it is. I believe it would be up to the president to change the EO that covers security issues.

Once we allow any of our laws to be selectively enforced as to charges and prosecution, where does it stop?

Where was it selectively enforced? 80% of cases concerning issues like this are never prosecuted.

Hello AMERICA!

a reply to: introvert

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

Wasn't that my very point? That they, prosecutors, are reluctant to charge anyone under that statute because they're afraid it won't pass a constitutional challenge. The last time I know of it being used was in 1986, in a case involving an FBI agent as I recall.

Simple request.

That comes across as arrogant and obnoxious. You want to read about the circa 1986 case, look it up yourself.

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: xuenchen

You think the witch hunt will end now?

Not likely there will be other made up stuff to hang onto.

Which witch hunt ?

Maybe the several government reports (inspector general reports, fbi reports, etc) that prove Hillary lied hundreds of times to the Citizens?

Witch Hunt Lies

a reply to: imwilliam

So was Hillary treated any differently than anyone else?

Maybe by putting all of this damning evidence out there for us to plainly see and showing us the outright breaches in our country's national security, and her incompetence and negligence, they are actually trying to get the people to rise up and revolt.

???? Why.

a reply to: Riffrafter

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

Agree with this decision or not, it has definitely changed the way things will be talked about in the future. And given the trend in hacking, it may be the one thing we have going for us: its not illegal to mishandle classified info, and let your housekeeper read over it.

Can Assange come out of the Embassy now? LOL

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: imwilliam

So was Hillary treated any differently than anyone else?

Yes, collusion into the highest levels of injustice.
Bill and Loretta on a plane.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: imwilliam

So was Hillary treated any differently than anyone else?

How many people are given a heads up by the department responsible for bringing charges as to the progress of an investigation in which they are a subject?

I know this sounds ridiculous but its a possibility

Maybe Comey and his vaunted FBI investigators were set up and when they went to read these emails all they saw was pictures of Wieners private parts

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Confirmation on TV now that Comey did NOT say that the case is closed or that Clinton is innocent.
Only said no prosecutor will prosecute.

All prosecutors at this moment are under the direct control of the corrupt DOJ that has been aiding and abetting Hillary. So what he said is technically true, there is no prosecutor that will take it right now.
When Trump gets in there will be prosecutors banging down his door begging to take it on.

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.

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.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

It sounds like it's you and Phage making those statements.

Actually, it was my interpretation of Trump.

"Rigged. Not rigged..."
What's his next claim going to be?

LOL, his next claim with be at the dry cleaners. He's done. Hillary just won. You should be very happy. Congrats.

I think Clinton had already won. Happy that she will be President? Not really. Happy that Trump won't be? Absolutely.

You aren't a fan of ripping apart the world for GOOD reasons, only for the same old usual and slower ways of doing it ?

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.

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.

originally posted by: Phage
Comey said that the data on the laptop offered no new information which would change the original assessment about her mail server.
Or did I get that wrong?

Of course it didn't change the original assessment. The original assessment was that somehow there was no intent and no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. She's an elite and they are above the law, just as they were when he made the first announcement.

originally posted by: xuenchen
FBI Director Comey has notified Congress of news about the continuing investigation !!!

Bombshell:

Nothing new found !!!

Now What ?

Back to REALITY...With Nov. 8th as the exclamation point.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: imwilliam

So was Hillary treated any differently than anyone else?

Yes, collusion into the highest levels of injustice.
Bill and Loretta on a plane.

Here's what really was happening .........

Snakes on a Plane clip