-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
07 Nov 2016, 7:05 am
GMTom wrote:The FBI saying they are not pressing any charges is a shock?
My guess is they found more of the same as they have seen, more and more examples of carelessness, they decided to look the other way before, how can more of the same now make you change your position? She was guilty of gross negligence, absolutely zero question about that. I expected exactly as they came out with, same old same old...
Not surprising. There is never going to be an indictment with the current AG.
Furthermore, I think the CF is the better target. If what they're saying about Chelsea's wedding (via Doug Band email) is true, the iceberg is beginning to be revealed.
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3653
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
07 Nov 2016, 11:00 am
Tom you said a few pages ago that "I think the Clinton stuff must be big for him [Comey]to do this." I'm sure a lot of people thought that. Comey made a horrendous mistake--if he was not acting in a partisan fashion-- only slightly lessened that he was able to find the new emails added nothing new. But of course Comey should have realized that it was extremely unlikely that the new emails would change the original finding that they could not prove intent. And the timing of the original letter was very tactical. They released it at a time when it could impact voters without it effectivelyly being countered by a finding in time that the emails don't mean anything (the new letter will not permeate to a good portion of the electorate in time) They sat on those emails for three weeks then Comey sends a letter in the 2nd weekend before the election and there is the link between the former FBI director of the New York office (which was investigating Weiner which was why the new emails were discovered) and Trump and Giuliani. The image of the FBI as a non-partisan entity has been permanently damaged. And Comey better make new employment plans the day after the election. Obama should fire him, whether Hillary or Trump wins.
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
07 Nov 2016, 11:43 am
I can agree with you here! The info however could have been damning if it more of the same old stuff. No doubt we have seen she COULD have been charged (they simply decided not to) it was gross negligence by anyone's standards and even more of the same COULD certainly contain something slightly more significant? I am not saying it did or did not but I can sure see how some made this "go away".
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
07 Nov 2016, 1:38 pm
tom
The info however could have been damning if it more of the same old stuff. No doubt we have seen she COULD have been charged (they simply decided not to) it was gross negligence by anyone's standards and even more of the same COULD certainly contain something slightly more significant? I am not saying it did or did not but I can sure see how some made this "go away
So what do you make of what Comey actually said then Tom? he was lying? He was misleading? And you base that on what? So you can review what he said...
James Comey
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
07 Nov 2016, 2:14 pm
GMTom wrote:I can agree with you here! The info however could have been damning if it more of the same old stuff. No doubt we have seen she COULD have been charged (they simply decided not to) it was gross negligence by anyone's standards and even more of the same COULD certainly contain something slightly more significant? I am not saying it did or did not but I can sure see how some made this "go away".
Comey said she was "extremely careless" with "very sensitive, highly classified information."
Now, THAT's a reason to promote Clinton if I've ever heard one!
Further, Comey imported the idea of "intent" from somewhere. It's not in the statute.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
08 Nov 2016, 8:24 am
fate
Comey said she was "extremely careless" with "very sensitive, highly classified information."
Now, THAT's a reason to promote Clinton if I've ever heard one!
She's highly unlikely to repeat the mistakes regarding email use is she?
Both because she learns, and because the US government is now a lot more knowledgeable and careful about cyber security than it was 8 years ago.
The only reason to promote her is that she's about to win the election convincingly.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Nov 2016, 10:15 am
rickyp wrote:fate
Comey said she was "extremely careless" with "very sensitive, highly classified information."
Now, THAT's a reason to promote Clinton if I've ever heard one!
She's highly unlikely to repeat the mistakes regarding email use is she?
Both because she learns, and because the US government is now a lot more knowledgeable and careful about cyber security than it was 8 years ago.
The only reason to promote her is that she's about to win the election convincingly.
So what? If she was in the military, she'd be in prison. She willfully violated her oath of office and the MOU she signed with Obama.
"Convincingly?"
How many electoral votes will she win by?
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
08 Nov 2016, 3:25 pm
fate
How many electoral votes will she win by?
She'll receive 322 electoral votes I think.
Thats convincing.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Nov 2016, 3:31 pm
rickyp wrote:fate
How many electoral votes will she win by?
She'll receive 322 electoral votes I think.
Thats convincing.
We shall see. If she's under 50%, no it's not. If she doesn't get the Senate and the House, no it's not.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Nov 2016, 9:10 pm
rickyp wrote:fate
How many electoral votes will she win by?
She'll receive 322 electoral votes I think.
Thats convincing.
Schadenfreude, schadenfreude
How are you? How are you?
Very good indeed sir, very good indeed sir
How are you?
(Sing to the children's song Frere Jacques)
-
- dag hammarsjkold
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm
08 Nov 2016, 10:02 pm
I wonder how she will look in orange?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Nov 2016, 10:15 pm
dag hammarsjkold wrote:I wonder how she will look in orange?
I would like to contribute money to buy that pantsuit for her.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
09 Nov 2016, 12:34 am
I'm still laughing!
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7394
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
09 Nov 2016, 1:12 am
Wow, just wow.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
09 Nov 2016, 1:26 am
rickyp wrote:fate
How many electoral votes will she win by?
She'll receive 322 electoral votes I think.
Thats convincing.
Reposting for effect.
Bwahahaha!
Obama's popularity: 56%
Did it help Clinton?
He flew Air Force One all over the place, holding rallies for her.
Did it help Clinton?
Affordable Care Act. Experience. Money--yes, filthy lucre.
Did it help Clinton?