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...

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

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.

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!

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.

How many electoral votes will she win by?

rickyp wrote:fate

How many electoral votes will she win by?

She'll receive 322 electoral votes I think.
Thats convincing.

rickyp wrote:fate

How many electoral votes will she win by?

She'll receive 322 electoral votes I think.
Thats convincing.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I wonder how she will look in orange?

rickyp wrote:fate

How many electoral votes will she win by?

She'll receive 322 electoral votes I think.
Thats convincing.