FBI finds no evidence of criminality in Clinton e-mails.

OP

Original post by joecphillips

Comey thought there was enough to say she potentially broke the statute

If you mean the letter to the senate, then no he does not say anything like that. he just says hes discivered new e-mails which seem to be pertinent to the investigation.

Feel free to provide the letter which supports the claim.

comey letter.PNG

Reply 25

Original post by 999tigger

If you mean the letter to the senate, then no he does not say anything like that. he just says hes discivered new e-mails which seem to be pertinent to the investigation.

Feel free to provide the letter which supports the claim.

comey letter.PNG

In his statement when he said he wouldn't recommend charges he said "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Reply 26

OP

Original post by paul514

I think it's laughable to think they have worked out the patterns of emails and read all 650k of them

Posted from TSR Mobile

You dont have to read them all.
Also the 650,000 e-mails were someone elses laptops, soplenty of them will have had nothing to do with Clinton.
It would help it was in electrinic format plus you would be looking for particular things, so its not needed to read every single thing in full. It becomes obvious when soemthing is potentiially relevant or not. the sifter or if they used computers would be sifting out e-mails from the start. They probably ahve a massive database pf tagged e-mails already from the investigation, which they know about. so they could elimintae those from the start as already being seen.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 27

username2053059

20

Original post by sleepysnooze

yes because she deleted her emails - she deleted the evidence, surely? this is really just a case judgement of "she's probably guilty but we technically can't prove it now"

Pretty sure the FBI are capable of recovering "deleted" emails. :colonhash:

Reply 28

OP

Original post by joecphillips

In his statement when he said he wouldn't recommend charges he said "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Yes and then he decided it wasnt sufficient, something which the Justice Department also decided there was insufficient evidence of.

Reply 29

Original post by cbreef

Pretty sure the FBI are capable of recovering "deleted" emails. :colonhash:

Not when the server is complete destroyed, there are programs that can completely destroy them

Sure...

Original post by 999tigger

Yes and then he decided it wasnt sufficient, something which the Justice Department also decided there was insufficient evidence of.

Well he shouldn't be saying there is evidence she broke the law, if there is enough evidence he can say that charges should be placed, especially as his reasoning for not bringing charges (no precedent) was proven to be incorrect on Twitter within an hour of the announcement.

Reply 32

Twinpeaks

18

Original post by Dodgypirate

Doesn't make her innocent of corruption.

She still has a **** ton on WikiLeaks to answer and Project Veritas.

Don't understand why the FBI said it would take until after the election.

Do you actually think her handling of emails is worse/ more corrupt than tax evasion?

Come on people.

Reply 33

OP

Original post by joecphillips

Well he shouldn't be saying there is evidence she broke the law, if there is enough evidence he can say that charges should be placed, especially as his reasoning for not bringing charges (no precedent) was proven to be incorrect on Twitter within an hour of the announcement.

He says

Reply 34

Original post by 999tigger

He says

If he is recommending no charges he should not be saying there is evidence she broke the statute, it undermines the statute itself and causes people to lose faith in the rule of law.

Do you think he will still be director of the FBI in February? No matter what side you are on here he has handled this case terribly

Reply 35

OP

Original post by joecphillips

If he is recommending no charges he should not be saying there is evidence she broke the statute, it undermines the statute itself and causes people to lose faith in the rule of law.

Do you think he will still be director of the FBI in February? No matter what side you are on here he has handled this case terribly

You are getting confused. the above quote explains his role and its really the DOJ that decides, although they do listen to his point of view. As I took the trouble to highlight to you the DOJ have to take into account a number of factors and in this case they decided there was insufficient evidence . It doesnt undermine anything.

I do not know whether he will still be there. the decision should be reviewed as to whether he acted properly or not. Clinton would like to get rid of him I assume, but she may be prevented from doing so. If an investigation clears him, then he will stay, if it finds him at fault, then he would resign. He may resign anyway.

Reply 36

Original post by 999tigger

You are getting confused. the above quote explains his role and its really the DOJ that decides, although they do listen to his point of view. As I took the trouble to highlight to you the DOJ have to take into account a number of factors and in this case they decided there was insufficient evidence . It doesnt undermine anything.

I do not know whether he will still be there. the decision should be reviewed as to whether he acted properly or not. Clinton would like to get rid of him I assume, but she may be prevented from doing so. If an investigation clears him, then he will stay, if it finds him at fault, then he would resign. He may resign anyway.

Didn't Loretta lynch say she was going to go with the fbi's recommendation or something similar after her meeting with bill on a private plane

Reply 37

OP

Original post by joecphillips

Didn't Loretta lynch say she was going to go with the fbi's recommendation or something similar after her meeting with bill on a private plane

Link me up to a credible source and i will reply.

Reply 38

nulli tertius

21

Original post by joecphillips

Do you think he will still be director of the FBI in February? No matter what side you are on here he has handled this case terribly

For the good of the USA, Obama should sack him before Inauguration Day.

He is well on the way to becoming J Edgar Hoover mark II. The way Hoover stayed in office for 40 years was the selective use of incriminating material about politicians.

Comey has already put one of Dick Cheney's aides in gaol. The impression that was given at the time was that the aide was involved in leaking the identity of a CIA agent for political ends, but it has later emerged that at the time Comey had him prosecuted for obstructing justice, Comey knew he wasn't involved in the leak.

Both Clinton and Trump have a lot of "history" and it wouldn't be surprising if Comey has some juicy titbits on them, whichever way the election goes.

Reply 39