Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    They would only go ahead with a prosecution if they felt there was enough evidence to suggest culpability. Neither the lawyers at the FBI or the Juctice Department thought so.
    Comey thought there was enough to say she potentially broke the statute
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    The FBI has found no evidence of criminality in the new batch of Hillary Clinton emails.
    In a letter to members of Congress, FBI director James Comey said the agency had finished its review and found nothing to change its position.
    In July, he said Mrs Clinton had been careless but not criminal in handling sensitive material on her private email server while secretary of state.



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37892138

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mepage%2Fstory

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/elect...-2016-37825671


    Bet she was glad they actually finished the investigation just in time rather than having a big ? which was impossible to respond to.
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    They used computer programs and complex algorithms to search for special tags that show documents which are tagged as classified. Im sure they probably looked through it all before and they were being very thorough. It would be silly to question the legitimacy of the outcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im with Hillary here. The FBI dropped a political bombshell when saying they were going to reopen the Clinton investigation after the discovery of new emails and it was absolutely right of them to finish it up now and make sure that this does not affect voters.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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.

    Name:  comey letter.PNG
Views: 57
Size:  225.3 KB
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    Name:  comey letter.PNG
Views: 57
Size:  225.3 KB
    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/pr...-e-mail-system
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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/pr...-e-mail-system
    Yes and then he decided it wasnt sufficient, something which the Justice Department also decided there was insufficient evidence of.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Pretty sure the FBI are capable of recovering "deleted" emails.
    Not when the server is complete destroyed, there are programs that can completely destroy them
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Sure...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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
    Name:  comey2.PNG
Views: 50
Size:  16.1 KB
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    He says
    Name:  comey2.PNG
Views: 50
Size:  16.1 KB
    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
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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 **** 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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Link me up to a credible source and i will reply.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us...rver.html?_r=0

    Because of this I personally feel that saying we have evidence she done it but we don't recommend charges worse, it is that line from what he said that makes it hard to trust as he had the decision to make.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 8, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

997

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.