Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Well this is ****. Doesn't change the fact that she's obviously corrupt, but it may be enough to hand it to her in such a tight race.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Bet she was glad they actually finished the investigation just in time rather than having a big ? which was impossible to respond to.
    Whether or not she's glad, or considers it "just in time", probably depends on how much damage it's done to her performance in early voting.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Gofre)
    Whether or not she's glad, or considers it "just in time", probably depends on how much damage it's done to her performance in early voting.
    Given the choice of a no criminality find or the invetsigation finding something or remaining ongoing, then I think she will be glad its been resolved. probably furious about the damage that has been done, but not much time to waste on that till after.

    It prevents Trump using as an effective stick, now. Also undermines all the motherlode and commending the FBI stuff. I guess its back to everything is corrupt and its all a fix angle.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Given the choice of a no criminality find or the invetsigation finding something or remaining ongoing, then I think she will be glad its been resolved. probably furious about the damage that has been done, but not much time to waste on that till after.
    That's the thing though, it was already resolved when they declared her free of any criminal wrongdoing the first time around. I don't she'll have been worried at all about the risk of indictment after the investigation was reopened, all she had to worry about was how much of her lead she was going to haemorrhage.

    It prevents Trump using as an effective stick, now.
    I seriously doubt it will stop Trump using it if he still decides he wants to, this is the same guy who yesterday slated Obama for screaming at a protestor after the footage was already going viral showing Obama defending the protestor's right to show support for his candidate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I detest Trump but it seems a bit odd that the FBI decided to reopen the investigation just before the election only to clear Hillary a few days later. Can someone who knows more than me about this tell me that I'm stupid?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Gofre)
    That's the thing though, it was already resolved when they declared her free of any criminal wrongdoing the first time around. I don't she'll have been worried at all about the risk of indictment after the investigation was reopened, all she had to worry about was how much of her lead she was going to haemorrhage.

    I seriously doubt it will stop Trump using it if he still decides he wants to, this is the same guy who yesterday slated Obama for screaming at a protestor after the footage was already going viral showing Obama defending the protestor's right to show support for his candidate.
    I'm sure she knew what was in the e-mails. hence being less bothered, but being under investigation weakened her position considerably and that is how Trump has made up ground. Thats why she will be relieved she can try and get back on with campaigning. If it hadnt been resolved, then his chances would have been much greater. there was a chance he could build momentum.

    I bet they put in some overtime to get through those e-mails.

    I think a lot of Trumps supporters are preaching to the converted, so he cna carry on and they can pretend the investigation is still going or its a cover up.

    Its the undecideds who now might feel more comfy boting when they were wavering beforehand.

    Btw I didnt look it up, but Id be surprised if a laptop is worth it considering the exchange rate. Obviously you know about taking it out of the box and not declairing it to save on import tax.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I imagine those advocating the vast left wing conspiracy that the FBI were rigging the election have suddenly shut up, although it seems odd that an investigation containing over half a million emails could possibly take a week, and I imagine the Bureau's approval rating really has not fared well through all this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    I'm sure she knew what was in the e-mails. hence being less bothered, but being under investigation weakened her position considerably and that is how Trump has made up ground.
    This was the point I was making, what I'm disagreeing with is that...

    Thats why she will be relieved she can try and get back on with campaigning.
    ... I don't think "relief" is the right word- she's probably still fuming. It's like somebody swinging a cricket bat at the back of your head, and then letting you know they won't be knocking your teeth out with it after the concussion's worn off. Yes, it's a good thing that they're not hitting you again, but gladness and relief probably aren't the feelings you're experiencing after already being cracked around the back of the skull.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "careless but not criminal" makes no sense - I could be careless as to the safety of those I have legal responsibilities for (i.e. my hypothetical children) but does that mean that I'm not acting in a criminal way?

    honestly, you people must surely understand that she used a private account for her emails because an unknown private account isn't subject to the freedom of information act, so she can be corrupt without it showing. also, obviously she had probably successfully wiped all of the emails from that account before the FBI found them. in fact, surely this *is* what happened?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Gofre)
    This was the point I was making, what I'm disagreeing with is that...



    ... I don't think "relief" is the right word- she's probably still fuming. It's like somebody swinging a cricket bat at the back of your head, and then letting you know they won't be knocking your teeth out with it after the concussion's worn off. Yes, it's a good thing that they're not hitting you again, but gladness and relief probably aren't the feelings you're experiencing after already being cracked around the back of the skull.
    Think we are going to have to agree to disagree. She might be raging at the same time, but its a relief to get a reesolution compared to the chance that none was reached and it continues to hurt her. Sge will be mostly focused on the election now and can do the post mortem afterwards.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    "careless but not criminal" makes no sense - I could be careless as to the safety of those I have legal responsibilities for (i.e. my hypothetical children) but does that mean that I'm not acting in a criminal way?

    honestly, you people must surely understand that she used a private account for her emails because an unknown private account isn't subject to the freedom of information act, so she can be corrupt without it showing. also, obviously she had probably successfully wiped all of the emails from that account before the FBI found them. in fact, surely this *is* what happened?
    Yes because the level of culpability wasnt serious enough. Did you study law?
    You will find soemthing called the mens rea which assesses the mental state required for any crime to be commited. It would appear hers was insufficient for criminal liability and carelessness was not enough.

    From my reading it was commonplace and several other secretaries of state were also using private severrs back at the time. the internet wasnt what it is today.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Yes because the level of culpability wasnt serious enough. Did you study law? You will find soemthing called the mens rea
    oh jeez, here we go.

    which assesses the mental state required for any crime to be commited. It would appear hers was insufficient for criminal liability and carelessness was not enough.
    surely gross neglience is a form of mens rea.
    and if she's in high office being negligent, surely she's objectively breaking the standards of that office. where's the line? what constitutes "serious enough"? because this surely was serious enough gor other officials that were jailed for this kind of activity

    From my reading it was commonplace and several other secretaries of state were also using private severrs back at the time. the internet wasnt what it is today.
    nahhhhh.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    oh jeez, here we go.

    surely gross neglience is a form of mens rea.
    and if she's in high office being negligent, surely she's objectively breaking the standards of that office. where's the line? what constitutes "serious enough"? because this surely was serious enough gor other officials that were jailed for this kind of activity

    nahhhhh.
    Careless doesnt equate to gross negligence. Gross negligence is only relevant to certain offences.The level of culpability required would depend upon the crime being alleged.

    In this instance the FBI dont feel there is enough evidence to show criminal culpability. The Justice department also decided there was insufficient evidence.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    convenient timing, eh? :holmes:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    The Justice department also decided there was insufficient evidence.
    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"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Careless doesnt equate to gross negligence. Gross negligence is only relevant to certain offences.The level of culpability required would depend upon the crime being alleged.

    In this instance the FBI dont feel there is enough evidence to show criminal culpability. The Justice department also decided there was insufficient evidence.
    Surely that should be a question for a jury, the act isn't in question she did what she is accused of.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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"
    They found no evidence of that. Innocent till proven guilty. What evidence do you have? Without evidence you have nothing.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Surely that should be a question for a jury, the act isn't in question she did what she is accused of.
    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.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.