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

Scroll to see replies

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

Lynch had to stand down from the decision because of this. However the Justice Department never really had a chance to make its own decision once Comey had gone public with his view.

Reply 41

Joep95

Original post by nulli tertius

Lynch had to stand down from the decision because of this. However the Justice Department never really had a chance to make its own decision once Comey had gone public with his view.

No matter what way you look at this whether supporting Hillary or trump this case has a lot of problems.

It feels like throughout the case he has mishandled it, if you recommend no charges in a case like this you can not say that there is evidence a law was broken and then this 9 day investigation I don't think anyone can trust 100% because of him.

Reply 42

999tigger

Original post by joecphillips

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.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.

I really dont think you have understood how the process works. They need enough evidence that has a chance of getting a conviction. Beither the FBI or the DoJ thought there was sufficient evidence. Thats it. You dont run cases you have no chance of winning.

Reply 43

Dodgypirate

Original post by Twinpeaks

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

Come on people.

Tax evasions don't put the country at risk.

Reply 44

nulli tertius

Original post by 999tigger

Read what Comey said in July

"In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order."

"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"

"As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

I'm sorry, but the DoJ was completely bounced into a decision, particularly as that decision was being made by a subordinate officer at the DoJ as the Attorney General was recused.

Reply 45

Jammy Duel

Original post by Twinpeaks

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

Come on people.

Well given it's a potential national security issue, absolutely it's worse, further I don't see how tax evasion is relevant, who's a tax evader?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 46

nulli tertius

Original post by Dodgypirate

Tax evasions don't put the country at risk.

(a) There is no evidence Trump has evaded rather than lawfully avoided tax

(b) The FBI made clear that had been no risk to national security over Clinton's emails. The emails were only "secret" in a very technical sense

Reply 47

999tigger

Original post by nulli tertius

1. I thought that was the point f the above article in she did not recuse herself.
2. I dont see wjhy the DOJ was bounced into a decision at all. Its their decision to make. The FBI are just expressing an opinion. Its like the police telling the CPS what to do.

Reply 48

Jammy Duel

Original post by nulli tertius

So nothing dangerous being found on the server means there never was anything that was a risk, nor was it possible that a risk could be on the server? This is a woman with awful judgement after all.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 49

nulli tertius

Original post by 999tigger

1. I thought that was the point f the above article in she did not recuse herself.

She agreed to act on the professional prosecutors' decision. That is normal where a decision has to be taken by a particular individual but that individual is conflicted. Otherwise a decision can't be taken at all.

I dont see wjhy the DOJ was bounced into a decision at all. Its their decision to make. The FBI are just expressing an opinion. Its like the police telling the CPS what to do.

Try finding any example where the British police send a report to the CPS but publicly announce that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute in advance of the prosecutor's decision.

Reply 50

nulli tertius

Original post by Jammy Duel

The same argument would apply to all those other senior officials in other administrations that had been using emails accounts outside of the official US government email systems.

The bottom line for all governments is that those with real state secrets have to control what they say outside of secure channels. It is clear Clinton recognised that her private email server was not a secure communications medium. Most of the "secret" emails contained information that was only retrospectively classified. The very few others had a very obscure security coding. Nothing was marked "secret" or similar. Obviously Clinton would have been seeing (if not sending) really secret emails and their absence from this server indicates that these were being managed properly in a government network.

So in this context, Clinton didn't have "awful judgement" and you wouldn't expect her to. Effectively she has been hanging around the world of what is really secret since 1992. One would expect her to be able to keep her mouth shut.

Reply 51

skunkboy

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/debbie-wasserman-schultz-loses-role-preside-over-convention-pushed-resign-because-wikileaks-release

Mrs.Clinton is a corrupt politician. She did discredit America. She makes US look exactly like the third world countries.

You accept corruption? Wow...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 52

Retired_Messiah

did they find nudes tho? A good presidential nudes scandal would be hilarious

Reply 53

Joep95

Original post by Retired_Messiah

did they find nudes tho? A good presidential nudes scandal would be hilarious

Why would wiener have nudes of trump?

Reply 54

Retired_Messiah

Original post by joecphillips

Why would wiener have nudes of trump?

Noooo nudes in Hillary's emails idgaf who of.

Mind, you never know what wiener might get up to in his free time. I certainly don't, I'm not really even aware of who that is.