F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton

[Aura7541]

Well, you kind of have to when the other candidate is trump

Well, there's a concept called the Horseshoe Theory and I find both Trump and Hillary bad albeit in different ways. Basically, this general election is a choice between getting iced... and getting iced.

[Proxum]

Caring about politics < Not giving a fudge about politics

[Proxum]

By the way that was a joke.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

Caring about politics < Not giving a fudge about politics

I really wish I could not care again. Not that My caring is going to make a difference.

[Proxum]

I really wish I could not care again. Not that My caring is going to make a difference.

That is so true that it is sad. So many more qualified candidates rather than Trump and Hillary yet these two bimbos won over the public. Such a sad year for politics.

[Raven]

JUST IN: State Department Declares FBI Director Was WRONG About Clinton's Emails, They Were NOT Marked

Apparently, the State Department found even less wrong with what she did than the FBI.

[Legend]

JUST IN: State Department Declares FBI Director Was WRONG About Clinton's Emails, They Were NOT Marked

Apparently, the State Department found even less wrong with what she did than the FBI.

That seems odd to me that the state department would "correct" the FBI. It just keeps this issue going.

[Raven]

That seems odd to me that the state department would "correct" the FBI. It just keeps this issue going.

Or puts this to rest. The people who want to find something wrong with Clinton will keep it up no matter how many times it gets investigated. So doing it to prove something to them is pointless. They'll just claim some kind of government fraud, that Clinton is behind it, and latch onto the next "credible source" that says she's guilty. Meanwhile, those who genuinely wanted to know what happened will be satisfied that not only did the FBI investigate it but the State Department reopened it with its own investigation and found that the FBI report was actually slightly damning compared to what they found, which was nothing worth going after her for.

[Legend]

Or puts this to rest. The people who want to find something wrong with Clinton will keep it up no matter how many times it gets investigated. So doing it to prove something to them is pointless. They'll just claim some kind of government fraud, that Clinton is behind it, and latch onto the next "credible source" that says she's guilty. Meanwhile, those who genuinely wanted to know what happened will be satisfied that not only did the FBI investigate it but the State Department reopened it with its own investigation and found that the FBI report was actually slightly damning compared to what they found, which was nothing worth going after her for.

But to me the state department's investigation brings uncertainty to the quality of the FBI's investigation. It turns things into a "wait and see" situation instead of just accepting the report and moving on.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

Or puts this to rest. The people who want to find something wrong with Clinton will keep it up no matter how many times it gets investigated. So doing it to prove something to them is pointless. They'll just claim some kind of government fraud, that Clinton is behind it, and latch onto the next "credible source" that says she's guilty. Meanwhile, those who genuinely wanted to know what happened will be satisfied that not only did the FBI investigate it but the State Department reopened it with its own investigation and found that the FBI report was actually slightly damning compared to what they found, which was nothing worth going after her for.

The fbi statmentd was damning and it was a failure on their part not to do a propper investigation. Damning to show clintion was above the law. Even though the state came to a different conclusion the damage is still done.

[Raven]

But to me the state department's investigation brings uncertainty to the quality of the FBI's investigation. It turns things into a "wait and see" situation instead of just accepting the report and moving on.

The State Department's investigation pretty much brings an end to it. No one is going to reopen this now. With the FBI not recommending charges based on what they found and the State Department finding that Clinton really couldn't be charged with anything, it's over.

The fbi statmentd was damning and it was a failure on their part not to do a propper investigation. Damning to show clintion was above the law. Even though the state came to a different conclusion the damage is still done.

The FBI statement was no more damning than what people had already decided they believed. It simply didn't change anything among people who wanted Clinton to go away. Whatever damage this whole thing was going to do, it was done long before the FBI investigated and Clinton is still here, she beat Sanders, and she's polling well ahead of Trump. The State Department finds that Clinton wasn't actually guilty of anything. That means the problem lies now with the FBI. Not Clinton. They are the ones who should now be investigated for how they handled the investigation. Their mishandling of it is a serious issue.

It's over. Clinton isn't going away. She's still going to be around later this year and running for President. She's no more above the law now than what people already believed.

[the-pi-guy]

In the past, the FBI has recommended a criminal indictment when individuals have knowingly mishandled classified information but not when information is deleted haphazardly. The FBI, therefore, treated Hillary Clinton in the same way they would treat you or me.

So if, for instance, Hillary (or her lawyers) had run a filter looking for the word "wedding" in order to find personal emails to her daughter and then deleted them all there's probably no crime even if three classified-at-the-time emails were inadvertently deleted in the process.

On the other hand, if Hillary (or her lawyers) had run a filter looking for the word "drone" in order to find emails that were classified at the time they were sent and then deleted those emails she would have been indicted for that.

According to the FBI she was a careless buffoon (okay, I might have editorialized there) who should have known better (that part's legit) and should no longer have access to classified information (that part was strongly implied by Director Comey). But she is not a criminal who intentionally thwarted classification laws.

Update: A number of commenters (on my answer and across Quora) correctly note that one law Clinton may have broken specifies "gross negligence" as the standard, which directly implies there is no need to prove intent. [1]In his testimony before Congress this morning (July 7) Comey claimed only one person has ever been prosecuted under this law in the last 99 years and that person was engaged in espionage. It's much more common to prosecute individuals under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. That law does require intent.

Numerous claims that others have been prosecuted despite no finding of intent are therefore extremely suspect. (Bryan Nishimura, in particular, is often falsely cited as having been charged despite there being no finding of intent.)

If we don't believe Hillary Clinton was a foreign spy, then, and we don't have strong evidence of intent, then prosecution for this crime would be wholly unprecedented

It wasn't a prosecutable case and there was precedent to support the decision.

...the Department of Justice has a clear reason for not indicting the former Secretary of State.

The most important thing to understand is precedent. When issuing a recommendation for Clinton, Comey said the FBI considered past cases where criminal charges had been filed for a similar crime. In all of those cases, the intent of the guilty party was different, and each criminal case also had some additional "plus factor" of sketchiness. As Politico reported in April, past cases with indictments included an FBI agent who was sleeping with a Chinese intelligence agent, then brought home highly classified files; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2,000 secret documents and then decided to travel to Israel; and a NSA official who, you guessed it, removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

In other words, Comey says Clinton was very, very stupid, and made a reckless or lazy mistake, but there's no reasonable evidence that her disregard for national security was intended to harm the country. Here's Why the FBI Didn't Indict Hillary Clinton on Emails

However this will not satisfy the Republicans who will keep this issue alive charging sleaze and corruption. It won't work, the Republicans are extremely unimaginative with their attack dog tactics. Even though these tactics have never worked they keep on trying.

They may even decide to investigate the investigation and flush millions more taxpayer dollars into the Republican sewer just like they've been doing since they first decided to get Bill Clinton.

When It Comes to Investigations, House Republicans Just Keep Losing

Republicans: Let's Investigate Clinton Emails Just One More Time, OK? - FreakOutNation

It has been said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results".

Another saying is "if the shoe fits wear it".

These people know more than I do.

[Xevross]

What a mess this is.

I find it really odd that this argument is about whether Hillary can be trusted with classified information, when I think she's at least 10x more trustworthy than Trump should be. Man, you guys really do have a choice between awful and differently awful

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

What a mess this is.

I find it really odd that this argument is about whether Hillary can be trusted with classified information, when I think she's at least 10x more trustworthy than Trump should be. Man, you guys really do have a choice between awful and differently awful

At this point im more willing to vote for an obama 3rd term than vote for either of these two.

[Xevross]

At this point im more willing to vote for an obama 3rd term than vote for either of these two.

There's no doubt Obama would do a much better job than those two