DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Trump VS Clinton 2016

I think it means she sucks at her job, but there was no crime committed

That was my first thought as well. "No evidence she INTENTIONALLY tried to break the law" can, and should be read as "she broke the law, but we can't prove it was intentional, so, oh well."

The courts/FBI need to either charge or clear both candidates so we can move along.

Rudy" Giuliani just said on CNBC the reason there were no questions allowed at the end of the FBI statement was because the first question would have been, "How can you say no charges should be filed when you said there was Gross Negligence on Hillary's part, which is a crime and punishable with 10 years in prison?"

j/c

The answer is an easy one. The way the law was written is that to be a crime, it had to be done with malice and forethought.

It makes it a very hard charge to stick but that would work for either party.

Condi Rice & Colin Powell would still be in prison for another 2 years.

18 U.S. Code 793F - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

-Oh those deleted emails and wiped clean servers can have such a bite as they show intent.

Me thinks the other posters will ignore this.

Mmmmm...A personal email server wiped clean or lying about weapons of mass destruction to start a war.

Message to the rest of the world! In the U.S.A. we will do all we can to prosecute our Gov't officials who use a personal email server during the early years of the smart phone era. Beware though, we won't prosecute Gov't officials that lie to congress about your Gov't hiding tons of weapons of mass destruction. Good luck, better duck...bombs away!

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Washington, D.C.
July 05, 2016

FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

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.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

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 know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-...l-e-mail-system


I find this recommendation of "No Charges" unbelievable. They caught her mishandling Top Secret, Secret and Confidential classified emails. She is guilty of this, but because they decided it was unintentional stupidity they recommend no charges? Snowden should get the same deal.

Watching CNN talk about this FBI statement and they are saying it didn't rise to the level of being criminal; Yet they plainly say that she broke the law. So my question is, when did breaking the law become not criminal? Can I choose to break certain laws and expect not to be prosecuted if caught? Is that how this works for everybody else? I don't think so...

I forget. What did they do?

How convenient.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice...-emails-n511181

Not to mention all this garbage about intent... since when did Intent matter, at all?

The FBI clearly states that there are several violations with Top Secret (or higher) materials, and lots more classified as Secret. Plus, they state that they know there is a strong likelihood of the server being compromised.


If ANYONE else did this (Petraeus??), they'd be fried in a heart beat.

Well I don't agree with Trump on much but his #RiggedSystem tweeted hashtag sums it up. I just can't vote for this person, I will be staying home unless a third party shows up.

People that Hate Hillary Clinton are angry she's not being charged

People that love Hillary Clinton happy she's not being charged


And the world continues to go round.

FWIW I never expected her to be charged. I wanted her to be charged, but I didn't expect it.

Sanders receives $1.1 million in Secret Service protection since Clinton's victory.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/sanders-r...ns-victory.html

Can't seem to stop spending other peoples money!

intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

I did not expect her to get charged, not for the emails anyway. The only person who could charge her, Loretta Lynch, was appointed as Attorney General by Obama, and she had previously been appointed as a federal attorney by Bill Clinton, who she had recently been seen taking a secret meaning with. Did anyone think that Lynch was really going to prosecute Bill Clinton's wife and likely Democratic nominee in a hotly contested election year? Yeah right.

Now I know that it was the FBI's recommendation not to indict, but I don't think an affirmative recommendation could have been made absent an absolute slam dunk case, with overwhelming evidence already in the public domain. My personal feeling is that Lynch already knew of the decision not to indict before she announced that she would follow Comey's recommendation but I of course have no way to prove that.



Warning, opinion piece:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...olumn/86669526/

No reasonable attorney general meets secretly with the husband of someone under investigation.

UPDATE: Shortly after this column went online, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI will not recommend charges against Hillary. Although he said that there was extreme "carelessness" in handling classified information, the lack of intent to violate the law precluded prosecution. That's a bit of a surprise given that the Department of Justice is currently prosecuting Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier for a similar crime where no intent was involved. This gives rise to suspicions, verging on certainty, that the law is different when your name is Clinton, that laws are for the "little people" and not those in charge. As Kurt Schlichter has recently warned, the sense that there's no such thing as rule of law in today's America is likely to be quite corrosive. If Hillary can do this much damage to America's fabric now, how much worse will things be with her in the White House?

So this past weekend, while most Americans were lounging by the pool, shooting off fireworks and eating hot dogs, Democratic Party presidential candidate (and presumptive nominee) Hillary Clinton was being questioned by the FBI. For three and a half hours.

The questions, reportedly, had to do with her unapproved and illegal private email server. Hillary, in an apparent effort to emulate Henry Kissinger’s successful maneuvers to keep his documents from coming under Freedom of Information Act requests, had used her own email service instead of the official, and more secure, State Department service. This was not an occasional, incidental use — like sending a message via Gmail because you couldn’t reach the official account — but a very deliberate scheme to make sure that her emails weren’t available under open records laws.

Though Hillary and her campaign at first claimed that no classified material was on this insecure system (emails about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding, we were told), that wasn’t the case; thousands of emails contained classified information, some of it quite serious. So that Hillary could avoid public scrutiny, very sensitive information was conveyed in a form that made it easy to hack. And, actually, we already know that her email was compromised, by a hacker who calls himself Guccifer. He broke into the private email of a Clinton crony and found email exchanges with Clinton. It is likely that Clinton's own email was hacked by one or more foreign intelligence services, too, though so far they’re not talking and no definitive proof has been made public.


While Hillary’s risky email setup had the virtue of insulating her activity as secretary of State from public scrutiny, it had some other problems. The handling of classified matter is governed by statutes and regulations, and violating those statutes and regulations is a serious crime. Hence, the FBI interview. (The guy who set the system up for her has taken the Fifth, which looks pretty bad. Juries are supposed to ignore it when people take the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but the rest of us are under no such obligation.)

Many observers say that this is all Kabuki, and that nothing will happen to Hillary. As Twitter wag Iowa Hawk put it: ”If you think there's a chance that the FBI will recommend prosecuting Hillary, you've apparently never watched pro rasslin'.”

Still, at least somebody seems worried, as possible future First Gentleman Bill Clinton had a very non-standard meeting with Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch, on board her jet at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport. (Bill’s own private jet just “happened” to be there days before the FBI interviewed his wife.)

What did they talk about? Officially, grandchildren and golf. (No word on whether yoga came up.) But nobody arranges a secret meeting with the attorney general of the United States — a local TV reporter revealed the story and reported that the FBI was enforcing a no-cellphones, no-photos rule — just to talk about grandchildren.

And no reasonable attorney general meets secretly with the husband of someone under investigation by the FBI, but that’s what happened. Loretta Lynch has gotten a lot of flak for this from across the political spectrum, and with good reason. It’s not just that the “optics” are bad, to use a favorite Washington phrase. It’s that the actuality is bad.

Lynch has responded by kinda-sorta-but-not-really recusing herself from the decision on whether to prosecute Hillary. Of course, that may simply mean that someone else is expected to take the heat. But it certainly hurts Lynch: If, as some have suggested, a President Hillary might nominate Lynch to the Supreme Court, now that would look too much like a payoff for even many Democrats to stomach. (The New York Post cover on Saturday featured Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch with the headline “Snakes on a plane.”)

And it serves as a reminder to the rest of us: As we learned in the 1990s, anyone who gets close to the Clintons seems to wind up embroiled in some sort of shady dealings. In the intervening years, that history got glossed over with rosy memories of the Tech Bubble and the (illusory) post-Cold War “peace dividend.” But shady dealings are the Clintons’ trademark, and a Hillary presidency, if it happens, is clearly going to continue that tradition. And it’s not just email. As a prominent Democrat complained to The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, “The person that the White House cleared the field for, and that everyone has fallen in line for, has three federal investigations going on.”

For voters, there’s this takeaway from the Independence Day weekend: There are, counting the Green and Libertarian party candidates, four national candidates running for president. Only one of them is under FBI investigation.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

Intent always matters.

If you purposely shoot someone, you are in trouble. But, if you are holding a gun and it goes off and you kill someone, you probably won't be in trouble.

The you are not a libertarian. And that is the challenge. There are some pretty extreme views in libertarian ideology that reduces government to one level above anarchy.

I am not just talking about personal liberties which most people relate to. A primary purpose of government is to regulate commerce. (business, taxation, tariff, environmental policy). Libertarians remove those restrictions and results in a great deal of economic volatility, that presents a profit making ability to those who can weather the storm. Hence, the underlying love of libertarian philosophy by the Kochs and others of that type.

A true libertarian would not have basic safety standards as the implication is that business would do the right thing to avoid suits. The larger the business the less likely it is to behave in that manner as their economic prowess affords them the opportunity to do so.

[quote=40YEARSWAITING]18 U.S. Code 793F - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Several thoughts:

1, there was no way Hilary was ever going to get charged. Too many connections.

2, The emails: She clearly misused her private email for transmitting classified information despite what seems like multiple warnings that she used her power to overrule. I can't find the link to the actual wording of the law related to this but there is mention of intent and that is clearly there. I seem to remember mention of malicious intent. This is harder to prove. I don't know if there was or not. But clearly this was deliberately reckless behavior. This one word may be what kept her from being guilty.

3, The investigation: Here is my issue. Seems to me that her going in and destroying all those emails is clearly obstruction of justice. I don't know how this is not a bigger issue. To me this is much bigger than the emails.

4, The Rice/Powell issue - maybe there should be an investigation maybe not but it was a different time in the world. Who knows how much warning /instruction they were given. At this point there is very little evidence that they did much if any wrong. Possibly 12 emails between the 2 vs tens of thousands to Hilary. No comparison. Regardless, when was the last time someone got a speeding ticket and got off because of the "I was just going with the flow of traffic" excuse. There may have been multiple crimes by multiple people but someone else's behavior is no excuse for your behavior.

Pretty much wrong for the most part.

j/c

FOX: NEW EVIDENCE HILLARY KILLED LINCOLN
By Andy Borowitz , MAY 11, 2013

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In what may be the most serious allegation ever made against the former Secretary of State, Fox News Channel reported today that Hillary Clinton was involved in the conspiracy to murder President Abraham Lincoln.

The latest charge against Mrs. Clinton was reported by Fox host Sean Hannity, who said that the evidence of her role in the Lincoln assassination came mainly in the form of e-mails.


According to Mr. Hannity, “If it’s true that Hillary Clinton killed Lincoln, this could have a major impact on her chances in 2016.”

The accusation against Mrs. Clinton drew a strong response from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.—S. Carolina): “There’s been a concerted effort by Hillary Clinton to cover up her role in President Lincoln’s murder. She has said nothing about it. This is bigger than Watergate, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Second World War put together.”

Responding to the allegation, Mrs. Clinton issued a terse statement indicating that she could not have participated in Lincoln’s assassination because she was born in 1947.

“That’s what she wants us to believe,” Sen. Graham said.



http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/fox-new-evidence-hillary-killed-lincoln

Funny article.

For anyone to completely ignore all the crap Hillary HAS done is just as ridiculous.

Oh, but I get it: Never convicted. Got it.

OJ wasn't convicted of his murder.

Capone wasn't convicted of anything but tax evasion.

Hey, Clem, have you ever turned $1000 into $100,000 in a matter of 9 months? No? Has anyone? Yup, 1 person.

I don't know if I'd believe she had anything to do with Booth or the other conspirators but I could be sold on the fact she's old enough to have been with just a modicum of arm twisting.

I take back my "ridiculous" comment. Comey realized if he said he recommended prosecution, he would mysteriously die of suicide. Same with Lynch. Hey, she's got a job on the line, right?

Since when does a law enforcement agency tell a prosecuting attorney what to do or not to do? Law enforcement investigates, and hands facts over to the PA.

In this case, law enforcement was "encouraged" to recommend, and the AG was just fine with it.

Bill to Lynch...

You can't even hide on an open tarmac, It goes away, soon!
Got it?

This is what Bill said to her:

"I saw your plane, and I started thinking about old friends, and wanted to walk over and say hi. You just never know when something completely unforeseen can happen ..... like what happened to Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Luther Parks, John Walker, Paul Wilcher, John Wilson, James Bunch, Sue Coleman, Stanley Higgins, Danny Casolaro, and so many others ......

I know that the FBI report is coming soon .... and I just wanted to see you ..... one last time ....... in case something ..... bad .... might happen to you as well.

Oh, and please do give James Comey my best as well. I'm sure I have his address here somewhere ... in case I want to send him a letter .... or something."

I wanted her to be charged because she broke the law. I don't care if there wasn't full intent. Should be a lighter sentence because of it, not none at all....

The fact that one of the candidates for the president of the USA has had an ongoing FBI investigation for months is an embarrassment. I mean, people, that are for her, don't they care? Doesn't that send an indicator that her behavior then may be a signal for how she behaves if she's elected?

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON HILLARY CLINTON’S BAD JUDGMENT AND THE RIGGED SYSTEM

The FBI Director laid out today a detailed case of how Hillary Clinton compromised the safety of the American people by storing highly classified information on a private email server with no security. He confirmed that her email could easily have been hacked by hostile actors, and confirmed that those she emailed with were hacked.

Our adversaries almost certainly have a blackmail file on Hillary Clinton, and this fact alone disqualifies her from service.

It has also been revealed that Hillary Clinton lied when she said that she did not send classified information. The FBI Director confirmed that over 100 emails were deemed classified at the time they were sent, including emails classified as top secret.

On top of it all, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers wiped the servers clean to delete another 30,000 emails – hiding her corrupt dealings from investigators. She used the State Department for her personal gain, trading favors for cash, and tried to conceal the records. Also, she didn’t want people to know the details about her botched decisions in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Egypt that destabilized the Middle East.

But because of our rigged system that holds the American people to one standard and people like Hillary Clinton to another, it does not look like she will be facing the criminal charges that she deserves.

Bill Clinton didn’t accidentally run into the Attorney General on the airport tarmac last week in Phoenix. Hillary Clinton didn’t accidentally sneak into the FBI during one of the country’s biggest holiday weekends to testify on her illegal activities, something that wouldn’t be afforded to others under investigation (and on a Saturday of all days). It was no accident that charges were not recommended against Hillary the exact same day as President Obama campaigns with her for the first time.

Folks – the system is rigged. The normal punishment, in this case, would include losing authority to handle classified information, and that too disqualifies Hillary Clinton from being President.

The final jury will be the American people, and they will issue the verdict on her corruption, incompetence, and bad judgment on November 8th.

Anybody seen the qualifications to be president?

Not a whole lot of detail involved.

If Trump wins he should have his new attorney general revisit this case and assign a special prosecutor and seat a grand jury. Not indicting today her prevents obama from pardoning her and she's fair game for the next president if she doesn't win.

Trump should negotiate a deal with Hillary that he won't prosecute her if she resigns now and runs as his Vice President!

The Art of the Deal!

Did you hear what Bernie said about Hillary?

Yea, me neither, the Press won't cover it.

Murica

It means she is a Clinton , therefor the law does not apply to her.

I know I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I'm aware the party has its fair share of Looney tunes, but I simply can't vote for either of the two major candidates.

I watched most of the announcement. Attempting to read between the lines of an FBI guy talking is probably a waste of time, but here goes. I got the feeling from him that he really wanted to do more, but his hands were tied. I really think he tried to stick it to Hillary as much as he could. Going into as much detail as he did regarding the carelessness aspect was revealing, as well as his wording (no prosecutor would prosecute this, anybody else would be charged), was eye opening.

If I had to guess, if say the lack of evidence was the main driver of the recommendation. His contradiction of many of her defenses (wasn't classified at the time), the mention of her lawyers wiping work-related emails that they had to resurrect from the slack space... it all sounds REALLY bad if you're paying attention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-speaker-ryan-slams-trump-star-tweet-154514736.html?ref=gs

Omfg.....why Paul Ryan? Why open your mouth? Now you just gave confirmation to the world about the tweet, even if it was true. '

Trump didn't mean the Star of David in the tweet, but now you just essentially said "yea, that's what I think he did, too"

My god the stupidity in government.

Why? I can think of 2 reasons. 1. The rebublicans are not 100% behind trump, and/or 2, Ryan thinks this might endear him to voters. After all, he's got a job he wants to keep, right?