CDZ FBI Recommends No Charges Against Mrs. Clinton...but what it says creates political drama...AWKWARD

[320 Years of History]

Seems that Hillary's deletions of emails, calendar events and other activities were designed to protect her from prosecution and this is evidence of criminal intent.

Mrs. Clinton's deeds don't rise to the level of criminality. That is the point. Nobody is saying setting up a server and sending/receiving classified information via it isn't wrong or ill advised. The law does not care if it was ill advised. The legal question one must ask is not "did the person knowingly set up a server that may have sent/received classified content?". The questions, in order to establish criminality, are:

• Did the person know that setting up a server to send and receive DoS emails was illegal?
• Did the person set up the server with the intent of sending/receiving classified content?
• Did the person set up the server intending to circumvent the provisions of Title 18 or other regulations/laws?

The simple answer in Mrs. Clinton's case is that she did not implement the server to avoid the stipulations of Title 18 or anything else. As has been repeatedly noted, at best, her intent was convenience, and not the convenience of trading classified content with anyone.


Dir. Comey used the "extreme carelessness" language and, understandably, one might ask, "Well, isn't 'extreme carelessness' synonymous with 'gross negligence?' Mrs. Clinton's deeds could fit into the language of 793(f). Couldn't that then be used to prosecute Mrs. Clinton's deeds as criminal?" The answer, is that, yes, one could use that as a basis for prosecuting, but it would be the first time the DoJ has done so. Most importantly, to prosecute her on that basis is to do so for the purpose of weakening or destroying her political prospects, not because she was criminally motivated to do something that is illegal.

Our criminal system doesn't aim to prosecute people because "this or that" statute allows one to be prosecuted. Our system of jurisprudence does not go "witch hunting," even if politically that's what people do in the interest of bringing down their political opposition.


Hillary’s political foes note that the State Department buck should stop definitively with Madam Secretary; as the head of the department, a systemic lack of security should be blamed on her. Reasonable people could certainly debate the level of responsibility a cabinet member should bear for such a failure. Still, such a theory of liability would never lead to a reasonable conclusion that Secretary Clinton should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. While Hillary-haters will undoubtedly fixate on the finding that her department was “extremely careless” with the handling of sensitive information, the bottom line is that such a failure just isn’t criminal.

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.

They do so 320 , and I proved that to you CONCLUSIVELY in the other thread about this. Traditionally charges are just not brought when the convening authority has sanctioned the person involved. IE the person who did it was fired and or stripped of their security clearance by whatever agency they worked for. That was obviously not done here. Stop stupidly claiming she didn't break the law when in fact she did.

"They" who or what?

You convinced yourself, but I happen to think you had your mind made up before the FBI made its announcement. Did I agree that you proved something in the other thread? If so, please refresh my memory; what post(s) are you talking about?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall "who writes what" in these discussions; I just respond to remarks folks post. Might the discussion to which you're referring be the line of discussion about the government not wanting to have certain information disclosed in open court?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You convinced yourself, but I happen to think you had your mind made up before the FBI made its announcement.

Of course he did as anyone with any background in clearance work knows that what Hillary did would have caused anyone else to lose their clearance IMMEDIATELY, and other punitive measures would have been taken that fall short of criminal processing.

And yet NONE OF THAT has happened to her Royal Highness, Hillary Rodham of the Royal House Clinton. NONE. She is protected from the consequences of what she has done due to her political connections within the Democratic Party. EVERYONE can SEE THAT, but some choose to defend her and the system anyway.

 

[320 Years of History]

Of course he did as anyone with any background in clearance work knows that what Hillary did would have caused anyone else to lose their clearance IMMEDIATELY, and other punitive measures would have been taken that fall short of criminal processing.

Well, what is there to do? She's a private citizen. She's not at DoS any longer; there's no administrative sanction that can now be applied and all the elements of behavior that indicate criminality are not present.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, what is there to do? She's a private citizen. She's not at DoS any longer; there's no administrative sanction that can now be applied and all the elements of behavior that indicate criminality are not present.

A person can still lose their clearances even if they are not currently using them. I still have mine after two years off the job.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, what is there to do? She's a private citizen. She's not at DoS any longer; there's no administrative sanction that can now be applied and all the elements of behavior that indicate criminality are not present.

A person can still lose their clearances even if they are not currently using them. I still have mine after two years off the job.

Fine. One can take away her clearances, but what's that going to do now? She's a viable Presidential candidate. She has to be given the classified briefings the other candidates receive, largely because she may win the election. It'd be different were she not running for President, but she is.

 

[paperview]

Well, what is there to do? She's a private citizen. She's not at DoS any longer; there's no administrative sanction that can now be applied and all the elements of behavior that indicate criminality are not present.

A person can still lose their clearances even if they are not currently using them. I still have mine after two years off the job.

Fine. One can take away her clearances, but what's that going to do now? She's a viable Presidential candidate. She has to be given the classified briefings the other candidates receive, largely because she may win the election. It'd be different were she not running for President, but she is.

They can't - and won't take away her clearances.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, what is there to do? She's a private citizen. She's not at DoS any longer; there's no administrative sanction that can now be applied and all the elements of behavior that indicate criminality are not present.

A person can still lose their clearances even if they are not currently using them. I still have mine after two years off the job.

Fine. One can take away her clearances, but what's that going to do now? She's a viable Presidential candidate. She has to be given the classified briefings the other candidates receive, largely because she may win the election. It'd be different were she not running for President, but she is.

They can't - and won't take away her clearances.

Why cant DOD take away Her Royal Highnesses clearances?

 

[paperview]

Well, what is there to do? She's a private citizen. She's not at DoS any longer; there's no administrative sanction that can now be applied and all the elements of behavior that indicate criminality are not present.

A person can still lose their clearances even if they are not currently using them. I still have mine after two years off the job.

Fine. One can take away her clearances, but what's that going to do now? She's a viable Presidential candidate. She has to be given the classified briefings the other candidates receive, largely because she may win the election. It'd be different were she not running for President, but she is.

They can't - and won't take away her clearances.

Why cant DOD take away Her Royal Highnesses clearances?

The ultimate authority rests with the President on security clearances.

If they tried,
or anyone tried, he'd just tell them to pound sand.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The ultimate authority rests with the President on security clearances.

If they tried,
or anyone tried, he'd just tell them to pound sand.

All of which substantiates the claim that there is one set of laws for the Oligarchs and their pets like Obama and Clinton, and an entirely separate set for everyone else.

 

[paperview]

The ultimate authority rests with the President on security clearances.

If they tried,
or anyone tried, he'd just tell them to pound sand.

All of which substantiates the claim that there is one set of laws for the Oligarchs and their pets like Obama and Clinton, and an entirely separate set for everyone else.

It's called the Constitution.

Live it
Learn it
L o v e i t.

 

[320 Years of History]

The ultimate authority rests with the President on security clearances.

If they tried,
or anyone tried, he'd just tell them to pound sand.

All of which substantiates the claim that there is one set of laws for the Oligarchs and their pets like Obama and Clinton, and an entirely separate set for everyone else.

Are you among the "Oligarchs?" Do you feel you should receive a briefing?

Do you feel that the decision of who gets security clearance and who does not rest with a committee of some sort?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you among the "Oligarchs?"

Obviously not.

Do you feel you should receive a briefing?

So you think we do not have an Oligarchy? roflmao

Do you feel that the decision of who gets security clearance and who does not rest with a committee of some sort?

I think it rests with the politically appointed officers at the top of the food chain, and they protect their fellow Corporate Cronies..

 

[320 Years of History]

So you think we do not have an Oligarchy?

Of course I think the U.S. is run oligarchically. It was never meant not to be; that is the very nature of representative democracy. That is why I'm a bit astounded by your repeated use of "oligarchy" as though its something that should not be but is.

 

[jasonnfree]

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

Not even a transcript of questions asked of her. Security of the country could have been compromised, we'll never know. Hillary is either too stupid or to arrogant to follow email protocol, or she's hiding something. Not all emails were recovered. I'm fine with Trump's record so far. He comes out and says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush like most politicians. A lot of the things he's said have been twisted by the press to mean something else.

Trump has great one liners and can adlib better than anyone I know. However, can he formulate complex polices, explain and defend them. From his speeches and interviews, the answer seems to be no. He defends his policies by diverting and his explanations leaves his audience perplexed requiring clarifications and corrections by his staff.

I would certain vote for Trump for host on a late night TV show but as president forget it. He would be an embarrassment to the nation and would most likely get the country into really serious trouble with his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Trump doesn't have the temperament, the experience, or knowledge to lead this country.

Temperament, experience, knowledge. Pretty subjective subject, but we do know she had experience under fire, which she either flat out lied about or fantasized about. Great, a president who is either a liar or lives in a fantasy world. Getting on to other things like email. You say there was no intent on her part to do wrong. The prisons are full of people who didn't intend to do harm to their victims. "But judge, I didn't know the gun was loaded", don't cut it except we must give hillary a break because...??? She might have compromised agents in the field or whatever. Good luck with your candidate who can't be trusted to handle matters of national security or telling the truth, but she does have other important qualities we need in a president such as........?

Clinton would not have been my first choice, however against Trump, she is hands down the best qualified despite her problem with the email which have been be blown out of proportion by the opposition. .

How can national security not be extremely important. Well, it'll be interesting times no matter who gets in.

 

[Flopper]

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

Not even a transcript of questions asked of her. Security of the country could have been compromised, we'll never know. Hillary is either too stupid or to arrogant to follow email protocol, or she's hiding something. Not all emails were recovered. I'm fine with Trump's record so far. He comes out and says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush like most politicians. A lot of the things he's said have been twisted by the press to mean something else.

Trump has great one liners and can adlib better than anyone I know. However, can he formulate complex polices, explain and defend them. From his speeches and interviews, the answer seems to be no. He defends his policies by diverting and his explanations leaves his audience perplexed requiring clarifications and corrections by his staff.

I would certain vote for Trump for host on a late night TV show but as president forget it. He would be an embarrassment to the nation and would most likely get the country into really serious trouble with his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Trump doesn't have the temperament, the experience, or knowledge to lead this country.

Temperament, experience, knowledge. Pretty subjective subject, but we do know she had experience under fire, which she either flat out lied about or fantasized about. Great, a president who is either a liar or lives in a fantasy world. Getting on to other things like email. You say there was no intent on her part to do wrong. The prisons are full of people who didn't intend to do harm to their victims. "But judge, I didn't know the gun was loaded", don't cut it except we must give hillary a break because...??? She might have compromised agents in the field or whatever. Good luck with your candidate who can't be trusted to handle matters of national security or telling the truth, but she does have other important qualities we need in a president such as........?

In criminal law, intent or gross negligence is almost always required for conviction. However, the degree of intent may vary with the crime but generally where there is no intent or negligence, the accused will go free.

 

[Flopper]

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

Not even a transcript of questions asked of her. Security of the country could have been compromised, we'll never know. Hillary is either too stupid or to arrogant to follow email protocol, or she's hiding something. Not all emails were recovered. I'm fine with Trump's record so far. He comes out and says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush like most politicians. A lot of the things he's said have been twisted by the press to mean something else.

Trump has great one liners and can adlib better than anyone I know. However, can he formulate complex polices, explain and defend them. From his speeches and interviews, the answer seems to be no. He defends his policies by diverting and his explanations leaves his audience perplexed requiring clarifications and corrections by his staff.

I would certain vote for Trump for host on a late night TV show but as president forget it. He would be an embarrassment to the nation and would most likely get the country into really serious trouble with his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Trump doesn't have the temperament, the experience, or knowledge to lead this country.

Temperament, experience, knowledge. Pretty subjective subject, but we do know she had experience under fire, which she either flat out lied about or fantasized about. Great, a president who is either a liar or lives in a fantasy world. Getting on to other things like email. You say there was no intent on her part to do wrong. The prisons are full of people who didn't intend to do harm to their victims. "But judge, I didn't know the gun was loaded", don't cut it except we must give hillary a break because...??? She might have compromised agents in the field or whatever. Good luck with your candidate who can't be trusted to handle matters of national security or telling the truth, but she does have other important qualities we need in a president such as........?

Clinton would not have been my first choice, however against Trump, she is hands down the best qualified despite her problem with the email which have been be blown out of proportion by the opposition. .

How can national security not be extremely important. Well, it'll be interesting times no matter who gets in.

Of course National Security is important, however it's also important to keep in mind that Clinton's "crime" is really a crime of omission, that is she should have seen to it that her email was stored on a secure server. If we subjected every politician to 3 years of intense investigation, I suspect we would find most of them would be guilty of not doing something they should have been doing. We certainly have no way of doing that with Clinton's opposition.

Although Clinton is responsible for the security culture of the State Dept which Comely referred to as generally lacking, that culture existed long before she took over the job. As Secretary, she did not setup the server, nor did she decide where emails would be stored. Like most executives, she probably didn't know at the time where here emails were actually being stored. However, she should have because she was the boss and the buck stops there.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

 

[Flopper]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

 

[320 Years of History]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

Come on, Flopper, let's not insult others' intelligence with lines such as the one you are drawing...You're splitting hairs (equivocating) by standing on such a strict construction of "set up" as to quibble over the fact that Mrs. Clinton herself is likely not the person who actually did the install and configuration of the server. She engaged someone to do it at her behest, and that's good enough to say that "she set up a server."

Disagree if you want, but don't toss out some puerile crap like that....You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[paperview]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

Come on, Flopper, let's not insult others' intelligence with lines such as the one you are drawing...You're splitting hairs (equivocating) by standing on such a strict construction of "set up" as to quibble over the fact that Mrs. Clinton herself is likely not the person who actually did the install and configuration of the server. She engaged someone to do it at her behest, and that's good enough to say that "she set up a server."

Disagree if you want, but don't toss out some puerile crap like that....You should be ashamed of yourself.

The server was actually already being used and in place by her husband for years prior to her being SOS.

It was more a matter of adding her name /email address to the server.