- Banned
- #61
AnCap'n_Murica, you have absolutely no clue what it takes to meet the legal definition of 'perjury' and it is a legal term. You have also misrepresented things in order to make partisan attacks:
Comey >> "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."
"no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"
Congressman >> IN YOUR OPINION, DO THE MISTAKES SECRETARY CLINTON HAS ALREADY APOLOGIZED FOR AND EXPRESSED REGRET FOR RISE TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD BE WORTHY OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION?
Comey >> AS I SAID TUESDAY, OUR JUDGMENT, NOT JUST MINE, BUT THE TEAM'S JUDGMENT AT THE FBI IS THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BRING SUCH A CASE. NO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER ANY RATHER REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION.
Comey>>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
