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

[jon_berzerk]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

he might not be done yet

 

[jon_berzerk]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

According to 18 US Code 793 Section F charges could had been brought due to gross neglance. Neglance does not require intent.

exactly

this is all reviewed by the NSA prosecution office as well

they may stick to the code

 

[jon_berzerk]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges

and then didnt

it is as if he was saying

i would if i could

That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no 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. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF

 

[jon_berzerk]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

According to 18 US Code 793 Section F charges could had been brought due to gross neglance. Neglance does not require intent.

You would never be able to prove the Secretary was grossly negligent. Legally speaking, gross negligence goes well beyond being negligent which is failure to exercise reasonable care. Furthermore, you would have to show that it would lead to grave injure or harm. Since the FBI could not find any evidence that the server had been hacked, there would be no evidence of injury or harm.

The statue does not apply.

It definitely does not apply this time......for Clinton.

or does it

The FBI has been investigating Clinton for months—but an even more secretive Federal agency has its own important beef with her

Hillary Has an NSA Problem

 

[Vigilante]

Here's Comey's statement...seems like an awful lot of ILLEGAL and CONTRADICTORY statements to her SWORN STATEMENTS before Congress are EVIDENT!

 

[JoeMoma]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

According to 18 US Code 793 Section F charges could had been brought due to gross neglance. Neglance does not require intent.

You would never be able to prove the Secretary was grossly negligent. Legally speaking, gross negligence goes well beyond being negligent which is failure to exercise reasonable care. Furthermore, you would have to show that it would lead to grave injure or harm. Since the FBI could not find any evidence that the server had been hacked, there would be no evidence of injury or harm.

The statue does not apply.

It definitely does not apply this time......for Clinton.

or does it

The FBI has been investigating Clinton for months—but an even more secretive Federal agency has its own important beef with her

Hillary Has an NSA Problem

I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[yiostheoy]

You can now let this thread die. This is really old news. It was news all day long.

From now on it makes more sense to talk about Trump University.

 

[Flopper]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges

and then didnt

it is as if he was saying

i would if i could

That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no 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. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF

As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.

 

[Slyhunter]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges

and then didnt

it is as if he was saying

i would if i could

That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no 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. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF

As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.

At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.

 

[FA_Q2]

the only way to truly do so is be open and transparent about everything possible.

I think another way to remain above the fray would have been to say nothing and, as in other FBI investigations/recommendations, share it with the DOJ and leave it at that. I think the only thing militating for the FBI to disclose its recommendation is the Clinton-Lynch gaffe on the tarmac last week. That said, even as the only thing, it is nonetheless a thing.

Personally, I think Dir. Comey's announcement should constrained itself to the announcement of the recommendation. I know that a fully documented report of what the FBI found will be submitted to the DOJ. If the DOJ opts to make that written document public, fine, but I think the FBI should have stuck with it's SOP just as with all other cases. I think making the remarks the Director made increased the politicization of the matter After all, the FBI Director's tenure is for a ten year non-renewable period; he has nothing to gain by being anything other than objective in the conduct of the investigation.

I could not disagree more with you here. Transparency is almost always the best course of action. It will be very difficult to politicize this decision because everything is out there on the table. Had this been done behind closed doors there would be endless charges of corruption with Lynch on obscuring the FBI's statements.

It is interesting to me that you claim this has increased the politicization of the FBI's decision. I think that if you take an objective look here that is clearly not the case.

I can tell you that if I had done the exact same things that Clinton had done here that I would be in prison right now without a single doubt in my mind.

I don't honestly believe that about myself. I don't know why you believe it about yourself.

I know this because as a member of the military I have been entrusted with classified information, have lived and worked in a classified environment and know what goes on. I have seen what happens to people that mishandle such information. At the very least there would be a court marshal and ejection from the service. Here there will literally be nothing at all and the spin machine is going to play it off as if there was noting done incorrectly at all.

This has always been true. I just do not know why we, as the general public, simply accept such things.

I don't agree it's always been so. I do believe that wealthy people have access to better quality legal representation and advice.

One reason why the general public may accept it is because it doesn't believe "it's always been true." Another may be that the members of the general public want it to be so if and when they find themselves in a similar situation. Yet another may be that they just don't find it objectionable in the first place. I suppose there are more reasons. Some of them may even be equally qualitatively neutral in their existence.

I would also say that to proclaim no one who goes to trial gets away with anything is a rather silly statement. That is demonstrable false and you know it. Our justice system makes mistakes as all things created by humans do.

Well, yes, American law enforcement, jurisprudence and juries have made mistakes, both in process and outcome.

I have no problem with my conviction that OJ is guilty as sin and got away with it - just because the justice system screws up every now and then does not mean that I have to agree with the final decision. Nor does that mean that someone believing thus disagrees with the system as a whole.

I have no problem with your believing that. I absolutely think it'd be wrong -- literally and morally/ethically -- to act, in part or entirely, on that belief. Acting on such a belief would be a clear indication of one's disagreement with the basic tenets of our legal system. I think that if one differs with those tenets, one should participate in the effort to have them revised. There is a long history of people doing exactly that in the U.S., for example, the repeal of "Jim Crow" laws, the abolishment of slavery, the creation of RICO and antitrust statutes, etc.

Which is why I SPECIFICALLY stated I would not act on it.

 

[320 Years of History]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

According to 18 US Code 793 Section F charges could had been brought due to gross neglance. Neglance does not require intent.

Be that as it may, what the FBI found didn't rise to the level of warranting prosecution or a recommendation thereof. The FBI said that other similar cases in which a prosecution had been sought involved evidence of “willful or intentional” breaches of the rules, “vast quantities” of data or “indications of disloyalty or efforts to obstruct justice”. “We do not see that here,” he said.

​

One must consider the crime(s) with which Mrs. Clinton would have been charged -- violations of law regarding the handling of classified information -- and identify whether it is a general intent or specific intent crime, which is why I linked the mens rea document in my earlier post. If the crime requires mens rea, which her charges would have, the prosecution would have to prove specific intent. The point of mens rea, the guilty mind, is to allow the legal system, courts, to distinguish between people who did not set out to commit a crime, thus doing so accidentally, if you will, and folks who did intend to commit the crime with which they've been charged, that is, folks who had willful intent.

Director James Comey revealed today that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server due to one glaring problem with the case, a lack of mens rea. Though Dir. Comey acknowledged in his public statement that evidence proved Mrs. Clinton had sent and received documents that were classified at the time of transmission on a private and unsecured email server, the FBI Director says that they could not prove that she knew she was committing a crime. This lack of mens rea, or the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, is what seemingly left Comey without grounds to recommend prosecution. Let’s take a look at Dir. Comey’s statement and break down exactly what it all means for the Clinton presidential campaign.


A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. To commit a crime, a person must have the mental aspect which is mens rea, awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, and actus reus, the criminal act itself, which is the physical element. If a prosecutor cannot prove that the individual charged with a crime knew that the act they were committing was a crime, the individual should not legally be prosecuted.

Dir. Comey pointed out that actus reus was found in the Clinton case with 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. However, Dir. Comey could not find any mens rea, or willful knowledge or intent, in the case. Therefore, Dir. Comey recommended that Mrs. Clinton not face criminal prosecution for her use of a private email server when transmitting confidential information due to the lack of evidence regarding the mental aspect of the crime at hand.

The FBI Director noted on several occasions that he found “clear evidence” of Secy. Clinton’s violation of laws regarding the handling of classified information. However, he would go on to say there was no evidence the disregard was intentional.

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

No mens rea; therefore no charges. That's pretty much what it comes down to.

 

[320 Years of History]

Lie to yourself...she is guilty.......

he didn't push for charges....

he might not be done yet

they may stick to the code

I have tried my best to try to explain why no charges were brought. I provided links that provide clarifying information about how the law works.

The reason no charges were brought has nothing to do with the statutes that were clearly violated. The reason is all about the lack of intent. I don't have more to say; you'll need to read the content at the links I provided in my earlier posts if you aren't willing to accept my word for what is the role of intent in criminal law/prosecutions.

At the very least there would be a court marshal and ejection from the service. Here there will literally be nothing at all

Well, she doesn't hold a post at State, so she can't be censured or forced to resign.

Does military jurisprudence also have the concept of mens rea? I don't know.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is interesting to me that you claim this has increased the politicization of the FBI's decision. I think that if you take an objective look here that is clearly not the case.

Well, what it takes to politicize something, especially in a Presidential campaign, is "damn near nothing." From the standpoint of increasing or decreasing the politicization of the FBI's recommendation, it doesn't matter what the FBI recommended. All that would differ is which side is complaining.

If the situation is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" one, better to say less than to say more.

 

[Picaro]

No charges were brought because influence peddlers like the Clintons bought their way out of it. The FBI director just states that he doesn't recommend prosecuting her, not that she was innocent of anything, and he goes to announce that others will be prosecuted for doing the same thing she did, and that this is just a special Hillary pass that no one else will get. He thinks she will win and he's covering his ass like any other career bureaucrat will, and doesn't want the Clinton smear machine hanging a target on his back. You spin and bloviate and dissemble all you want, she was guilty and the report says so.

 

[yiostheoy]

Hopefully Hillary will reward Comey with an Attorney General job during her administration. He deserves it.

 

[yiostheoy]

At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.

Which Trump The Chump is more guilty of and in spades.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges

and then didnt

it is as if he was saying

i would if i could

That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no 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. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF

As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.

actually it is up to the prosecutors to bring charges

 

[jon_berzerk]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges

and then didnt

it is as if he was saying

i would if i could

That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no 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. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF

As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.

At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.

or having the security clearance to be the prezbo

 

[Slyhunter]

Lie to yourself...she is guilty.......

he didn't push for charges....

he might not be done yet

they may stick to the code

I have tried my best to try to explain why no charges were brought. I provided links that provide clarifying information about how the law works.

The reason no charges were brought has nothing to do with the statutes that were clearly violated. The reason is all about the lack of intent. I don't have more to say; you'll need to read the content at the links I provided in my earlier posts if you aren't willing to accept my word for what is the role of intent in criminal law/prosecutions.

At the very least there would be a court marshal and ejection from the service. Here there will literally be nothing at all

Well, she doesn't hold a post at State, so she can't be censured or forced to resign.

Does military jurisprudence also have the concept of mens rea? I don't know.

Drunk doesn't intend to run people over but he's still charged with negligent homicide.

 

[320 Years of History]

Lie to yourself...she is guilty.......

he didn't push for charges....

he might not be done yet

they may stick to the code

I have tried my best to try to explain why no charges were brought. I provided links that provide clarifying information about how the law works.

The reason no charges were brought has nothing to do with the statutes that were clearly violated. The reason is all about the lack of intent. I don't have more to say; you'll need to read the content at the links I provided in my earlier posts if you aren't willing to accept my word for what is the role of intent in criminal law/prosecutions.

At the very least there would be a court marshal and ejection from the service. Here there will literally be nothing at all

Well, she doesn't hold a post at State, so she can't be censured or forced to resign.

Does military jurisprudence also have the concept of mens rea? I don't know.

Drunk doesn't intend to run people over but he's still charged with negligent homicide.

Go look at the specific statute that allows for that charge to be brought.

• If it doesn't indicate that intent/willfulness/purposefulness (or other language of that nature) as part of the crime, mens rea isn't required to be proven.
• If it does indicate that intent/willfulness/purposefulness (or other language of that nature) as part of the crime, the prosecutor believes s/he has strong evidence to show the defendant had some level of intent. (The law isn't a "black and white" thing; there are degrees of intent, but for all of them, there must be strong evidence showing that level of intent.)

Sidebar:

I think it normal for the average person to not be aware of or understand the concept of mens rea. Why should one need to know about it? That said, it's nonetheless a critical component of U.S. jurisprudence. Thus if one is of a mind to opine about a given event's illegality, one must bother to know about it, even lacking any other reason to do so.

I don't hold against someone the fact that they don't understand well the basic principles upon which our laws stand. I do, however, hold against folks their acts of and willingness to opine on such matters while in being befogged about legal doctrine. I don't think it too much to ask that one either (1) keep mum on matters about which one isn't well informed or (2) if not able to keep mum, at least state that one isn't well informed on the matter.​

End of sidebar.

That tenet is what inspired me to create another CDZ thread to explain more directly than does this thread's OP, the role of mens rea in leading Dir. Comey and the FBI to recommend no charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton in connection with "Email-gate." That other thread's OP lists about ten references, but here are a few that will help you understand the concept as it applies to homicide and the type you mentioned.

• Mens rea in criminal cases
• Drug and alcohol intoxication: mens rea defenses
  
• Mens Rea - A Defendant's Mental State

Hopefully, after reviewing the content at those links, or perhaps that at the other thread I mentioned, you'll understand why someone who accidentally runs over and kills another is or is not charged with having committed a crime and subsequently prosecuted.