Clinton not charged for criminal offenses.

[Vorg]

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Hillary Clinton broke the laws with her private e-mail actions. Yesterday it was revealed that the head of the DOJ was talked out of filing charges against her simply because the FBI said they could not prove with 100% certainty that she "planned" to break the Law.

This is completely opposite of the way the rest of American Citizens are treated by Prosecutors. For the rest of U.S. Citizens simply not "planning" to break a Law is not a legal defense against prosecution for breaking a Law. 

FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it

Welcome to the new world in which Elite U.S. Citizens are treated differently than the average citizen like you and I.

If I was a prosecutor I would have to disagree. If she thought it was all innocent, why when confronted with the illegality of it did she wipe the server, after deleting tens of thousands of "soccer mom" emails? If she thought it was innocent there would have been no reason to delete tens of thousands of "soccer mom" emails that would have been subjected to Freedom of Information request on a legal server anyway. She clearly knew it was illegal and tried to cover the contents based on her actions. Actions speak louder than words. That is how prosecutors should and probably did look at the situation. But James Comey took care of that problem for her.

[Farmer77]

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Hillary Clinton broke the laws with her private e-mail actions. Yesterday it was revealed that the head of the DOJ was talked out of filing charges against her simply because the FBI said they could not prove with 100% certainty that she "planned" to break the Law.

This is completely opposite of the way the rest of American Citizens are treated by Prosecutors. For the rest of U.S. Citizens simply not "planning" to break a Law is not a legal defense against prosecution for breaking a Law. 

The problem youre having is recognizing the different thresholds for prosecution on different crimes. No prosecutor wants to push a case he thinks hes gonna lose, and intent is specifically required in this case. 

Conversely proving intent is the only reason impeachment proceedings against Trump havent started due to obstruction of justice, so that threshold is a two way street politically speaking.

 

 

[+DieChecker]

So... If Mueller said, "I had a good case against Trump, but William Barr talked me out of it.". People would be like, "Well, yeah, because there was nothing there to begin with.", right??

Nope. There would be a howling crescendo of liberals calling for JUSTICE!!!

Yet, we have this same scenario, but concerning Clinton, and we get the "Penguins of Madagascar" treatment... "You didn't see anything....". And Conservatives that would like to see "Justice" are scoffed at and verbally demeaned. BY.... The same people who would be screaming for Justice against a similarly scenario'ed Trump.

The hypocrisy, and bias, in the US today is almost beyond belief.

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by DieChecker

[Ogbin]

20 hours ago, South Alabam said:

If I was a prosecutor I would have to disagree. If she thought it was all innocent, why when confronted with the illegality of it did she wipe the server, after deleting tens of thousands of "soccer mom" emails? If she thought it was innocent there would have been no reason to delete tens of thousands of "soccer mom" emails that would have been subjected to Freedom of Information request on a legal server anyway. She clearly knew it was illegal and tried to cover the contents based on her actions. Actions speak louder than words. That is how prosecutors should and probably did look at the situation. But James Comey took care of that problem for her.

Even if he hadn't do you think she would of been brought up on charges, or at the very least investigated on some level? I believe she knew that she had nothing to worry about, that she would have found away deflect any backlash, just as she and her cohorts did with distractions via false accusations and witch hunts. The Clintons and others around them are, as sad as it is, Untouchable.

[Farmer77]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So... If Mueller said, "I had a good case against Trump, but William Barr talked me out of it.". People would be like, "Well, yeah, because there was nothing there to begin with.", right??

But thats not what happened. Legal experts got together and discussed whether the case was winnable. It didnt appear to be so so they decided not to pursue it.

If thats the outcome of the Mueller investigation then so be it.

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

et, we have this same scenario, but concerning Clinton, and we get the "Penguins of Madagascar" treatment... "You didn't see anything....". And Conservatives that would like to see "Justice" are scoffed at and verbally demeaned. BY.... The same people who would be screaming for Justice against a similarly scenario'ed Trump.

The hypocrisy, and bias, in the US today is almost beyond belief.

Do you see what you just did there?

You just created a scenario in your mind that hasnt actually happened and then drew a conclusion and developed an emotion based on the conclusion of that imaginary scenario.

[Gummug]

On 2/21/2019 at 8:56 AM, ouija ouija said:

I guess she thinks that what's good enough for the queen of England is good enough for me! Thinks that she is 'royalty'.

Sadly,  in a way she is,  because the rest of us let her get away with it.  Imo. 

[+joc]

On 2/21/2019 at 3:21 PM, Gromdor said:

They have many things in common.  Neither are in jail for instance.  They both had Foundations that shared their last name and were investigated for criminal activity.  They both are related to guys with sexual allegations against them that also hung out with Epstein.  They both are blonde.  They both hang out with Cheslea Clinton.  They both had private servers: https://splinternews.com/of-course-ivanka-trump-used-a-private-email-server-whil-1830553003

I could go on an on.  It's like Ivanka is going out of her way to copy Clinton- but that would be dumb considering how much legal flak Clinton got for her actions....

Again...sigh....that is just so   s  t  u  p  i  d!  But when  you get all your talking points from CNN...I guess that's about all we can expect...so, hope you're having fun with that.  If I wanted to listen to a CNN scripted narrative I would turn them on.  But I don't.  So I am not really digging hearing it all from you either.  

[Gromdor]

Just now, joc said:

Again...sigh....that is just so   s  t  u  p  i  d!  But when  you get all your talking points from CNN...I guess that's about all we can expect...so, hope you're having fun with that.  If I wanted to listen to a CNN scripted narrative I would turn them on.  But I don't.  So I am not really digging hearing it all from you either.  

Well not all of us can be "immune" to facts.... err...  "propaganda"....

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

But thats not what happened. Legal experts got together and discussed whether the case was winnable. It didnt appear to be so so they decided not to pursue it.

If thats the outcome of the Mueller investigation then so be it.

But, where did you hear this though? From Comey? Why are we now hearing that top officials were talked out of it... Obama admin officials? Maybe what you think happened was a lie told by someone who was bias? And was widely deceminated on the press.

Quote

Do you see what you just did there?

You just created a scenario in your mind that hasnt actually happened and then drew a conclusion and developed an emotion based on the conclusion of that imaginary scenario.

True, but to illustrate a point. That I created it does not make the point less valid.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

But, where did you hear this though? From Comey? Why are we now hearing that top officials were talked out of it.

We're not just now hearing that top officials were talked out of it. What we're hearing for the first time and what of course republicans are focusing on are the words "talked out of it" which seem to come from the headline and not Baker himself although I could be missing that exact verbiage.

This is from Comey's 2016 statement:

Quote

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

 

Now this quote from Baker is in the OP's link:

Quote

So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

 

Thats how the executive decision making process works. One person has a thought or an idea, its then discussed and hashed out in a collaborative manner. 

I am an "expert" (ish)  in my field but I rely on that type of organizational process all the time.

Finally the one thing I think that kind of negates the entire thread is the words of the man the headline claims was "talked out of" pressing charges

 

Quote

Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”

He portrayed his former boss as someone who was open to changing his mind once he heard from his senior staff, even after drafting his announcement statement. "I think he would have been receptive to changing his view even after he wrote that thing," Baker said.

 

[+DieChecker]

47 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

We're not just now hearing that top officials were talked out of it. What we're hearing for the first time and what of course republicans are focusing on are the words "talked out of it" which seem to come from the headline and not Baker himself although I could be missing that exact verbiage.

Regardless, this is the first it has been shown that people internal to the case were still discussing charges right up to Comey's news conference. 

Quote

This is from Comey's 2016 statement:

A statement, BTW, that his bosses said he had no authority, or authorization, to make.

But as far as it goes, I agree with him. The FBI didnt have the evidence. The FBI didn't dig enough, or maybe hard enough, to find evidence that would require an indictment.

Though, according to Federal Regulations, she (unknowingly?) broke many laws. Just having such documents in your private possession, for most people, is prison time.

I've often said that all Trump has to do is say he can't remember, or didn't mean it, and he'd be golden by the Standard set with the Clinton Investigation.

Quote

Thats how the executive decision making process works. One person has a thought or an idea, its then discussed and hashed out in a collaborative manner. 

Yeah, I agree with that. Doesn't make me think she did it any less then I think OJ killed his wife Nichol. 

She goes on a book tour and can remember infinite details to regale the audience with, but could remember nothing regarding her server she used for two years. Right....

Quote

Finally the one thing I think that kind of negates the entire thread is the words of the man the headline claims was "talked out of" pressing charges.

Two things...

I would hope Comey would be open to changing his mind, since he initially drafted his response before most of the witnesses had been interviewed. 

Second, Comey when asked why he did the announcement the way he did said... “they were in the country's best interest.”. Not that it was the legal thing to do, or the bureaucratic result. But that he thought it best for the country.

FYI, Trump has said he is doing what he thinks is best for the country, so associate that to what Comey said as you will.

Edited February 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, I agree with that. Doesn't make me think she did it any less then I think OJ killed his wife Nichol. 

Oh she did it for sure. The problem is in proving intent. Honestly Trump will most likely get away with attempted obstruction of justice, IMO,  for the same reason. 

It sucks but we are a nation of laws and sometimes bad guys figure out how to skirt those laws. Where I part with the "lock her up" crowd is that I think Its a really dangerous slope to cheer on the perversion of the law, even when we know the individual is guilty.

13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Second, Comey when asked why he did the announcement the way he did said... “they were in the country's best interest.”. Not that it was the legal thing to do, or the bureaucratic result. But that he thought it be at for the country.

And it appeared that it was. Just like at the time it appeared to be in the nation's best interest to not announce the Russia investigation into Trump.

In hindsight the FBI probably should have kept both cases open and as public as possible so the general public was truly informed when they pulled the lever on election day.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Farmer77

[Buzz_Light_Year]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh she did it for sure. The problem is in proving intent. Honestly Trump will most likely get away with attempted obstruction of justice, IMO,  for the same reason. 

It sucks but we are a nation of laws and sometimes bad guys figure out how to skirt those laws. Where I part with the "lock her up" crowd is that I think Its a really dangerous slope to cheer on the perversion of the law, even when we know the individual is guilty.

And it appeared that it was. Just like at the time it appeared to be in the nation's best interest to not announce the Russia investigation into Trump.

In hindsight the FBI probably should have kept both cases open and as public as possible so the general public was truly informed when they pulled the lever on election day.

No the problem isn't proving intent. She had an unauthorized server with classified material on it and regardless of intent it was a breach of national security.

I handled classified material in the Marines and I guarantee you intent has nothing to do with a breach of security being prosecuted. The intent maybe entered in later to determine the severity of the charges, but charges nonetheless would be forthcoming.

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

No the problem isn't proving intent. She had an unauthorized server with classified material on it and regardless of intent it was a breach of national security.

But the material wasnt marked classified at the time which muddies the waters enough that it leads to at best a very iffy trial for the prosecutors or more likely just ethics violation for using an outside email address for work purposes but not criminal charges.

Again, I have no problem with the concept that Clinton is guilty as hell, my problem is with bending the rule of law for political vengeance.

12 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

handled classified material in the Marines and I guarantee you intent has nothing to do with a breach of security being prosecuted.

I dont mean to eschew your experience but im gonna have to side with the legal experts on this one.

This is a good piece explaining some of the precedent that led the FBI to decide the way they did:

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

Quote

The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly.  When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest.  Perhaps the most famous of these cases is the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers  The courts too grew wary of the Espionage Act and as a result their readings of it narrowed the scope of the law and limited when it could be used.

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f).  Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.

Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith.  Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of.  But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f).  He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents.  Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.

 

I am curious were you upset that Trump pardoned that sailor?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

But the material wasnt marked classified at the time which muddies the waters enough that it leads to at best a very iffy trial for the prosecutors or more likely just ethics violation for using an outside email address for work purposes but not criminal charges.

Again, I have no problem with the concept that Clinton is guilty as hell, my problem is with bending the rule of law for political vengeance.

I dont mean to eschew your experience but im gonna have to side with the legal experts on this one.

This is a good piece explaining some of the precedent that led the FBI to decide the way they did:

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

 

I am curious were you upset that Trump pardoned that sailor?

Quote

FBI Director James B. Comey announced the FBI’s findings on July 5, 2016, saying that 110 emails in 52 email chains were found “to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received,” including a “very small number” of emails that bore markings.

The sailor also pleaded guilty to his lack of digression in taking the photos he knew to be illegal, unlike hillary that knew full well that having an unauthorized server was in violation of Federal Law and tried to use ignorance as a means of avoiding blame, but not like it was a stretch for her to appear ignorant.

Trump's decision to pardon the sailor was based on the president's view that the felony conviction was excessive in lieu of his stainless military career and that prior violations of the same were handled with reprimands and reductions in rank.

So yes I agree with Trump's decision to pardon the sailor of his felony conviction. One could really argue that Trump used "Case Law" to make his decision.

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The sailor also pleaded guilty to his lack of digression in taking the photos he knew to be illegal, unlike hillary that knew full well that having an unauthorized server was in violation of Federal Law and tried to use ignorance as a means of avoiding blame, but not like it was a stretch for her to appear ignorant.

Yet ignorant was her defence. Ignorance of Federal regulations on multiple fronts. She had to take a Controlled documents class, but when she was questioned about it, she couldn't remember anything about what rules she was supposed to operate under. Either she was loosing her memory, or going mental, or she was just a plain ol' liar.

She was supposed to sign numerous documents, and turn over her work email, when she left SoS, but she just walked away.... email and all. No "required" docs signed, and no one following up. She was HILLARY CLINTON after all......

Edited February 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[F3SS]

I don't believe those emails have to be "marked" with anything. As SoS she should be deemed repsonsible to know what does and doesn't qualify as a classified document or conversation. 

On 2/22/2019 at 10:49 PM, Farmer77 said:

But thats not what happened. Legal experts got together and discussed whether the case was winnable. It didnt appear to be so so they decided not to pursue it.

If thats the outcome of the Mueller investigation then so be it.

Do you see what you just did there?

You just created a scenario in your mind that hasnt actually happened and then drew a conclusion and developed an emotion based on the conclusion of that imaginary scenario.

BS man. Bill met Loretta Lynch on the tarmac, mentioned a few names of Clinton deceased confidants and promised her a kush*(sp) job, possibly a seat on the SC bench, insisted she refer to the criminal investigation as a "matter" and told her to give a script to Comey knowing that people would buy into his "no reasonable prosecutor" quip (one day after this meeting iirc,how coincidental) as if it was on his authority to make that call all while leaving her to play dumb and not have to deal with publicly announcing thatvshe would not prosecute the case although I don't recall if she ever eventually did have to address that in public.

Or, they talked about their grandkids for 28 minutes as they mused how it's such a small world that they just happened to bump into eachother in the middle of nowhere Arizona.

[Farmer77]

21 minutes ago, F3SS said:

BS man. Bill met Loretta Lynch on the tarmac, mentioned a few names of Clinton deceased confidants and promised her a kush*(sp) job, possibly a seat on the SC bench, insisted she refer to the criminal investigation as a "matter" and told her to give a script to Comey knowing that people would buy into his "no reasonable prosecutor" quip (one day after this meeting iirc,how coincidental) as if it was on his authority to make that call all while leaving her to play dumb and not have to deal with publicly announcing thatvshe would not prosecute the case although I don't recall if she ever eventually did have to address that in public.

Man I wouldnt bet against the tramac meeting being an attempt at applying influence, at all, in fact I railed against it when it happened.

The problem is while that may be true so is what Comey and every other member of the FBI and DOJ has said about the case. Based on the law she is accused of violating, and the established precedent in the courts regarding that law, there wasn't a good case for prosecution because precedent says intent matters. 

The Trump obstruction of justice for firing Comey argument provides us a fantastic parallel. Regardless of why he did it, outside of a tape recorded confession telling us his intent , the law is on his side.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Farmer77

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, F3SS said:

I don't believe those emails have to be "marked" with anything. As SoS she should be deemed repsonsible to know what does and doesn't qualify as a classified document or conversation. 

She was clear that she took a required Operational Security class, but she retained none of it. Either that or she is just a liar. 

They judged she had no ill intent, because the FBI judged that she honestly could not remember how State Dept security was supposed to work. THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF BRING THE Secretary of State...

[preacherman76]

49 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

She was clear that she took a required Operational Security class, but she retained none of it. Either that or she is just a liar. 

They judged she had no ill intent, because the FBI judged that she honestly could not remember how State Dept security was supposed to work. THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF BRING THE Secretary of State...

She figured it out real quick when she had her staff smash phones with hammers, and used bleach bit to make sure it was all scrubbed

[Gromdor]

Eh, look at the bright side.  In seven years you all can probably look out for a "Trump not charged for criminal offenses" thread created by some still upset Democrats demanding a new investigation.

[F3SS]

Seeing the Clintons pay for their mistakes is an extra special thought, more than anybody else in modern history. They, she mostly, represent the epitome of corrupt politics, hubris and an unbridled quest for power. Pick any other politician and put them away and there is little to no impact or ripple effect. Even if Trump was hauled off to prison tomorrow it would be met with sanctimony and self righteouses and there would be no long term effect on the behavior of politcians because he is and will be portrayed as a dolt who always had it coming. Lock up the untouchable her self and the statement would be massive and the message would be clear for quite some time.

Edited February 28, 2019 by F3SS

[+and-then]

On 2/21/2019 at 10:42 AM, Gromdor said:

Nope, I'm fairly certain you are like me-  part of the "loser" class.   (Remember I agreed with you on this topic, justice is a two tiered system for the elite)

I think the better question might just be, "what can average citizens DO ABOUT IT"  The answer seems to be, "not much".  If that is the way things truly are then it will only get worse and worse until we have real boots on our necks at some point. Those in power will only ever accrue more, they'll never willingly give any back.

[+DieChecker]

10 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

She figured it out real quick when she had her staff smash phones with hammers, and used bleach bit to make sure it was all scrubbed

Meh. I'm not so sure. She strikes me as being too ignorant of technology, and too arrogant to think she could be caught. I imagine someone who was going to Go Down with her ordered all that done. Not Bill, but maybe one of her lead lawyers... Her "Cohen" maybe.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Meh. I'm not so sure. She strikes me as being too ignorant of technology, and too arrogant to think she could be caught. I imagine someone who was going to Go Down with her ordered all that done. Not Bill, but maybe one of her lead lawyers... Her "Cohen" maybe.

Don’t they keep having heart attacks and dying, her old lawyers?