Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Will Not File Charges Against Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (politico.com)
An anonymous reader writes: After FBI Director James Comey recommended not to indict Hillary Clinton for her email misconduct yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday that the Justice Department has decided not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton or her aids and that the department will close the investigation into her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. "Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State," Lynch said in a statement on Wednesday. "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation."
Voting for Hillary because she's "not guilty" is like hiring Casey Anthony to babysit your kid.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Snowden blows the whistle on illegal government spying, is forced to flee the country. Clinton violates laws and exposes classified information and will be the next President. There is no justice in America.
We of course knew this was coming when the FBI didn't recommend indictment, given that Lynch said she'd go along with whatever the FBI decided.
But I expect the real reason is simple: they don't feel they're guaranteed a conviction. If you listen to Comey's reasoning, he was quite clear that there was no precedent for such a case - meaning that they don't want to set a precedent until they have iron tight evidence where they can be sure they know how the case will go.
Likewise, "no reasonable prosecutor" would want to be the prosecutor who indicted potentially the first woman president and then lost the case. If the case wasn't a 100%, sure-fire victory, no one would be willing to prosecute it. Which is kind of reasonable: who wants to torpedo their career by killing Hillary's presidential chances only to lose at trial?
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
"I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation."
We know about her crime because Guccifer was involved in exposing it. Will they retract the charges against him? Or the only chargeable crime in America is to expose what the law says is a crime?
There needs to be protests in the streets about Hillary Clinton not being charged for violating federal law.
This is where it starts, the selective application of the law to those in power vs those that are ruled. Make a stand now before all is lost.
That "extremely careless" is more or less the definition of gross negligence.
You assumed the delegates have moral fiber.
People of good character can't this far in the political process.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
The director stated in his news conference that Clinton was "extremely careless" with classified information on at least 110 occasions. It's federal crime to be "grossly negligent" in handling classified information. Essentially, he announced "she's guilty on 110 counts, but we won't prosecute".
"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," Comey said.
If this was said by their local version of FBI anywhere in Russia, China, Brasil, etc., everyone would be crying foul how that country is corrupt and how FSB, PSB, "FBI", etc. is clearly intimidating prosecutors not to bring any cases against an oligarch, even though there is evidence they violated the law (gross negligence). And how "important figures" in those countries are above the law. I'm so glad USA is not one of "those countries"!
Hillary vs Trump. The rest of the world is shaking its head at the stupidity of the Americans for letting things get to this point.
Criminal prosecution by popular vote. There's absolutely nothing fascist about that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
this is how prosecution works. You don't bring forth a case you know you're gonna lose. I'm not huge fan of Hilary. I've got buddies that live and breath because the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid enough for them to get their Meds. She's pretty much guaranteed to leave it alone so she gets my vote. But whatever side your on it'd be silly to try and prosecute her.
All that said to be completely fair think about _why_ a prosecutor isn't confident with getting a conviction: because a jury wouldn't convict her. This is a criminal matter, so that's how these things work. This isn't the ruling class per-se. This is how our jury system works. It sometimes ignores law in favor of feelings. If you want to see an example of America's two tiered justice system ask any dirt poor man in jail for pot possession why he didn't get diverted to drug treatment like a pop star or even an attorney's son.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Prisons are full of people who didn't "intend" to violate the law.
If you find yourself declaring that the lack of evidence of wrongdoing is, in fact, evidence of wrongdoing, it's time to take a break and realize that you've become trapped in a self-referential delusion loop.
its_time_to_stop_posting.jpg
You do know what a lawyer is, don't you? Hillary is a good lawyer and several other oxymorons. Okay, so "skilled lawyer" is probably a "better" way to say it.
Actually, she, like everyone else, has a bunch of personal identities. One of the things I like least about Hillary is that "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer" might be her top personal identity. Obviously it isn't "politician", though "politician" is probably in her top ten (and I definitely think it's Bill's #1). I doubt that "philosopher" is on her top 10 list, but "feminist" is probably in there somewhere (and I don't regard it as a terrible thing, though it isn't so high in my own priorities). She's an unusually complicated person, and it's hard to figure her out. For example, I think that "grandmother" might be a higher ranked personal identity for her than "mother" (whereas I think that "father" is definitely one of President Obama's top 10).
Just for reference I do think that "philosopher" is in Bernie's top 10, but I can't figure out if it's above or below "politician". Maybe "wise man" is his #1, but there's zero chance America would elect one of those to the presidency, even in the backlash from a fiasco like Dubya or the even worse mess that Trump might leave behind.
The Donald? His #1 has to be "con man" or "salesman". Or maybe he switches back and forth depending on the weather. Actually, I think it possible that "authoritarian" might be his secret #1.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the best candidate of the entire crowd, even including the entire clown car that started on the so-called Republican side. I even donated my poll tax to him, but in retrospect I am saddened to conclude that no matter how broken the system is, it is still incapable of electing a candidate who has any prominent philosophic streak. (No, Reagan had senility, NOT a philosophy.)
However, as regards Hillary's popularity, how much of it do you think that she actually earned? Seems quite obvious to me that she has been aggressively targeted for decades for primarily partisan political reasons, and even that much of the hateful rhetoric is displaced from other targets. Mostly stuff that would have been targeted at her husband if Bill hadn't whupped all their arses in the unfair fight. (However, I still haven't made up my mind if he was a good or bad president. Actually much easier to see the obviously bad ones such as Dubya.)
All of this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. The problem is that there is only one "most casual observer", and it usually isn't me.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Colin Powell did NOT do the same thing. He did NOT use personal email to send ANY confidential, or even sensitive information over private email. He NEVER culled his email in an effort to hide anything. There was NEVER any question about his correspondence with anyone - and there was NEVER anything Colin Powel ever had to hide. That's why Colin Powel's integrity was NEVER in question. But on the other hand.... Mrs. Clinton is by the admission of the FBI guilty of gross negligence... With many emails on a private account classified or _greater_ basically made available in the public domain due to her wanting to have her relationship with Huma Abadeen or other side deals secret? I held a clearance. I hold that trust that the us government placed in me as an honor. Clearly, this woman feels that such a confidence is not an honor, but an inconvenience.