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."

8 of 801 comments (clear)

  1. Sanders has an option by Bruce66423 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting government secrets' etc etc. The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs. If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.

    Here's hoping.

    1. Re:Sanders has an option by dbIII · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Colin Powell did the same thing.
      You people should go after Hillary for the Pfizer bribes instead of wasting time with this.

  2. Who done it? by rfengr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So who copied classified into, verbatim, from JWICS to their computer or phone? Seems the FBI or DOJ don't give a shit.

  3. I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence now by melted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence now. He was forced to end his career for much less. 2 years probation, $100K fine, security clearance revoked. Apparently it's no big deal, not even worth investigating.

  4. Re:I would daresay... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nixon was far more honest than Clinton.

    Carter is far smarter than Trump.

    Clinton married well. Everything else she has done fell from that.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  5. Re:Not surprising.... Whooah There Cowboy! by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are lots of crimes with no punishments. This is one of them.

    This needs to be noted VERY well in this discussion.

    Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  6. But they did file charges against Saucier by steveha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FBI Director Comey said that there was no evidence of any guilty intent, so "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges. So why were charges filed against Kristian Saucier, who unwisely took photos of a classified area on a nuclear submarine? No intent was proven or needed to file charges against him; he had photos of classified stuff on his phone, charges filed.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/06/saucier-attorney-on-hillary-non-indictment-clearly-a-double-standard/

    I am disturbed that there is clearly one standard for ordinary people, and another standard for Hillary Clinton. I sincerely hope that Mr. Saucier appeals his verdict on the grounds that the FBI Director said "no reasonable prosecutor" should have filed the charges, and he clearly didn't get equal protection under the law as Hillary Clinton got.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  7. Re:Earned reputation versus propaganda? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how much of it do you think that she actually earned?

    Plenty. Look at her behavior throughout this process. "Wiped? What, like with a cloth or something?"

    Now, to be clear, I certainly hear what you're saying. The Clinton's have been aggressively targeted for decades but how much of that is their own fault? They regard themselves as above the law and act accordingly. Bill lied under oath for heaven's sake. Is that a line you would cross? I sure as hell wouldn't. They're basically Francis and Claire Underwood without the murders. That breeds a certain level of resentment among those that oppose them politically, so is it really a surprise that they've been aggressively targeted?

    One point to consider: Barack Obama has faced a Congress at least as obstinate as the one that reigned in the 1990s and nobody has tried to impeach him, much less succeeded at it. There have been a few investigations into his administration but none that have touched on him (or Michele) personally. For all of his faults -- and he has many -- I don't think he has anything approaching Bill and Hillary's level of hubris.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.