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."

Comments

Yawn

[Archangel Michael]

Voting for Hillary because she's "not guilty" is like hiring Casey Anthony to babysit your kid.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

What leaks do you need? If what Comey said wasn't enough nothing will satisfy you. He said she's a total fuckwit but her last name is Clinton so his hands are tied.

No justice

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:BREAKING: Romanian hacker Guccifer found dead!

[msauve]

Sucker.

Not surprising

[_xeno_]

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.

Will that include Guccifer?

[zedaroca]

"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?

Sanders has an option

[Bruce66423]

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.

Re:Sanders has an option

[Fire_Wraith]

As someone mentioned to me, this current election is between a grandma that can't figure out her email, and a grandpa that believes everything he reads on Facebook.

Re: Sanders has an option

[m6ack]

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.

Such faith in the delegates

[Lead Butthead]

You assumed the delegates have moral fiber.
People of good character can't this far in the political process.

Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro

[hsthompson69]

18 U.S. Code 793 (f)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.

Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.

Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.

Re:I would daresay...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Earned reputation versus propaganda?

[Shakrai]

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.