Quote:The FBI did not do what is right. #1 It isn't the FBIs role to speak publicly of criminal matters. #2 It isn't the role of the FBI to recommend or not indictment. He is bowing to political pressure which is not within the system. He is to be impartial and allow the courts to rule. Yes, his professional integrity is in question. I'm hoping this wasn't stupidity and more of a calculated risk to advance this further in the public eye.
Pure speculation.
I'm sure you were thinking about voting for Hillary,
but now ...
Clinton or Trump could hand the nuclear football to a ISIS member and probably would not change the minds of anyone who is going to vote for them.
That's the problem. In politics today it is all about partisanship. Quality, experience, character, you know the things that should matter no longer do. It's win at all costs whether or not that means putting a criminal or just a caricature of a human in office. Makes me sick to think about.
Quote:Agreed this could be more political than anything, but I think a lot of folks are glossing over a real issue... It is not the role of the FBI to publicly speak about criminal investigations, nor is it their role to recommend what direction the case goes, i.e. indictment. This smells bad!
To be fair... the fbi normally does not speak out about investigations.
But the subject of the investigation is the presumptive presidential nominee of the incumbent party that currently holds the white house.
Would you have rather him not say anything?
He had to address the media, otherwise it would have smelled even worse than what you think it smells now!
And again, comey eviscerated her. Basically called her a big dummy. That's not good for her.
To be honest, I could very easily see Hilary fall behind trump in the national polls.
I know, partisans on the right wanted more... but I just don't see it. I don't see gross negligence here... I see hubris by the Secretary, but not gross negligence.
I think that's how comey saw it too. She's a elitist, self entitled, calculating, politician. But that doesn't meet the requirement for gross negligence to the level of a criminal indictment recommendation.
And again, if there had been no news conference by him to explain his reasoning and running her through the coals, it would have looked really bad for the fbi. Having the news conference I think brings more transparency, not less.
Quote:In Clinton Case, Obama Administration Nullifies 6 Criminal Laws
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/clinton-case-obama-administration-nullifies-6-criminal-laws'>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/clinton-case-obama-administration-nullifies-6-criminal-laws</a>
"Anyone in the future who would be charged under any one of these six laws could prove discriminatory enforcement."
This is actually a very interesting read. However, it's an opinion piece regarding the statutes involved but not all the evidence. As anonymous said in his posts from yesterday, comey had all the facts of the case, and came to a different conclusion...
After reviewing the Comey presser in full the man all but paved the road for a indictment with many examples of wrongdoing. After which he inexplicably announces no recommendation for indictment. Very puzzling indeed. I would conclude no reasonable prosecutor would NOT bring a case. That announcement was very damning of Shrillaries actions regarding that data.
Paul Ryan sure sounds as if he didn't agree with the decision. Dude railed her pretty good.
Quote:Paul Ryan sure sounds as if he didn't agree with the decision. Dude railed her pretty good.
Just a case of the man having a functioning set of eyes, ears, and a brain.
Quote:Pure speculation.
I'm sure you were thinking about voting for Hillary, but now ...
Speaking of pure speculation...
Quote:After reviewing the Comey presser in full the man all but paved the road for a indictment with many examples of wrongdoing. After which he inexplicably announces no recommendation for indictment. Very puzzling indeed. I would conclude no reasonable prosecutor would NOT bring a case. That announcement was very damning of Shrillaries actions regarding that data.
Hold on there tiger. You have a law degree? You can't possibly understand the complicated matters at hand here unless you do.
Quote:Hold on there tiger. You have a law degree? You can't possibly understand the complicated matters at hand here unless you do.
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn one time. I know things.
Quote:See below.
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="anonymous2112" data-cid="768658" data-time="1467738828">
<div>
Patraeus voluntarily GAVE troop movements and exceedingly sensitive information to his girlfriend. Troop movements are not deemed classified unless associated with additional information or OPCON. These were also shared after the fact. Doesn't necessarily excuse the sharing of information with his girlfriend. Oh, by the way, she had a clearance. In addition, the information he ADMITTED to was no higher than SECRET. Still wrong, but Clinton was well beyond this.
Snowden leaked classified information in attempt to sabotage the federal government. Not that I agree with what he did, but his action can in fact fall under the
Whistleblower
Protection Act of 1989 (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats).
Clinton had a couple dozen emails about classified material on a non-approved server, and then deleted them at an appropriate time. This is just flat out wrong. They are numbered well above 1200 and included Top Secret and SAP information on targets and code names of operatives for upcoming missions. When is the appropriate time to delete emails on a non-approved server? She was attempting to bypass Federal Law.
It's OK to be upset, as thin skinned tweetmaniac Donald is, but there are no parallels with Clinton, Patraeus, and Snowden. There are other ways to show displeasure over the ruling, and plenty on which to fault Clinton (you can call her careless or clueless, for example), but her conduct was not deemed to be criminal by the FBI, and I have no problem with the ruling.
</div>
</blockquote>
Just because her conduct wasn't deemed to be criminal by the FBI doesn't mean it wasn't. She got off because of who she is- this has been a pattern her whole life- and it needs to stop.
And for crying out loud do not compare my feelings with those of Donald Trump.
Quote:Clinton or Trump could hand the nuclear football to a ISIS member and probably would not change the minds of anyone who is going to vote for them.
That's the problem. In politics today it is all about partisanship. Quality, experience, character, you know the things that should matter no longer do. It's win at all costs whether or not that means putting a criminal or just a caricature of a human in office. Makes me sick to think about.
It's pretty much always been about partisanship. Let's not sugarcoat the past. Now it's also all about gerrymandering. There is no price to pay for being a loon. As a matter of fact you'll be challenged from your right or left if you aren't a loon. We have to find a way (probably through the courts) to make it more advantageous to work with the other side.
I don't see it happening soon. Not with the demonizing of every non-loon. Just check out the comments section of ... anything.
Quote:Hold on there tiger. You have a law degree? You can't possibly understand the complicated matters at hand here unless you do.
I don"t know about anyone else, but I always go to Badger for my legal and political advice. So level-headed and non-partisan, for sure ...
As if you need every fact to see that she's guilty...
Quote:As if you need every fact to see that she's guilty...
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who gauged this activity would gauge no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that is not what we are deciding now."
Can somebody with a law degree interpret this?
Do you think this guy knows what is going on?
![[Image: a_2_p10.jpg]](https://p2wstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/webwww/news/jacksonville/mayportmirror/20101209/img/a_2_p10.jpg)
![[Image: silly_americans_laws_are_for_poor_people_silly_a.png]](https://s32.postimg.org/q8fdjjmj9/silly_americans_laws_are_for_poor_people_silly_a.png)