Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Did any of you see her speech at Atlantic City today? What a crock...she blatantly mocked the people on national TV.

Quote:"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?

This would be illegal and worthy of bringing an indictment for anyone not named Clinton.

Quote:This would be illegal and worthy of bringing an indictment for anyone not named Clinton.

 

Thanks. I might request your expertise in these matters at a later time.  As a non-law degree holder, I need to have lawyers tell me what everything means.

Quote:"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?

 

I'll give it a shot. (the word is "engaged" by the way).  To be clear, I have no law degree, and the only guy around here I know that does seems to stick to football.

 

It means that had they caught this activity before the Secretary and staff left office, there would have been administrative sanctions (possible firings and loss of credentials). 

 

There still wouldn't have been any legal charges, because in Comey's opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would attempt to try the case.

Quote:This would be illegal and worthy of bringing an indictment for anyone not named Clinton.

 

Pretty much.  This makes Nixon look like a saint.  As long as they behave, Comey and Lynch be rewarded handsomely.

 

And when that happens, the heads of the willfully ignorant will go deeper and deeper down into the required abyss.

Quote:I'll give it a shot. (the word is "engaged" by the way). To be clear, I have no law degree, and the only guy around here I know that does seems to stick to football.


It means that had they caught this activity before the Secretary and staff left office, there would have been administrative sanctions (possible firings and loss of credentials).


There still wouldn't have been any legal charges, because in Comey's opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would attempt to try the case.

That's how I interpreted it to mean as well. It is also consistent with the actions following the Petraeus blunder. They did not charge him with criminal misconduct, but did implement administrative sanctions.


Clinton isn't in office, so a firing or loss of security clearance really doesn't apply here...

A terrific, factual article on the topic:

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/wash...y-clinton/

Quote:I'm still waiting to hear what was in it for Comey.

 

Vince Foster was unavailable to answer this question.

Quote:That's how I interpreted it to mean as well. It is also consistent with the actions following the Petraeus blunder. They did not charge him with criminal misconduct, but did implement administrative sanctions.


Clinton isn't in office, so a firing or loss of security clearance really doesn't apply here...

 

My understanding is that Petraeus was indicted and negotiated a plea deal. That's a lot different than Hillary getting off without an indictment.


 

Hillary is above the law.

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.

 

Exactly.  He should have just presented the facts of the case and let the Attorney General decide whether or not to indict.  I think that somehow he is more-or-less being used as a scapegoat in order to cover for Loretta Lynch.

 

 

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.

 

That's pretty much how I saw it when I watched it live.

Quote:That's how I interpreted it to mean as well. It is also consistent with the actions following the Petraeus blunder. They did not charge him with criminal misconduct, but did implement administrative sanctions.


Clinton isn't in office, so a firing or loss of security clearance really doesn't apply here...

It was pleaded down to misdemeanor. Also interesting was that the info that brought the original indictment was from a previous position held, not current. Hmm, sounds familiar, but that is where the similarities end. You are actually liable up and until the information has been declassified by the originator, even if retired.

Quote:Exactly.  He should have just presented the facts of the case and let the Attorney General decide whether or not to indict.  I think that somehow he is more-or-less being used as a scapegoat in order to cover for Loretta Lynch.

 

 

 

That's pretty much how I saw it when I watched it live.

If I remember correctly, the AG still has ultimate decision authority/responsibility and we should expect to hear from her in the near future.

Quote:A terrific, factual article on the topic:

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/wash...y-clinton/

 

That's actually one of the best articles that I've read regarding the topic.  Great read and thanks for the link.

Quote:It was pleaded down to misdemeanor. Also interesting was that the info that brought the original indictment was from a previous position held, not current. Hmm, sounds familiar, but that is where the similarities end. You are actually liable up and until the information has been declassified by the originator, even if retired.

Hold the phone... Petraeus' criminality was based on his lies that the fbi found, not his negligence to protect classified material. The cover up is what he was convicted of.

Quote:Hold the phone... Petraeus' criminality was based on his lies that the fbi found, not his negligence to protect classified material. The cover up is what he was convicted of.

Not correct. He had the book thrown at him initially and pleaded down to misdemeanor mishandling of classified.

Quote:If I remember correctly, the AG still has ultimate decision authority/responsibility and we should expect to hear from her in the near future.

 

Sure she does...  but do you think that a Democrat Attorney General appointed by a Democrat President is going to over-ride the FBI's recommendation and charge a Democrat presidential nominee?

 

This is purely speculation on my part.  She already stated that she would go with what the FBI recommends according to this article in the New York Times...  after her "surprise" visit with Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport.  Is it possible that Bill Clinton informed her that the FBI Director had been bought and would recommend no indictment?  Does anyone else find it odd that according to the article published July 1st the FBI was expected to report it's findings "in the coming weeks", then the following day (Saturday during a holiday weekend) Hillary is interviewed and on Tuesday the FBI makes a "surprising announcement"?

 

This whole thing stinks big time.

Quote:If I remember correctly, the AG still has ultimate decision authority/responsibility and we should expect to hear from her in the near future.

Yes, and she will follow the FBI director's recommendation. Come on, so you really think she's going to indict her ticket to the Supreme Court?

Quote:Sure she does...  but do you think that a Democrat Attorney General appointed by a Democrat President is going to over-ride the FBI's recommendation and charge a Democrat presidential nominee?

 

This is purely speculation on my part.  She already stated that she would go with what the FBI recommends according to this article in the New York Times...  after her "surprise" visit with Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport.  Is it possible that Bill Clinton informed her that the FBI Director had been bought and would recommend no indictment?  Does anyone else find it odd that according to the article published July 1st the FBI was expected to report it's findings "in the coming weeks", then the following day (Saturday during a holiday weekend) Hillary is interviewed and on Tuesday the FBI makes a "surprising announcement"?

 

This whole thing stinks big time.

No argument here. I'll admit, the pieces do fit together rather well. I'm sure there is more that will surface that will add to this puzzle.

Quote: 

This whole thing stinks big time.

 

As it should to any objective observer.  Again, it's astounding how much fact must be ignored to deny this.  And they come up with cute names for others like "deniers" for issues that do lack backing facts... lol.  "Fall in line, sheeple!"  Yet they do.  Unbelievable.

Quote:Yes, and she will follow the FBI director's recommendation. Come on, so you really think she's going to indict her ticket to the Supreme Court?

No I don't actually. I don't believe she would have even if the FBI recommended it. In any case, she will be forced into the court of public opinion and that of her peers, which will put her into a uncomfortable position. It also just might keep her from any other official position in the future.