Ezra Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.34 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/05/fbi-recommends-no-charges-to-be-filed-against-clinton.html So the FBI made their recommendation, and the AG already said she would go by their recommendation. All those people that were cheering her for saying she would abide by the FBI's recommendation are probably less happy now. Did anyone really believe she was going to be charged? The whole business was a sham from day one. But there is a book on Hillary by someone who knows exactly how criminal both Clintons are. Hopefully people will get to know the real Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2016 28 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: IOW, the FBI did not say she commited a felony. Quote Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. (snip) From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. (snip) Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. (snip) For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). (snip) 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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system Well the quote thing messed up again. Figures. I quoted your single sentence, then posted a whole bunch from the fbi link. The fbi did indeed say she committed a felony but only recommended no charges against her because the case would fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessed457 Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 52 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/26/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2016 America has spoken give us Barabbas-Clinton and all the Hell that comes with her, you deserve her! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeespiller87 Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 212 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,691 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 449 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/28/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2016 Was anyone really surprised this would be the result? People in such high positions and wealth seem to think they are above laws. My trust is in Gods plan not in what happens I am not worried. God is in control in all situations. However please do not think that means that I am okay with what she has done. I am not okay with it but I see no use worrying or being concerned. My focus is on God instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 5, 2016 9 minutes ago, ayin jade said: Well the quote thing messed up again. Figures. I quoted your single sentence, then posted a whole bunch from the fbi link. The fbi did indeed say she committed a felony but only recommended no charges against her because the case would fail. we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts IOW...they did not find enough evidence to show she had committed a felony, thus no charges were filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts IOW...they did not find enough evidence to show she had committed a felony, thus no charges were filed. They expressed the view that the evidence was there, but not enough to get a conviction. If you read all of what I quoted, they did find evidence of negligent use of the servers and classified material on it. But they did not think it was strong enough to win a case. Quote our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 5, 2016 1 minute ago, ayin jade said: They expressed the view that the evidence was there, but not enough to get a conviction. If you read all of what I quoted, they did find evidence of negligent use of the servers and classified material on it. But they did not think it was strong enough to win a case. A case not strong enough to win is a crime that did not happen, it is that simple in our legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2016 Just now, Out of the Shadows said: A case not strong enough to win is a crime that did not happen, it is that simple in our legal system. No, its really not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 5, 2016 Just now, ayin jade said: No, its really not. Yes, it really is. We have an "innocent till prove guilty" legal system. I for one am glad for that, but with it comes stuff like this. You have to take the good with the bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted July 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said: we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts IOW...they did not find enough evidence to show she had committed a felony, thus no charges were filed. I hate to jump on the celebration but anyone with their eyes open could see the fix coming. Look at the time line: Late May; Clinton says in an interview she is 100% sure there will be no charges against her. In June, President Obama FINALLY endorses HRC. Eight days ago, Bill Clinton meets with the AG in secret. Last Saturday, the FBI conducts their questioning of HRC. Same day; Obama announces his intention to campaign with Clinton on the 5th. Today; FBI announces no charges. The pieces fall into place as of this morning. Once again, the Clintons slither out of harm's way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts