FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that despite evidence Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified emails on a private server, the Department of Justice would not recommend charges being brought against the former secretary of state.
“Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, did not immediately respond. Her Republican rival, Donald Trump, did — blasting the FBI’s recommendation.
“FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem” he tweeted.
The decision helps remove what was arguably the biggest threat to her presidential campaign going forward – a criminal referral that could have led to an indictment – just weeks before her party’s national convention in Philadelphia where she is set to seal her nomination as the Democrat standard bearer.
Clinton consistently had downplayed the FBI investigation, even calling it a “security review,” and as recently as June 3 said there was “absolutely no possibility” she’d be indicted. Weeks ago, a scathing State Department inspector general report directly countered her long-running claim that her personal email use was allowed, though her campaign continued to defend the candidate’s actions.
More at Fox News
The most important line from those findings –
“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’s not what we’re deciding now.”
Translation: Laws are for little people, not the Clintons.
The Rule of Law is no longer applicable in America.
Born July 4, 1776 – Died July 5, 2016
We had a good run.
She intentionally transmitted, received, and/or stored over 2,000 classified emails on her unsecured server, which is against the law, but there was was no evidence that she intentionally broke the law. Even if one is stupid enough to believe that, the law states:
That means her gross negligence alone warrants prosecution. This decision was to be anticipated. We all knew the DOJ was corrupt. Now the FBI is as well. Can’t wait for the leaks to start.
@Vollero:
Well said.
@another vet: Best thing that could happen for Trump. He only trails her by 4.6% in RCP–Uncle Joe or Bernie would double that lead.
Again Hillary covers her ass just enough to not be prosecuted. She is the master of deceit and corruption. God help us all if she is elected. One thought on her corruption while Sec of State, US presidents are not permitted to accept a gift from another country, no matter how small.
@another vet: #2
Another vet, . . . . and now, Ignorance IS an Excuse.
@Richard Wheeler: He will no doubt benefit the most. It plays right into his message and actually strengthens it a great deal. This is going to be a major campaign issue for him and it should be.
Politics aside, I did see a suggestion by someone on a news’ site that we need to change the stars on our flag to crossed bananas and the stripes to yellow and white. It would be a fitting and accurate portrayal of what our country has become. I feel sorry for the FBI field agents who will have to live under this cloud of injustice that was brought upon the organization by the spineless, career bureaucratic “leaders”. So much for doing what is right. There will probably be some damn good bonuses passed out this year.
@Richard Wheeler:
When Obama won by that percentage it translated into a massive electoral victory
Winning by 2% popular virtually assured an electoral vote victory
Winning by 5% she probably takes the Senate along with her
8% and maybe the House also
@James Raider:Welcome to the banana republic!
Might as well cancel the election .We are worse than a banana republic !!!!!!
@another vet:
So far not one FBI agent involved has resigned or spoke out
Do you see them now as no different than the spineless bureaucrats ?
Odd that the statement said that, though they won’t recommend indictment on breaking the law, she broke the law. Meanwhile, the left cheers the demise of justice.
The right also claims there was criminal misconduct and a cover-up regarding Benghazi, in spite of seven Congressional investigations that have formally concluded there is no evidence supporting such a conclusion. An eighth investigation also found no evidence, but they were so embarrassed to come up empty yet again that they simply omitted any formal Findings, Summary, or Conclusion section from their report, and suggested that people should draw their own conclusions.
No reasonable person would, but that shouldn’t stop a Congressional committee from forming up to look into the matter.
Lots of laws broken, but not enough evidence available (because she destroyed it) or case law (she makes her own doesn’t she) because her list of crimes are a first, unique. Lack of intent? She is such a good liar.
Comey just looked so angry listing all the things that were done wrong.. Just not enough evidence to put someone like Hillary on trial. That must have been a mixed bag for him. He knows she is guilty but does not have to recommend criminal charges, a relief he will not go down in history for doing it, disrupting our flawed election process, or the case failing to be prosecuted.If it were us, our ass would be grass and the Federal Pen,. here we come.
I only hope Trump can handle this in a sensible but completely honest way, or people will use the report to paint him as crazy in thought and behavior.
Here are the reasons she was not recommended for prosecution. All words in this report were carefully chosen.:
“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.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.”
@Greg: Not “a reasonable person”, a federal prosecutor’s. If you can’t win, don’t prosecute.
I am a “hater.” Not just a micro aggression. I have followed the Clinton’s since they left Arkansas. PUKE. Won’t they EVER have to face the consequences of their actions?
One of the things that bothered me most about the Clinton scandals of the ’90’s was the ruthless way they destroyed anyone who stood against them. Before his appointment as special prosecutor, no one outside Washington legal circles knew Ken Starr’s name. He was a quiet man with a brilliant legal mind and outstanding credentials, on the short list of Supreme Court nominations in any subsequent Republican Administration. The Clinton machine, knowing they couldn’t win on the facts or the law, decided the only way to avoid removal from office was to destroy him in the court of public opinion. Dick Morris has written about this. So they turned loose the attack dogs, Carville, Begala, et. al., and this soft-spoken judge was turned into a panty-sniffing pervert. “A tobacco lawyer!”, Carville frothed on every channel. “He wants your children to get cancer!” Unable or unwilling to fight back, Starr’s dream of being on the Supreme Court was over.
I wonder if Comey just decided he didn’t have the stomach for all that. If he was, on some level, afraid of the Clintons.
Dr. John, do you have a psychiatric diagnosis for Hillary?
@Greg: I’m not sure about accusations of criminal misconduct, but definite incompetence and lying involved. The incompetence and lying should disqualify Hillary from the Presidency, but the left sets such a low bar that you need a shovel to find it.
@Vollero: I believe that all people who believe in equality under the law must decide if the rest of the population is worth saving. It is much easier for one to retreat into an environment one can control and protect his family. It is unfortunate that those who have the power and the opportunity to enforce the rules of law choose to use the law to enrich themselves and increase their power. Ever worse is the dummies they convince to follow their leadership.
@Songbird:
His last diagnosis of her was brain damage from that fall and concussion
Dr J has never shared his speciality, but I don’t think it was psychiatric speciality
@Greg:
OK, Greg, so President Trump can now set his own private server and conduct all official business from it and keep it from democrat FOIA’s.
Espionage is now legal.
@Songbird:
She exhibits many sociopathic traits. I am not a psychiatrist but I have stayed at several Holiday Inn Express hotels.
@DrJohn:
Trump is already in Putin’s pocket
Trump’s high end real estate can’t survive without dirty Russian money
There was so much if that here in NYC they had to write new laws to stop the washing of dirty money in real estate
@DrJohn, #22:
Laws and regulations have changed. People are far more aware of the vulnerabilities of electronic data transmission and storage than they were just a few years ago. Trump will probably get a memo. They might even lock down his Twitter access.
@Randy: My fear lately is that so much of the rest of the population doesn’t want to be saved. Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” With half the populace paying no federal taxes, with the welfare state growing ever-larger, we’re very near that tipping point, if not already past it.
So let’s review:
The DOJ is letting her off the hook because they don’t feel they can prove criminal intent (in spite of the relevant statute not requiring criminal intent).
That means every time you get stopped for a speeding ticket, or even accidentally run over and kill an entire family, you should be able to get off simply by saying “I didn’t mean to!”
And every time that excuse doesn’t work, please remember what we saw today:
@Vollero:
Very well said
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/folsom-naval-reservist-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-unauthorized-removal-and
I guess he is technically correct in his statement. One is the presidential nominee for a major political party, the other was not.
Hey, you can follow Donald Trump further into fantasy land, or fact check constantly and do your own thinking. It’s your choice.
@Vollero
No one has ever been convicted or even indicted without having Shown intent
Trying her would have been the first without intent
As for equal justice for all that exists only in BIZZARO conservative land
That has always been true
@another vet:
Don’t forget Gen Petreus, whose career was destroyed for similar charges, but only for a handful of emails – not a whole server.
@John:
WHAT??? You never heard of crimes like involuntary manslaughter? Intent is not required – did you do the deed or not? And the statute she was accused of includes the possibility of guilt by negligence.
It’s pretty damned clear this decision was politically motivated. Over the next few months, I just hope enough Democrats realize that this bitch belongs nowhere near any sort of power.
@Dreadnought, #31:
That was a very different situation. Gen. Petraeus was charged with having given a woman he was having an adulterous affair with access to his C.I.A. email account. Classified documents were found on that person’s computer. Upon completion of the investigation, the DOJ recommended that felony charges be brought. Petraeus then plead guilty to a lesser charge.
A serious violation had clearly taken place, it’s hard to imagine how it couldn’t have been intentional, and the fact that it had occurred was apparently supported by solid evidence. That adds up to a strong possibility not only for indictment, but conviction.
I am s@Dreadnought: I am sorry I was only referring to mishandling classified info
If you lose a briefcase contains classified info you are never charged with a criminal act
No intent
No one has ever been indicted for mishandling classified info unless intent has been shown
Apparently some would like Clknton to be the first
Well sorry guys not about to happen
Without intent it has NEVER. Been a criminal matter
Mishandling without intent has ALWAYS been handled administratively
@John:
Really, Mr. Where’s Your Proof. Well, where’s your proof?
Hillary has accepted so much money from Middle Eastern despots that she will have to ask their permission to put up the White House Christmas tree.
That is for espionage. Hillary was not accused of espionage. She was accused of mishandling of classified information, for which she is undeniably guilty. Though she most definitely intended to mishandle the information in order to keep everything she was doing out of the reach of these nosy, intrusive Inspectors General, her intent has little to do with the fact that she violated the agreements she signed.
No Bill if you mishandle classified info unintentionally it has NEVER been something that has resulted in an indictment let alone a conviction
The FBI itself has lost/mishandled over 1000 laptops comtaining classified info and no one has ever been prosecuted in court for losing one. They have always been punished administratively.
Now as for Trump and Putin from Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html
When Putin ripped American exceptionalism in a New York Times op-ed in 2013, Trump called it “a masterpiece.”
Russian propaganda has gone full throttle for Trump, using its Russia Today apparatus to thrash Hillary Clinton and hail the courage of Trump’s foreign policy.
Trump considers NATO obsolete, guess how Putin feels about that ?
Russian oligachs finance his buildings Russians helped finance his projects in Toronto and SoHo; they snapped up units in his buildings around the world—so much so that he came to target them, hosting cocktail parties in Moscow to recruit buyers. (His tenants included a Russian mobster, who ran an illegal poker ring in the Trump Tower and accompanied Trump to the staging of the Miss Universe contest in Moscow.)many of his buildings
After 2004 big banks wouldn’t loan to him anymore. He had to go to black sources of money
@Dreadnought: Repubs have only one problem beating HRC who should not be Prez.—-Donald Trump–Kasich or Rubio would have cleaned her clock.
we still have tons of stuff from WW II that is still classified Top Secret
Anyone remember Nixon’s “secret bombing of Cambodia”? Who was that secret from ? Other than the USA?
When R Trey Gowdy mistakenly released the name of a covert CIA source no one called for him to be indicted even though it was TOP SECRET http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-release-cia-source-name-benghazi-committee-214919
Again because this was not a willful disclosure he was not indicted.
Nor can I remember anyone raising a call for his head on a pike as a warning to others
@Richard Wheeler:
I am sure that some way will be found to blame Obama for the selection by the GOP of Trump
much of what is considered top secret is available open source. One of my fav sites in Bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/
lots of stuff that some country would certainly think TOP SECERT
Ever wonder what type of sat phone those “moderate Syrian insurgents get from us ?
Thuraya
or what type of trucks we give them?
all of that is also TOP SECRET so don’t look
@Dreadnought: There are other examples as well. Petraeus was despised by the left so he was held to a different standard as well. If he was one of Obama’s sheep, he would have been given a free ride as well.
@John:
And what if you had no business taking the classified info out of the office in the first place? It is clear from earlier emails that HRC did not care about the security of official traffic – only about being able to keep her personal emails private. That’s why she insisted on a private server.
Andrew McCartney said it very well:
“There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizesgross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.”
I was initially enraged but I am beginning to think James Comey did us (anti-Hillary folks) a big favor today. He layed out her crimes. He did not recommend prosecution and prevented a political melt down in the Democratic party. If Hillary was prosecuted and was not the nominee, they would throw in good old Joe Biden. He is electable After all, Hillary’s lies and incompetence were spelled out so well by Comey. No government official has ever done this to Hillary. the Republican party can run with these facts and make her unelectable.
I also know how adept Hillary is in hiding her actions. That leads me to believe there was not enough factual evidence to make a good case for prosecution and win, because She is the Queen of Cover ups.
Does anyone remember how the impeachment process went for Bill? I believe it would be the same for Hillary Clinton. In the end it didn’t matter much. There were no big consequences and most people don’t remember it. This time she can’t blame a right wing conspiracy for judgements she made while in office, thanks to Comey’s scathing report. He said the whole Department of State was basically incompetent. She was the head of the Department and is responsibl for that also. I think this might actually sink her ship, oh I mean the Scoobies mobile
Republicans, just don’t fuck this up!
@john:
The fact that this administration has a very, very poor record of holding its own responsible for mistakes, corruption, crimes or incompetence is hardly an excuse to allow someone that signed agreements to protect classified information off the hoof for serving it up on an email buffet.
You fail to make a case that Putin has control of Trump. Lie on.
That doesn’t matter. Hillary does not get to determine what is or isn’t classified or how classified it is. Obviously she has proven herself too stupid to even read it, much less decide if anyone else should get to read it.
When R Trey Gowdy mistakenly released the name of a covert CIA source no one called for him to be indicted even though it was TOP SECRET
much of what is considered top secret is available open source.
@John: I do not think this is over yet. There is still the Clinton Global Imitative investigation that has already showed the potential for fraud.
@Randy: If the FBI will stand there with a straight face and recount a list of laws broken, then say there is no reason to recommend charges, I doubt they have the firepower to take on the Clinton Syndicate.
@Dreadnought: You are exactly right. Others would be in FT Leavenworth already.
John and Greg have no clue as to what constitutes a breach of security. I have been required to attend classes annually and to review the security hand book every year since 1977 for a secret clearance and more frequently for a TS SCI clearance. When an employee accepts a job requiring a clearance, they are taught to recognize and classify information based upon the source and content. It is not necessary to be marked classified to be handled as classified. Part of the job is to understand the significance of the information and to secure it from others with a lower or no clearance. Intent is not a concern when considering violation of security regulations. One violates the regulations or one complies. It is evident now that Clinton failed to comply.
@Randy:
Randy in 1967-68 I too held a TS. Clearance when I worked for Atlantic Research in QC in Hanover MA
Intent IS a concern with mishandling it could make it a criminal matter as the Director of the FBI so stated
Perhaps Randy You feel you are more qualified than he is to make decisions like this
Have you considered a career change?
@John: Not more qualified, just more correct. There has been precedence where lowly employees made mistakes and lost their jobs. I am not burdened with carrying the president’s water like so many of you. Intent would only be a consideration when determining the extent of the penalty, not to determine guilt or no guilt. Anyone who fails to protect classified data is guilty.