2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[Dakota Bob]

Comey also said it's possible that "hostile actors" might have hacked into Clinton's servers, and that the former secretary of state checked, sent and received work-related messages from her personal email while in foreign countries.

But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said.

2016 Indecision: Extremely Careless Lady Vs. Orange Racist

[The_Queen]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051

The FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, the bureau's director says.

James Comey made the announcement Tuesday, three days after FBI agents interviewed Clinton — now the presumptive Democratic nominee in the race for the White House — in the final step of its investigation.

"We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges," Comey said at a news conference in Washington after describing the "painstaking" investigation.

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said.

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," he said.

So, Queen was right, there's no indictment... but the Republicans are going to savage her over that "extremely careless" bit.

If I see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants

[dpareja]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051

The FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, the bureau's director says.

James Comey made the announcement Tuesday, three days after FBI agents interviewed Clinton — now the presumptive Democratic nominee in the race for the White House — in the final step of its investigation.

"We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges," Comey said at a news conference in Washington after describing the "painstaking" investigation.

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said.

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," he said.

So, Queen was right, there's no indictment... but the Republicans are going to savage her over that "extremely careless" bit.

If I see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants

Meanwhile, let the attacks commence!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-republicans-careless-rigged-1.3666213

"This is a clear indictment," says Republican analyst Paris Dennard, a former White House consultant for president George W. Bush. "It's a clear indictment of her judgment, which is what she's running on."

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump issued statements following the decision, asking, "What is Hillary Clinton hiding?" He also questioned the timing of the FBI press conference.

"It was no accident that charges were not recommended against Hillary the exact same day as President Obama campaigns with her for the first time," Trump's statement says.

He also cast suspicion on Bill Clinton's meeting on the tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, five days before she was to be interviewed by investigators.

To Dennard, the FBI's decision to not recommend criminal charges against Clinton advances a popular theory among conservatives — that "the system is rigged."

"There's a veiled, dark cloud of suspicion about her government, and the American people think this is unfair, that the rules just don't apply," he says.

...

"Will Hillary Clinton have the same reckless judgment when it comes to nuclear codes?" Dennard says. "This reinforces the theme that she cannot be trusted. This was not some slap on the wrist. This was some serious language."

Also, Paul Ryan put out a statement on Comey's recommendation:

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/statement-fbis-recommendation-not-prosecute-secretary-clinton

Basically, it says that he thinks the FBI's decision is stupid and Clinton should be indicted.

(Sigma/mods: Can I reproduce the full text of Ryan's statement here?)

[pyro]

Frankly, I really wish there was a viable Republican candidate, instead of Mr. Muslim Registry. It might be interesting to have a nuanced political discussion over the first election I'm going to participate in, rather than the tired "even if Hillary Clinton is as big a crook as you paint her, would you rather status quo dirty politics or the Hitler wannabe. At least The Man is an evolved parasite that will keep its host alive."

[dpareja]

Frankly, I really wish there was a viable Republican candidate, instead of Mr. Muslim Registry. It might be interesting to have a nuanced political discussion over the first election I'm going to participate in, rather than the tired "even if Hillary Clinton is as big a crook as you paint her, would you rather status quo dirty politics or the Hitler wannabe. At least The Man is an evolved parasite that will keep its host alive."

If Gov. Johnson and Dr. Stein could get into the main debates, then the three adults could (hopefully) have an intelligent, reasoned discussion of the issues while the overgrown orange crybaby whines in the corner.

[Dakota Bob]

awww shit

IT'S
STILL
HAPPENING
maybe?

[SCarpelan]

While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

[dpareja]

While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

It would most likely never hold up in court, but one could argue that if Sec. Clinton were barred from obtaining the necessary security clearance, she would be unable to discharge the powers and duties of her office and the Vice President would then become Acting President per the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, possibly to become President should Clinton resign due to her continued inability to be President.

[The_Queen]

While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

I read this earlier today, and I think it is what you're referencing. But, without looking into the specifics, I would be surprised if this was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder that the Republicans are proposing.

[SCarpelan]

The quote was from the article behind Dakota's link above my post. That's why I didn't bother sourcing it. Since it mentioned only DOS and not the Senate bill I assumed the meaning was that while DOS can investigate the issue the worst punishment they can give is revoking the security clearances. Since Hillary will probably be the next POTUS they won't do it to her but might do it to her close staff.

[dpareja]

While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

I read this earlier today, and I think it is what you're referencing. But, without looking into the specifics, I would be surprised if this was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder that the Republicans are proposing.

Yes, but who cares about such trifling matters as constitutional provisions when you have a vendetta to pursue?

[The_Queen]

While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

I read this earlier today, and I think it is what you're referencing. But, without looking into the specifics, I would be surprised if this was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder that the Republicans are proposing.

Yes, but who cares about such trifling matters as constitutional provisions when you have a vendetta to pursue?

Sadly. Though, the same can be said about certain people in the Cult of Bernsonality. I mean, they blow the email scandal out of proportion on a hope that it results in a criminal conviction, showing a profound lack of understanding legal concepts of mens rea and culpable mental states. Similarly, the recent class action against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC in Florida shows a profound lack of understanding for civil procedure: I'd be surprised to see the class action survive beyond the 12(b)(6) stage, and slightly less surprised if the attorney in the case avoids getting hit with rule 11 sanctions.

I said it in another thread, but liberals and conservatives seem to be pretty ignorant about the law. The latter more so than the former, but not really by much. Both groups of people seem to believe that the law should operate as necessary to bring about the wishes that they desire, and sometimes laws don't really do that very well.

[RavynousHunter]

When we daemonize an entire profession for the unscrupulous nature of a few of its members, are you really surprised the common man knows next to nothing about it?  Even basic intellectual pursuits like mathematics are utterly hated and despised despite being the foundation of literally all of the modern world.

[Art Vandelay]

That and when something requires a post-grad education just to understand it, then it follows that all those conservative and liberals who don't have law degrees aren't going understand it all too well.

[The_Queen]

That and when something requires a post-grad education just to understand it, then it follows that all those conservative and liberals who don't have law degrees aren't going understand it all too well.

Oh, no, it's not so much that as it is the belief by a lot of people that they somehow know these intricate doctrines, combined with a blind certainty that they do, in fact, know those intricate doctrines. It would be like me saying that I know how to secure celebrity phones to prevent nude leaks and getting the concepts of smart-phone security fundamentally wrong while a person with actual programming experience, like Ravy or Sleepy, watch. It's less the specialized knowledge aspect, and more the sheer arrogance that someone could opine on something with complete disregard for the facts, let alone that experts say otherwise. It's the notion that "my fee-fees" are as important as the experts that you cite to. And the internet isn't helping in this regard because it creates a platform for news sites that feed into the views that people want to believe. But, nevertheless, researching some basic concepts beyond what you want to hear would go a long way into understanding them, and there is a certain pragmatism in deferring to those who know more.