The FBI recommends that no charges be brought against Clinton

[Slutty Mathlete]

FBI Director James Comey will recommend no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server and account while she served as Secretary of State. Comey said there is proof Clinton and her aides acted carelessly, citing instances of mishandling of classified information, but that his investigators do not think charges would be appropriate.

 

http://time.com/4393372/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton-email-speech-transcript/

[♥SNS-Shinomiya♥]

man, the power of money and influence

[NCT48]

SHOCKING ...

[양 지]

Is it legal? If yes then she should be punished (sounds so intense lol). I think this is a very simple matter.

[WonderTwice]

fkk no throw her ass in jail she cant get a free ride just because shes running for president 

[Anri Sonohara]

Not surprised.

 

The establishment politicians are bought and paid for.

[HitOnMe]

Snakes.

[Slutty Mathlete]

Is it legal? If yes then she should be punished (sounds so intense lol). I think this is a very simple matter.

  

 

fkk no throw her ass in jail she cant get a free ride just because shes running for president 

The whole point is that she didn't do anything illegal. The speech said she and her staff were careless, but not against the law.

[Saint Rose]

Her power and influence didn't stop her from being investigated- but now her power/money blah blah has something to do with it now that she's basically cleared lmao

 

Watch the Sanders/Trump camp throw a hissyfit.

[Ash Ketchum]

  

The whole point is that she didn't do anything illegal. The speech said she and her staff were careless, but not against the law.

 

lol people's hatred make them completely unable to be logical.  

[noon]

ahdhfjfb

 

so ppl can be arrested for espionage for withholding info or giving "classified" info to the press or even asking questions to their superiors and yet she wont?

 

im not surprised but still it's a bit unfair

[camelliabloom]

Not surprising, she probably paid them off too.

[jadakiss13]

Guess it boils down to the fact that she did something wrong but had no "intent" to do wrong. It was careless but not necessarily illegal.

[Anri Sonohara]

It should be made aware that Hillary should have been charged with criminal negligence and perjury.

 

It's not about what you know it's about what you can prove.

 

Apparently the FBI cannot prove Hillary's crimes probably because she deleted the incriminating evidence and lied about it under oath.

[fontayne]

Guess it boils down to the fact that she did something wrong but had no "intent" to do wrong. It was careless but not necessarily illegal.

[양 지]

The whole point is that she didn't do anything illegal. The speech said she and her staff were careless, but not against the law.

Well ok then, thats it lol.

[Vaelin]

Don't know why there are so many lies in this thread(?) but she did break the law:

 

18 USC Â§793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.†Comey called her “extremely careless.†That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.

18 USC Â§1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.†Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

18 USC Â§798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.†Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

18 USC Â§2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.†Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

 

Ordinary people don't walk free because they didn't intend to commit the crime. #Justsayin'

[UNNIE]

She wasn't careless though. She took her classified work that is meant to be worked in a security secured place that the government knows no one is hacking and getting USA information to her house. And you're telling me she didn't know what she was doing? You're telling me she was careless?

 

 

If she didnt have information to hide she would have done it where the government can check.

[Slutty Mathlete]

Don't know why there are so many lies in this thread(?) but she did break the law:

 

18 USC Â§793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.†Comey called her “extremely careless.†That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.

18 USC Â§1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.†Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

18 USC Â§798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.†Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

18 USC Â§2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.†Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

 

Ordinary people don't walk free because they didn't intend to commit the crime. #Justsayin'

The whole point of the investigation was to decide if she was "grossly negligent" or not. The FBI decided that it did not rise to that level. Intent matters in that determination. The second statute you cite says knowingly. Zero of these emails were marked with a classification at the time they were sent. It has since been determined that some of it was classified, but that is irrelevant, because intent. Comey can make all the snide remarks he wants about they should have known it was classified. Should have known is not what the statute says.

There was no evidence that she was hacked in any way, so the third statute you cite is irrelevant. As to the last statute you cite, Clinton was a member of the government at that time. She didn't remove the emails from government control. She was the government. She was authorized to possess every bit of the information on that server.

 

Lastly, ordinary people do get let off all the time because they didn't intend to do anything wrong. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Comey directly addressed this in his remarks. "No reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Clinton based on the evidence that was garthered. Any decent attorney would evicserate that case in two seconds. I personally believe it would be dismissed by the judge for the reasons I've laid out.

[flowerlover]

lol, Was anyone delusional enough to think that justice will be served.

[Solfa]

She wasn't careless though. She took her classified work that is meant to be worked in a security secured place that the government knows no one is hacking and getting USA information to her house. And you're telling me she didn't know what she was doing? You're telling me she was careless?

 

 

If she didnt have information to hide she would have done it where the government can check.

 

Honestly, old people are dumb as fuck when it comes to computer, I have worked with them before, I believe it when they say they were careless. But we have the example of Bryan Nishimura who did something similar to Hilary  and prosecuted for this.

 

EDIT: Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell are examples of non-prosecuted people, as well as Bush administration. You can make a case that Nishimura was not prosecuted for having double e-mail addresses, and he didn't, he deleted important stuff without authorization, so not exactly like Hillary. Law is weird, you really need to word things in the right way.