Jump to content
elmcitymaven

F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email

 Share

89 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday said the F.B.I. is recommending no charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a personal email server while secretary of state.

Mr. Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Mrs. Clinton for her handling of classified information on her private server. But he said Mrs. Clinton and her staff were extremely careless in their use of email.

The F.B.I.s recommendation to the Justice Department will have an enormous impact on the presidential election.

http://nyti.ms/29tDSMw

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew as soon as the AG said she would follow the AG recommendation the fix was in.

So he basically said Yes she did it . She lied about no classified Emails.It's likely our enemies gained access, yes the deleted Emails and wiped the server, but we recommend no charges. Everything she was accused of was supported by the FBI investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question, my dear legal analyst NB, is whether she had the appropriate mental state (i.e., mens rea) for the statutes that she might have potentially violated. If the mens rea necessary to support a charge that any "reasonable prosecutor" might bring was intent to violate the statute or knowing that her conduct would cause the statute to be violated, it could be very hard for any prosecutor to bring charges in the circumstances. If there is no or flimsy evidence to support that she intended to violate or knew that the statute would be violated by her acts, it is a waste of time for the AG. This can be a very tough hurdle to surpass without solid evidence.

If on the other hand the requisite mens rea is recklessness (awareness that a result might happen from one's conduct instead of awareness that a result will happen from one's conduct, though unintentional), negligence (lack of awareness that a result will occur from one's conduct when one was under a duty of care and should have known of the result) or strict liability (you don't have to be aware or should have been aware -- think: statutory rape) then yeah, there might have been a case. For strict liability, there DEFINITELY would have been a case.

What statutes had she potentially violated? We can read and parse them together. :)

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question, my dear legal analyst NB, is whether she had the appropriate mental state (i.e., mens rea) for the statutes that she might have potentially violated. If the mens rea necessary to support a charge that any "reasonable prosecutor" might bring was intent to violate the statute or knowing that her conduct would cause the statute to be violated, it could be very hard for any prosecutor to bring charges in the circumstances. If there is no or flimsy evidence to support that she intended to violate or knew that the statute would be violated by her acts, it is a waste of time for the AG. This can be a very tough hurdle to surpass without solid evidence.

If on the other hand the requisite mens rea is recklessness (awareness that a result might happen from one's conduct instead of awareness that a result will happen from one's conduct, though unintentional), negligence (lack of awareness that a result will occur from one's conduct when one was under a duty of care and should have known of the result) or strict liability (you don't have to be aware or should have been aware -- think: statutory rape) then yeah, there might have been a case. For strict liability, there DEFINITELY would have been a case.

What statutes had she potentially violated? We can read and parse them together. :)

One of the statues for classified information is that even if it is unintended it is still chargeable. The director plainly said it was negligence and they should have known better. I will look it up when not on a hand held.

Also the FBI director saying no one knew what he would recommend. BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we see what the statute is, we're both armchair DA-ing here.

Well you are the expert. I did watch the news conference. He basically laid out a case , in which she did everything she was accused of. She also lied when she said there were no classified Emails sent .

He did say they should have known better and it was negligence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Ireland
Timeline

Oct 19, 2010 I-130 application submitted to US Embassy Seoul, South Korea

Oct 22, 2010 I-130 application approved

Oct 22, 2010 packet 3 received via email

Nov 15, 2010 DS-230 part 1 faxed to US Embassy Seoul

Nov 15, 2010 Appointment for visa interview made on-line

Nov 16, 2010 Confirmation of appointment received via email

Dec 13, 2010 Interview date

Dec 15, 2010 CR-1 received via courier

Mar 29, 2011 POE Detroit Michigan

Feb 15, 2012 Change of address via telephone

Jan 10, 2013 I-751 packet mailed to Vermont Service CenterJan 15, 2013 NOA1

Jan 31, 2013 Biometrics appointment letter received

Feb 20, 2013 Biometric appointment date

June 14, 2013 RFE

June 24, 2013 Responded to RFE

July 24, 2013 Removal of conditions approved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

USE 18 793 F

Edited by Nature Boy Flair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

USE 18 793 F

Cheers!

So, I read the statement from Comey in its entirety, and now compare it to the statute. The question is: did Comey and his staff believe he could substantiate that she acted with gross negligence? "Gross" here means the lack of even the slightest regard in permitting the e-mails in question to be removed from (or really here, to be absent from) government servers. This is sort of an intermediate state between simple negligence and recklessness.

Does this mean she did not know what she was doing, or that she was grossly negligent in reality? Not necessarily. There just isn't enough evidence, and without evidence it's a waste of time and money. Just look at the eighty bajillion Benghazi hearings that turned up nothing time and again. There was insufficient evidence to support the claims. It was a waste of Congress's time and our money. Prosecutors make these kind of judgment calls every day, and they can be tough to make. I was a victim of a crime and while the cops believed me, they told me that since there was insufficient evidence to support my claim (no eyewitnesses, I wasn't physically injured, nothing of monetary value was taken or destroyed and there was little physical evidence) no DA would want to touch the matter. It's a shame, they said, but that's how it is. I have made my peace with it in some way, even though I feel it unfair.

So we can think she could be prosecuted, or should not be prosecuted, but ultimately we are not the arbiters here. The FBI made its decision, and Comey spoke with remarkable candour about how they arrived at that decision. She doesn't come out of this smelling of roses. The stench will follow her, charges or no.

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers!

So, I read the statement from Comey in its entirety, and now compare it to the statute. The question is: did Comey and his staff believe he could substantiate that she acted with gross negligence? "Gross" here means the lack of even the slightest regard in permitting the e-mails in question to be removed from (or really here, to be absent from) government servers. This is sort of an intermediate state between simple negligence and recklessness.

Does this mean she did not know what she was doing, or that she was grossly negligent in reality? Not necessarily. There just isn't enough evidence, and without evidence it's a waste of time and money. Just look at the eighty bajillion Benghazi hearings that turned up nothing time and again. There was insufficient evidence to support the claims. It was a waste of Congress's time and our money. Prosecutors make these kind of judgment calls every day, and they can be tough to make. I was a victim of a crime and while the cops believed me, they told me that since there was insufficient evidence to support my claim (no eyewitnesses, I wasn't physically injured, nothing of monetary value was taken or destroyed and there was little physical evidence) no DA would want to touch the matter. It's a shame, they said, but that's how it is. I have made my peace with it in some way, even though I feel it unfair.

So we can think she could be prosecuted, or should not be prosecuted, but ultimately we are not the arbiters here. The FBI made its decision, and Comey spoke with remarkable candour about how they arrived at that decision. She doesn't come out of this smelling of roses. The stench will follow her, charges or no.

Yup because she was caught in several lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline

Cheers!

So, I read the statement from Comey in its entirety, and now compare it to the statute. The question is: did Comey and his staff believe he could substantiate that she acted with gross negligence? "Gross" here means the lack of even the slightest regard in permitting the e-mails in question to be removed from (or really here, to be absent from) government servers. This is sort of an intermediate state between simple negligence and recklessness.

Does this mean she did not know what she was doing, or that she was grossly negligent in reality? Not necessarily. There just isn't enough evidence, and without evidence it's a waste of time and money. Just look at the eighty bajillion Benghazi hearings that turned up nothing time and again. There was insufficient evidence to support the claims. It was a waste of Congress's time and our money. Prosecutors make these kind of judgment calls every day, and they can be tough to make. I was a victim of a crime and while the cops believed me, they told me that since there was insufficient evidence to support my claim (no eyewitnesses, I wasn't physically injured, nothing of monetary value was taken or destroyed and there was little physical evidence) no DA would want to touch the matter. It's a shame, they said, but that's how it is. I have made my peace with it in some way, even though I feel it unfair.

So we can think she could be prosecuted, or should not be prosecuted, but ultimately we are not the arbiters here. The FBI made its decision, and Comey spoke with remarkable candour about how they arrived at that decision. She doesn't come out of this smelling of roses. The stench will follow her, charges or no.

Actually, we are the arbiter. Hillary is a demonstrated pathological liar, has no ethics, and appears to have a lack of integrity. We can simply not vote for her. Now the alternative is not that great, but he is a much better option than her, and in my opinion, any vote for a third party, or a failure to vote is most likely a vote for her.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremely careless and should have known better ≠ gross negligence. Comey said he looked at relevant case law and could not substantiate bringing criminal charges.

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 I'm sure everyone here knows, our common law system is based upon the principle of stare decisis -- that we base our legal decisions on those that have come before. If no other case would support criminal charges on the facts, but would support security or administrative sanctions, then no criminal charges can be brought.


Actually, we are the arbiter. Hillary is a demonstrated pathological liar, has no ethics, and appears to have a lack of integrity. We can simply not vote for her. Now the alternative is not that great, but he is a much better option than her, and in my opinion, any vote for a third party, or a failure to vote is most likely a vote for her.

We still can't bring criminal charges. :)

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

Extremely careless and should have known better ≠ gross negligence. Comey said he looked at relevant case law and could not substantiate bringing criminal charges.

As I'm sure everyone here knows, our common law system is based upon the principle of stare decisis -- that we base our legal decisions on those that have come before. If no other case would support criminal charges on the facts, but would support security or administrative sanctions, then no criminal charges can be brought.

We still can't bring criminal charges. :)

probably best to read through this before saying that

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf

3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation

I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the

unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

oh what did she sign below?

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...