# FBI not recommending charges against Clinton **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 5, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125 "2016-07-05T15:20:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/41 "2016-07-05T16:41:45Z")
This is a win? There aren’t many things that make a candidate disqualified to be President. Mishandling classified information is one of them. And now we have James Comey publicly announcing that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. Now she’s running against Donald Trump, so she’ll probably win anyway, but let’s be clear about something here: at this point given her reputation, she wouldn’t beat any other Republican. If the Republicans make a change at the convention, she’ll be down by 10 points within a week. Candidates with 41-55 approval and falling do not win Presidential elections in normal times. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/42 "2016-07-05T16:42:03Z")
Well, Trump already screwed up even before lunch. Trump tweets… [QUOTE=The Cheeto Jesus] _The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment._ [/quote] This was already debunked many times, there is not even a fragment of critical thinking left in the Donald. (the following article from USA Today was from **last** year) > **[Flashback - Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/)** > > Unlike David Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation of the law. > [@](#): > > Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. > > As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability. > > The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels. > > [Edit: I left this side colum bit in the quote to point out that even then USA TODAY had articles like: > _Column: GOP’s Clinton email indictment **fantasy** _] > > These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States. > > Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as “top secret” and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. > > Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography. > > Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.” [QUOTE=The Vulgarian over comber] \*FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem \* [/QUOTE] And even on this the orangegutan is wrong, according to the reports I saw, the director reported that there was no evidence that her server or emails were accesesed. The main point stands, there was no intention by Clinton or others to willfully give secrets to our enemies. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/43 "2016-07-05T16:42:29Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Hey Trump, go suck an egg. Petreaus willingly shared classified information with his lover. Clinton was careless, Petreaus was treasonous. [deflects] Petreaus was a loser. Trump had more lovers. Only the best women slept with Trump! [/deflects] 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/44 "2016-07-05T16:42:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And then there is the point that I do not remember any right winger dealt with, The point to them was that this is a great example of a moot item going forward as it is really unlikely that Clinton will not be put under eagle eyes by the agencies that also were chastised by the lapses in security observed. Not likely that the same conditions will be there to allow even the future president to avoid the new rules. I don’t know what “right-wingers” think or have rebutted. I find it exasperating that such a large proportion of my ideological allies see this issue (and most others) as nothing more or less than a partisan game. Speaking for myself as a critic of Clinton on this matter, the idea wasn’t that Clinton would, in the future, ignore the advice of her security experts and set up another insecure private server that houses sensitive information and connect to it with a device she was informed was likely to be hacked by foreign powers. Instead, the idea was that her decision to do so in the past reflected badly on her powers of judgment–i.e., essentially the same conclusion reached by the FBI. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/45 "2016-07-05T16:43:30Z")
Well, we’re in agreement on one thing. Any Republican who says this was a rigged process is being ridiculous. James Comey has always been above reproach and he handled this professionally. I dare say he should be President. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/46 "2016-07-05T16:44:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The “burn bag” criticism is a nothing criticism. I work in a classified DoD office, and there are “burn bags” (which is an informal phrase for a paper bag or bin where classified docs are placed with the intention of shredding or burning them later on) throughout the office, and it’s incredibly routine to place any document in them once done working on it. I wasn’t trying to claim that it’s a valid attack - just that the attacks would continue. I totally agree with you, if the schedule burned is just a printed copy and there is a permanent copy somewhere. Then it’s a ridiculous charge, and in fact I would expect burn bags to be used exactly for that purpose: to get rid of extra copies of sensitive documents. As you say, it would be a routine procedure. But… If what was burned was the only record of her schedule it becomes a different issue. The schedules of secretaries of state are permanent records that should not be destroyed. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Trump tweets… > > The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment. > FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem Trump is an idiot. The clear difference between the cases is that Petraeus intentionally and knowingly gave classified information to someone not cleared to read it. The only thing Hillary was accused of was carelessness. Note, however, that Comey very specifically said that while what she did may not be indictable as a criminal offence, actions like hers might well have led to other sanctions, such as losing her job, losing her clearances, whatever. In no way did he say that this wasn’t a big deal - he clearly thought it was a very big deal - it just didn’t pass the threshold for a criminal offence. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/47 "2016-07-05T16:45:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And even on this the orangegutan is wrong, according to the reports I saw, the director reported that there was no evidence that her server or emails were accesesed. He said this: > [@](#): > > With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. In the real world, there often isn’t any evidence that a system has been improperly accessed. “Possible” is almost certainly understating things, given the sentences leading to that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/48 "2016-07-05T16:50:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is a win? There aren’t many things that make a candidate disqualified to be President. Mishandling classified information is one of them. And now we have James Comey publicly announcing that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. At various points in my career I have mishandled classified information. So has almost everyone I know who spent any significant amount of time working with classified documents (and this would add up to more than a hundred people). Mishandling classified information is _incredibly common_. There is tons of it in every format imaginable, and much of it isn’t properly or clearly marked. There are literally, sometimes, blank sheets of paper lying around marked “Secret”. Do I have to treat blank sheets of paper marked Secret as actually Secret? Do I have to treat an email that says “need more coffee” as Confidential? People who deal with hundreds of classified docs each day are going to screw some of them up, just on volume and exhaustion. This doesn’t excuse everything Hillary did – she arrogantly dismissed or disregarded guidance and recommendations about how to handle her blackberry and other email issues. But the fact that she and her team sometimes misplaced or mishandled classified material only means that they need retraining, unless there’s evidence that they did so either for profit or for treasonous reasons, and Comey makes it clear that there is no such evidence. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/49 "2016-07-05T16:50:06Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Meh. If she wins the Hillary-haters on the right will find something to blather on about anyway. Whether it’s this, Bengahzi, Vince Foster or how she is a secret baby eating lesbian is pretty much irrelevant. And the Clinton lovers will ignore that Clinton and her crew were ’ extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information’. And that Clinton lied multiple times about it. Continuously. Oh, and the whole ‘It is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s email account.’ bit can now be safely ignored. After all, the FBI is not recommending charges so therefore Hillarys actions were perfectly fine and it is all those evil republicans fault anyway! One thing I don’t get is the point about ‘clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws…’ bit. The whole Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one) bit seems to have disappeared these days. It is kind of a bummer that one one hand we have Clinton, liar extradorinare, and Trump, pimple on the ass of the world, as the major party candidates. Looks like Gary Johnson is getting my vote\*. Slee \*Did a good job as governor of New Mexico when I was living there. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/50 "2016-07-05T16:50:16Z")
I remember something about Hillary has already lost or had her security clearance down graded over this email server problem. Now she will have to become the next POTUS to get her security clearance back … ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/51 "2016-07-05T16:52:37Z")
I am quite sure she lost quite a bit of clearance when she left the job, but yeah, whatever. Where’d you “hear” this? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/52 "2016-07-05T16:53:49Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I am quite sure she lost quite a bit of clearance when she left the job, but yeah, whatever. Where’d you “hear” this? I hear things on the internet. People are talking about it, believe me. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/53 "2016-07-05T16:54:13Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > One thing I don’t get is the point about ‘clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws…’ bit. The whole Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one) bit seems to have disappeared these days. There are two things at play here, neither involves any special treatment of Clinton. First, the criminal laws require knowing mishandling. That’s different from requiring knowledge of the law (which is what Ignorantia juris non excusat is about). So if she didn’t understand how this constituted a mishandling, then it’s not a crime, in the same way that if you push a button that kills someone but you had no idea that’s what the button did you would not be guilty of murder. Second, prosecutorial discretion in this area has been very easy on people as a practice, in part because of the things **iiandyiiii** talks about. It has generally required mishandling the information for some ill purpose, usually intentionally (as opposed to merely knowingly, which is what the law requires). These are the core reasons that no one well-informed about the issue thought she would be indicted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/54 "2016-07-05T16:55:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is a win? There aren’t many things that make a candidate disqualified to be President. Mishandling classified information is one of them. And now we have James Comey publicly announcing that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. Again, the intention is the key, making a mistake that was already acknowledged is not grounds for disqualification. Specially after seeing the jerkish attempts by many Republicans to make this molehill into a mountain > [@adaher](#): > > Now she’s running against Donald Trump, so she’ll probably win anyway, but let’s be clear about something here: at this point given her reputation, she wouldn’t beat any other Republican. If the Republicans make a change at the convention, she’ll be down by 10 points within a week. Candidates with 41-55 approval and falling do not win Presidential elections in normal times. Wishful thinking again, no, the Republicans are stuck with Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/55 "2016-07-05T16:55:40Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Agreed. > > And I think the flipside of that sentiment is that this doesn’t cease to be a scandalous example of bad judgment just because it was not criminal. > > But we live in extreme times. When your opponent is a neo-Nazi, terrible security practices seem quaint. Man, probably most of the computer using people in the world have terrible security practices. It’s not just politics. It’s medical information, banking information, legal papers, corporate security - anything to do with secure files. People check their banks on public computers. People bring home a few case files for reading. People surreptitiously forward stuff to their everyday phone. People take secure laptops on vacation. People are lazy and always looking for workarounds - even the ones who know better. Hillary got sloppy. That’s bad. It’s not illegal. In fact, it’s common as mud. The important thing is that State’s IT situation will improve after this. They’re the ones who really dropped the ball here. The SoS doesn’t maintain the IT program. There’s no excuse for the IT people not having a secure phone system in place for the Secretary. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/56 "2016-07-05T16:55:46Z")
I also suspect there’s some benefit of the doubt for non-poor people built into such laws. The concept of “ignorance of the law is no excuse” seems to apply mainly to crimes committed by poor people. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/57 "2016-07-05T16:56:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I hear things on the internet. People are talking about it, believe me. “Many” people? That’s important. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/58 "2016-07-05T16:56:19Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I am quite sure she lost quite a bit of clearance when she left the job, but yeah, whatever. Where’d you “hear” this? On the internet: [Google](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Hillary+Clinton+lost+her+security+clearance) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/59 "2016-07-05T16:57:24Z")
> [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > On the internet: [Google](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Hillary+Clinton+lost+her+security+clearance) Am I psychic or what? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/60 "2016-07-05T16:59:02Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > People are lazy and always looking for workarounds - even the ones who know better. Hillary got sloppy. That’s bad. It’s not illegal. In fact, it’s common as mud. Obviously, I agree this wasn’t illegal and have said that from the beginning. But I think this defense of her judgment is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, she was Secretary of State of the United States. That should cause a reasonable person to be more careful than when you do some private banking in a Starbucks. And second, she was specifically and individually advised that her practices were likely to lead to a foreign government spying on her. She acknowledged this. But continued anyway. > [@Merneith](#): > > There’s no excuse for the IT people not having a secure phone system in place for the Secretary. There is an excuse. She asked for it and was denied because it would be prohibitively expensive. That said, I agree that we should find the money. But that doesn’t excuse just ignoring the problem before Congress found the money. (And, I think worse than the private phone issue is the fact that our diplomats don’t have access to secure channels at night or on holidays. That is a real scandal, and I suspect the GOP bears a large part of the blame for why we haven’t spent money on it.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125.md?page=4)