# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/101 "2016-07-05T19:05:59Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Some of it may have been inexperience with new technology, not that that excuses it. What “new technology” are you referring to here? Email? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/102 "2016-07-05T19:09:49Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Ah. “A reasonable amount.” > > The fact that you immediately jump to “better than Trump” illustrates the problem and how they have played you. Once upon a time, someone as thoroughly discredited as HRC would have been shamed out of public life, and replaced on the ticket by Biden or whomever, just as once upon a time Bill would have been publically disgraced and replaced by Gore. It wasn’t a prosecutor that ended Joe McCarthy; it people in his own party with a sense of decency. > > This isn’t that time, clearly. Once upon a time pols wouldn’t have been on an all-out warpath to discredit another pol with utterly unsubstantiable charges. Maybe if she didn’t get the martyr effect, allegations against her would have more meaning. But then that would have required the ratfuckers to have reined themselves in to reasonable accusations for 25 years. Welcome to the new world. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/103 "2016-07-05T19:11:51Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Ah. “A reasonable amount.” > > The fact that you immediately jump to “better than Trump” illustrates the problem and how they have played you. Once upon a time, someone as thoroughly discredited as HRC would have been shamed out of public life, and replaced on the ticket by Biden or whomever, just as once upon a time Bill would have been publically disgraced and replaced by Gore. It wasn’t a prosecutor that ended Joe McCarthy; it people in his own party with a sense of decency. > > This isn’t that time, clearly. Lol. You really have NO IDEA of how politics have worked through History, do you. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/104 "2016-07-05T19:14:38Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Another win for Hillary! November can’t come soon enough! 😃 You think that will end all of the paranoid outrage? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/105 "2016-07-05T19:34:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Not indicted does not equal innocent of all wrongdoing. Comey made it clear that Clinton used exceedingly bad judgement, and through her actions very likely exposed U.S. secrets to rival countries and perhaps even to enemies. She was warned about it, and did nothing. "_and through her actions very likely exposed U.S. secrets to rival countries and perhaps even to enemies. "_ Cite? [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0) Yes, if she had been a Civil Servant she " could have faced administrative sanction ", i.e. a stern note in her file,:eek: maybe even a couple weeks off without pay. meh. Appointed Government officials at the Cabinet level dont have those issues. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/106 "2016-07-05T19:36:05Z")
> [@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. > > It means absolutely nothing whatsoever if Hillary’s daily schedules were printed out, and then sometime later someone put them in a burn bag. This is an incredibly routine action, and if putting daily schedules in a burn bag is criminal, or even a rules violation, then it’s one that probably happens thousands of times per day in government offices around the country. People with lots of work to do will end up with incredible stacks of paper on their desks at the end of the day, and that paper has to be put somewhere. No one has the time to look at every single sheet every day, so since burn bags are “safe” for burning/shredding any docs, whether classified or not, then often the whole stack will go in there. Yeah, I shredded tons of stuff on a daily basis. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/107 "2016-07-05T19:39:25Z")
> [@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. > > 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. No. She mishandled information that was NOT classified at that time, altho perhaps it should have been. You have clearly never worked for the Feds in any capacity where data is classified. LOTS of data is not classified that later, upon careful reflection, maybe should be. Lots of data is classified that should not have been. You dont get in trouble for mishandling data that \*should \*have been classified. You get in trouble for mishandling data that **WAS** classified. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/108 "2016-07-05T19:42:34Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > “Many” people? That’s important. No, in the Fox “News” parlance, “Some” are talking (or wondering) about something. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/109 "2016-07-05T19:42:58Z")
Looks like bill’s meeting with lynch was successful. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/110 "2016-07-05T19:45:57Z")
I hope Kerry is doing things differently. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/111 "2016-07-05T19:46:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No. She mishandled information that was NOT classified at that time, altho perhaps it should have been. > > You have clearly never worked for the Feds in any capacity where data is classified. LOTS of data is not classified that later, upon careful reflection, maybe should be. Lots of data is classified that should not have been. > > You dont get in trouble for mishandling data that \*should \*have been classified. You get in trouble for mishandling data that **WAS** classified. While this is probably true for some of the data in question, other data was very likely classified and nonetheless mishandled (which is very common). Chances are, at some point Hillary or a staff member wrote or typed into an email some little factoid that was classified without realizing it at the time (or realizing that it was a problem). For example – if I’m talking to someone about submarine design engineering and logistics (my job), and I type into a regular network email “the new sub’s maximum depth is XXX”, then I’ve just sent classified information and broke the rules. It’s the kind of thing that happens very frequently, but it’s still a violation. Not criminal, or anything close – the typical “punishment” is (for the first time) some retraining; if it’s happened before, then maybe losing classified access for a week along with more intense retraining. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/112 "2016-07-05T19:51:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Ah. “A reasonable amount.” > > The fact that you immediately jump to “better than Trump” illustrates the problem and how they have played you. Once upon a time, someone as thoroughly discredited as HRC would have been shamed out of public life, and replaced on the ticket by Biden or whomever, just as once upon a time Bill would have been publically disgraced and replaced by Gore. It wasn’t a prosecutor that ended Joe McCarthy; it people in his own party with a sense of decency. > > This isn’t that time, clearly. As usual when it comes to the Clintons, I think the GOP and Fox News have to take the lion’s share of responsibility when it comes to the collective ‘meh’ from the general electorate. They just can’t learn the lesson that overselling the ‘scandal’ will come back to bite them when the final result of the [del]witchhunt[/del] investigation pales in comparison to what they have been screaming about for months, even when said results are somewhat damning. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/113 "2016-07-05T20:06:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > While this is probably true for some of the data in question, other data was very likely classified and nonetheless mishandled Yeah. Since this thread is all about the FBI statement let me crib from Richard Parker’s transcript: > [@](#): > > From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. So maybe we should dispense with the “none of it was classified at the time” defense talking point. ---
**Author:** ![MindsEye\_Watering](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindseye_watering/32/3619_2.png) [@MindsEye\_Watering](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MindsEye_Watering)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/114 "2016-07-05T20:06:33Z")
One of the best parts of this is watching all the rightwingnuts/Trump fans spit and fume. Funny! ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/115 "2016-07-05T20:08:38Z")
Watch Trump promise to prosecute her if he is elected. Would be like watching an entire warehouse of canned worms slowly unravel… ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/116 "2016-07-05T20:11:44Z")
Long time fed here. Don’t deal with anything classified, just a ton of PII. From the start, it struck me as unbelievable that she could have been so cavalier with her e-mails. I have to sign my annual systems-use agreements, and have seen folk disciplined severely for simply e-mailing a Word doc they were working on to their home e-mail. So it clearly indicated poor judgment, a sense of entitlement, etc. Not at all good things, but not at all unique among major candidates/officials. This was the ONE charge against Hillary that I thought had some legitimacy. Yet I didn’t think it anywhere near a disqualifying event. Not knowing the legal specifics, I feared a far more harmful outcome than this. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/117 "2016-07-05T20:18:12Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Lol. You really have NO IDEA of how politics have worked through History, do you. He obviously is unaware that James Monroe travels on Sunday! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/118 "2016-07-05T20:19:13Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So maybe we should dispense with the “none of it was classified at the time” defense talking point. No no no, you’re doing it wrong. The talking point is “none of it was MARKED classified at the time”. Still works, see? ETA: at least, that’s the latest evolution of the talking point. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/119 "2016-07-05T20:19:26Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No. She mishandled information that was NOT classified at that time, altho perhaps it should have been. > > You have clearly never worked for the Feds in any capacity where data is classified. LOTS of data is not classified that later, upon careful reflection, maybe should be. Lots of data is classified that should not have been. > > You dont get in trouble for mishandling data that \*should \*have been classified. You get in trouble for mishandling data that **WAS** classified. And Comey said the data was classified. At the time. ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/120 "2016-07-05T20:20:44Z")
What sucks is that this is probably the most disqualifying scandal ever and we can’t exploit it because Donald Trump is our nominee. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125.md?page=7)