The fix was in, apparently

[Clothahump]

@Superdude

Clothy, you do understand that, in order for her actions to be a crime, there would have to be INTENT for her to leak classified information, right? And, since they were unable to find any intent, it doesn’t add up to criminal levels.

Ever hear of the term criminal negligence? No? Here, be educated.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Clothahump, you just don’t get that the FBI does not, and only once in its history has, recommended prosecution from criminal negligence, do you?

[JackieLikesVariety]

no, he doesn’t get it.

[running_coach]

@Clothahump

Ever hear of the term criminal negligence? No? Here, be educated.

So you know more about the law than the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI?

[GIGObuster]

@Clothahump

Ever hear of the term criminal negligence? No? Here, be educated.

As a comentator at MediaMatters noted, “The real criminal negligence was for Republicans to let Trump become their nominee.”

Other less partizan sites report that you are the one that is grossly ignorant about how that coulld apply in Clinton’s case. (Not really applicable)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/07/05/heres-why-the-fbi-director-is-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/

According to experts I spoke with today, the crux of the decision appears to turn on the question of whether there is evidence that the conduct outlined above rises to the level of “mishandling classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.” That’s the phrase Comey used to describe what constitutes a felony violation of relevant statute.

The most obvious of Comey’s conclusions was that there was no evidence of intent to mishandle the information. But how is it possible that Comey determined that the above conduct also does not constitute “gross negligence,” even if it was not intentional?

Elizabeth Goitein, the co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Project, makes a key distinction, noting that investigators likely concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to get a conviction for gross negligence, aside from whatever they personally believed as to whether any such gross negligence did occur.

“Comey didn’t think the evidence would support a criminal prosecution,” Goitein tells me. “That’s what prosecutors base their decisions on — what the evidence shows, not what they personally think happened.”

This might explain why Comey carefully claimed in his statement that there is “evidence of potential violations of the statutes,” while also claiming that in spite of this, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring this case. Note that in so doing, Comey explicitly said that one of the considerations concerned the “strength of the evidence.”

Comey also took care to note in his statement that unlike in Clinton’s case, previous cases prosecuted involved either intentional mishandling of classified info; levels of disclosure that allowed for an inference of willful mishandling; signs of disloyalty to the U.S.; or some combination of those.

“Hillary Clinton was never likely to be indicted, because no one has ever been prosecuted before in a situation similar to hers,” Matthew Miller, a former spokesman for the Justice Department, tells me. “There’s never been a case where someone has been prosecuted where either gross negligence or willful intent weren’t completely obvious.”

I think I was correct, Comey should not had been so harsh with Clinton. Based on what was found the evidence showed that internal rules were broken but no laws. Under congresional questioning it was clear that one big reason why not to prosecute was that it was not as clear cut that the messages that were found to be confidential or top secret were marked properly. It is like Comey had accepted that the mistake was not made on purpose but then forgot about that when he reported early that Clinton “should know better”. That now is looking like an opinion that was turn into a fact by the right.

It is like what Comey had concluded during and after the investigation was dropped to make it sound better to the Republicans. But IMHO it was a mistake because as we can see it was fairly easy to the Republicans and the conservative media to misrepresent it to most of their viewers and readers.

[Superdude]

@Clothahump

Ever hear of the term criminal negligence? No? Here, be educated.

I’m aware of that, and others have explained it for me.

I still wonder about the question that iiandyiiii asked you way back in post 11, though. Would you please answer it?

@iiandyiiii

Just out of curiosity, is it ever possible for someone to disagree with you on politics without being criminal, stupid, or incompetent? Is there the slightest chance that maybe James Comey, who worked for Republicans and Democrats for many years, is an honorable man who just happened to reach a different conclusion than you?

[iiandyiiii]

@Clothahump

Ever hear of the term criminal negligence? No? Here, be educated.

If you want Hillary treated like everyone else, then that’s what Comey did – pretty much no one is ever prosecuted for mishandling classified material when the cause is laziness, clumsiness, or the like. There’s always been another motivation – profit, or spying, or revealing secrets to journalists, or something.

Comey treated Hillary just like everyone else is treated.

[raventhief]

@running_coach

So you know more about the law than the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI?

And cites Wikipedia to prove it.

[elninost0rm]

@raventhief

And cites Wikipedia to prove it.

I think that we are now armed with the Wikipedia definition of criminal negligence, we should forward this to the AG at once so that he can bust this case wide open.

[running_coach]

@raventhief

And cites Wikipedia to prove it.

That’s not the problem. I doubt the Wiki article is wrong and it’s easier to understand than trying to decipher legal jargon.

The problem is that Clothahump doesn’t explain how it applies.

[Colibri]

@elninost0rm

I think that we are now armed with the Wikipedia definition of criminal negligence, we should forward this to the AG at once so that he can bust this case wide open.

I bet that idiot Comey didn’t once think to consult Wikipedia in determining whether to prosecute Hillary. Good thing Clothahump is on the job!

[elucidator]

IIRC. Comey stated that the entire staff that worked with him on this snipe hunt were of one mind, it was unanimous, no indictment. Period. Full stop. It wasn’t even close, it wasn’t a 5-4 Supreme, it was unanimous.

Nonetheless, he appears to have given the Pubbies as much as he could, with all that about negligence and irresponsibility. Welcome to Cold Comfort Farm. He would have served within the confines of his assignment if he didn’t even mention these editorial asides. So why did he? I’m thinking he did it because he wanted to, I’m thinking that he knew his decision would mightily piss off the Republican Party and he was trying to take some of the sting out of it. After all, if the question is indictment and the answer is “No!”, why say more?

Because he wanted to.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Chimera

Yeah, damn, eh? 25 years of “investigating” the Clintons and you assholes still have nothing to show for it.

But hey, good precedents you’re setting. Quarter century fruitless witch hunts.

Now, how do you think the Republicans will take it if, next winter, the feds start “investigating” Trump and charging him for every one of his crimes? :dubious:

Are we forgetting about that blue dress? IMHO, that dress was at least as much at fault for Bush beating Gore as Nader ever was.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

And if she had already left the military when her mishandling came to light?

They would reevaluate her security clearance and she wouldn’t be able to get that private sector IT job.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@El_Kabong

Shit, they’re still pissed off about Jane Fonda.

To be fair, so are a lot of Democrats. Jane Fonda apologized for much of what she did during the Vietnam War era.

[elucidator]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Are we forgetting about that blue dress? IMHO, that dress was at least as much at fault for Bush beating Gore as Nader ever was.

An excellent point, that could only be more succinct and on-point if friend Chimera had even so much as mentioned Nader or Bush v. Gore. Outside of those niggling details, spot on!

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elucidator

An excellent point, that could only be more succinct and on-point if friend Chimera had even so much as mentioned Nader or Bush v. Gore. Outside of those niggling details, spot on!

Its something the Republicans have to “show for 25 years of investigations” …some semen on a blue dress.

[leftfield6]

@Colibri

I bet that idiot Comey didn’t once think to consult Wikipedia in determining whether to prosecute Hillary. Good thing Clothahump is on the job!

This is just the break the Romney campaign has been waiting for!!

But seriously, Mr Clothy, you seem to be in a zone (maybe a zone of spin?) where you were led to believe that there was a good chance that HRC was going to be indicted. Now that that has not happened, and the law seems to support Comey’s rationale for not doing so, it seems like now would be an excellent time to go back and reevaluate your sources of information.

Oh shit, who am I kidding. You’re not going to do that. Oh well, good luck with that.

[Superdude]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its something the Republicans have to “show for 25 years of investigations” …some semen on a blue dress.

Not to mention in their own pants upon learning of the dress.