When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I meant nothing prosecutable. Of course the found something. Something can always be found. Keep focusing on the vagueness of my word choice though.

Well you're wrong about that as well.

And you're going to blame me because you can't express yourself clearly?

1 Reply

I should add that it is intellectually dishonest to argue the FBI found nothing that might result in a prosecution.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Well there's one thing I never worry about and that's what you think.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Nitpicking. Enjoy

1 Reply

@maporsche,

"Nitpicking"?

Obviously you have zero understanding of the law so please go back to your cubicle and get some work done.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"Nitpicking"?

Obviously you have zero understanding of the law so please go back to your cubicle and get some work done.

Haha. Keep it up Finn. You're doing God's work here.

1 Reply

@woiyo,

woiyo wrote:

Quote:
They didn't find anything prosecute-able.

In the opinion of the FBI, but not the opinion of the public. Yet, one could argue they certainly found she lied to Congress.

As you may have noted, the public doesn't seem to care very much about this. And why should they? It's pretty much the lamest 'scandal' I've ever heard of. There's nothing interesting about it at all and no evidence anyone was harmed. Or even evidence that she meant to harm anyone through her actions.

I don't think you'll see much success with the Perjury angle, either. A careful examination of her statements blows that argument out of the water and it would be, once again, extremely difficult to prosecute.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Wow! Keep up your razor sharp ripostes. They're devastating!

BTW - What do you know of the law, because your posts here suggest you know nothing.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Not quite.

Comey decided that a recommendation for prosecution was not the way to go. There have been numerous former federal attorneys who have said they would have been willing to prosecute on the basis of what the FBI found.

Their opinion is immaterial, fortunate for Hillary. What more, almost all of those I've seen comment to assertively on the case are clearly politically motivated. This really is a great litmus test, actually.

Quote:

It may be that prosecution would ultimately fail due to the absence of intent, and I'm sure Comey weighed the impact of recommending prosecution that he thought would ultimately fail, not on the law, but on the sentiment of jurors, in his decision, however it remains absolutely false to assert the FBI found nothing. A different FBI Director could have recommended prosecution and have remained entirely within the boundaries of the applicable statute.

They found nothing prosecute-able, which is exactly what I just said. To quote Comey's statement directly:

Quote:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

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.

Quote:

Comey didn't fail to recommend prosecution because there was not statutory foundation to do so. That he did, for whatever reasons he had, may or may not have been the right call, but it is intellectually dishonest to say the FBI found nothing.

According to Comey, that's exactly what happened. And your second line is a repeated straw-man. ALL investigators find 'something.' Only some find something that results in charges, which didn't happen here. Unfortunately for your position, that's all that matters, in the end.

Quote:

It's funny, but after Comey shocked me by following his detailed indictment of Clinton with "I won't recommend prosecution" I turned to my wife and said, "Watch. Clinton supporters are going to say the FBI exonerated her." Nothing could be further from the truth but if you or anyone else wants to thinks so, have at it.

The FBI DID exonerate her. Literally. Comey wagged his finger at her and called her a bad little girl, but made it 100% clear that there wasn't sufficient evidence to even recommend prosecution. There's no other way to look at it other than him declaring her to have been innocent of lawbreaking in this matter - though he clearly didn't like that fact.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

That the public doesn't care is belied by Clinton's negatives so get off that rail.

But even if they didn't, that make breaking the law OK?

Your assumptions about what can and can't be prosecuted are only valid given the fact that Dems control the DOJ.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

That the public doesn't care is belied by Clinton's negatives so get off that rail.

Considering that she's absolutely dominating her current election, I'm going to have to go ahead and say that no, the public isn't too concerned over this. You and I may have our own personal opinions of the matter, but as I said before - that's pretty much immaterial.

Quote:

But even if they didn't, that make breaking the law OK?

Your assumptions about what can and can't be prosecuted are only valid given the fact that Dems control the DOJ.

She didn't break the law, though. Comey made that absolutely clear in his statement on the matter. As for the last point, you might have a case there if Comey had recommended prosecution and the DoJ decided not to, but he didn't, so there's not much to say there. What more, I'm not making an assumption about what 'can and can't' be prosecuted; I'm reading Comey's direct statement on the matter. My own personal judgement isn't necessary.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You're wrong.

Plain and simple.

The applicable statute doesn't require intent no matter how often you want to argue it does.

Comey can argue that he believes a successful prosecution requires a showing of intent but a) That wasn't his call to make and b) It's legally incorrect.

That you want to argue the FBI exonerated her only displays how deeply partisan you are.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What words did I twist?

Did he not mock Romney during the debate?

Has he not said that terrorism, and specifically ISIS, do not represent an existential threat.

You are leaving words out compared to his actual statements.
Islamic jihadism is a geopolitical threat.
Terrorism is not a domestic threat.
Both of those statements can be and are true.

That leaves with the question of whether you are unfamiliar with his actual statements or are you knowingly misrepresenting them.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

She didn't break the law, though. Comey made that absolutely clear in his statement on the matter.

What statement did you hear or read? He said no such thing. He said he couldn't recommend prosecution because of an absence of intent which is not required by the statute. Given that the statute only requires gross negligence (the legal definition of which is extreme carelessness) he clearly made the case that she broke the law.

Hey, you're happy your candidate sailed by the law, I think that's reprehensible, but stop trying to argue what the law and Comey clearly states.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"Nitpicking"?

Obviously you have zero understanding of the law so please go back to your cubicle and get some work done.

I would suggest that it is you that has zero understanding of the law. Read the law you think applies. Read the law in it's entirety. Then try to tell us how you could possible convince a jury it was violated.

There are so many ways to introduce doubt based on that law that there is no way it could be charged without a confession. Having emails on a private server doesn't equate to removing documents from the person responsible for them.

Under your scenario, I could simply send you emails that contain classified information that is not clearly marked as such and by opening those emails you would be subject to being prosecuted. No court in the land will accept your argument as that being the intent of the law.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote Finn:

Quote:

The greater threat from terrorism is a big 9/11 type attack that can cripple the economy. I would put that threat, currently, as greater than the threat of getting into a war with Russia.

Okay, so where's the problem with Obama saying much the same thing as you about the greatest threat?

Quote Finn:

Quote:

If Romney could foresee the danger represented by Putin's Russia then surely Obama could have as well so the argument that Crimea hadn't happened yet doesn't wash.

I said that since the Crimean invasion and takeover and Russia's troops helping out the separatist East Ukrainian rebels, the threat of Russia has risen somewhat, but still is not as high as terrorism. So I don't see anything wrong with Obama saying terrorism was the greatest threat then, or now.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You're wrong.

Plain and simple.

The applicable statute doesn't require intent no matter how often you want to argue it does.

Yes, I've read the same argument on countless right-wing blogs for months, thanks. Problem for you is that innumerable actual prosecutors and legal experts have pointed out that without intent or evidence or harm, charges are highly unlikely as it's almost impossible to convict in such a situation. The law is more complex than your layman's reading of the statute.

What more, I don't personally believe that your judgement and understanding of the law is in fact superior to Comey or the DoJ's. Why should I believe that? What particular experience do YOU have the application of these laws?

Quote:

Comey can argue that he believes a successful prosecution requires a showing of intent but a) That wasn't his call to make and b) It's legally incorrect.

That you want to argue the FBI exonerated her only displays how deeply partisan you are.

Both of your assertions here - and that's what those are - are unsupportable, and what more - you knew it when you wrote them. They are opinions on your part.

As for my partisanship, when have I ever made bones about that? For that matter - when have you? But, I understand your frustration and I do sympathize. You guys damn well knew that DQ'ing her was your only chance to avoid saying Mrs. President for four years, and what more, that person being your absolute arch-enemy (from a political party standpoint). And what more, the GOP nominee is such a ******* embarrassment, the Dems are going to make gains nationally, everywhere, which I'm sure you realize at this point. I hope you enjoy every single second of it; I know I will.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I quoted you the exact part of his statement that made it clear on his part that what she did didn't merit prosecution. He even outlined the reasons why, of which there were several. You seem to be scrupulously ignoring that and are conflating 'doing wrong' with 'breaking the law.' Comey absolutely believed the she did something wrong, while simultaneously concluding that her wrongdoing didn't rise to the level where she broke the law. And he was crystal clear on both those point.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It doesn't take a legal scholar to read the applicable statute. Give it a try.

I don't need or intend to relay personal information on my qualifications to interpret the law. Never have nor ever will. However you are more than welcome to actually read the statute and offer an argument why I am wrong.

The law is not more complex than what it says. The application of it may be when politics are involved, but the statue is clear that intent is not required and Comey never argued that the law required intent he opined that a successful prosecution did. Those are two entirely different matters.

You're floundering Cyclo

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And you are scrupulously ignoring that a decision not to prosecute is not the same as a statement that the target of the investigation is innocent.

He didn't at all say that her conduct didn't rise to "breaking the law" he said that in the absence of intent (not required by the statute) he couldn't recommend prosecution.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know