When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

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

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.

I'm sure you think so, but at the end of the day, one of us is happy about how reality turned out and the other one is not. Which position would you rather be in? Mine, in which I have to restrain myself from gloating, or yours, in which you have to restrain yourself from grousing?

"I know from 30 years there's no way anybody at the Department of Justice is bringing a case against John Doe or Hillary Clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts," Comey added.

The FBI director also appeared to take a shot at former U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani and other ex-prosecutors who have been saying they would've charged Clinton with gross negligence.

"I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did," Comey said.

Instead he spent 15 minutes or more laying out the case for how it was violated and what a liar she is.

Quote:

I'm sure you think so, but at the end of the day, one of us is happy about how reality turned out and the other one is not. Which position would you rather be in? Mine, in which I have to restrain myself from gloating, or yours, in which you have to restrain yourself from grousing?

Well, that's a very telling statement.

What difference does it make legally as long as you get to gloat about the outcome.

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

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.

We do not see those things here.

Oh please.

Why not just state you're a true blue Clintonista?

It would have made me "happy" if Comey unequivocally stated she was guilty of nothing. He didn't.

It’s difficult to report on a negative, and the fact that Clinton’s campaign hasn’t been the scene of staff turmoil, semi-public infighting, and damaging leaks is in some ways the definition of a nonstory.

But her 2008 campaign was all of these things, and her success in reinventing herself as the leader of a “no drama” operation in the mold of Barack Obama’s campaign style is a genuinely surprising subplot to a campaign that’s been full of surprises.

Clinton’s 2016 team broke with the past

The early development of Clinton’s 2016 team clearly reflected a desire to break with the legacy of mismanagement that plagued her 2008 effort. Most of the key people from that campaign didn’t come back for a second tour of duty.

Instead, the campaign’s senior personnel were either (like Podesta and Palmieri) less tied to her personally than to the Democratic Party institutionally or else (like Sullivan) relative newcomers to Clintonworld who’d done well at the State Department. It was a highly professional operation full of well-regarded political operatives, mostly battle-tested by service in an Obama administration that prided itself on an un-Clintonian absence of drama and scandal.

It seemed like the right way to go, but to many outsiders — okay, to me — it seemed almost too good to be true.

Clinton has been tested — but only a little

One difference, of course, is that in politics it’s a lot easier to look good while you’re winning than while you’re losing. This time around, Clinton has been consistently winning.

We can’t really know whether she would have stayed the course had she fallen behind Bernie Sanders in the delegate count or if Donald Trump had opened up a persistent national polling lead.

We can certainly say that Sanders surprising on the upside didn’t lead to a panic. Indeed, in January, Politico carried a report by Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni hinting that a major staff shakeup was in the offing if Clinton lost New Hampshire, but it never happened even though she got creamed. Whatever doubts Clinton may have expressed to friends who talked to Politico, nothing came of it. And there were no more rumors of staff shakeups even as Sanders proved frustratingly difficult to put away.

Perhaps more significantly, her team stayed the course throughout the July period when Trump largely closed the polling gap and had many liberals alarmed. The Clinton team’s theory was that Trump was benefitting from party unity and that a strong show of support for Clinton from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren at the Democratic convention would accomplish the same for her — and they stuck with that theory. Probably not every single person in Clinton’s orbit agreed with it, but whoever had doubts kept them to themselves, they executed the strategy, and it worked.

To an extent, of course, old worries about Clinton’s management skills are moot at this point. Put next to Donald Trump, basically anyone would look like a well-disciplined politician capable of running a polished, professional campaign organization. But while elections are a zero-sum game, governance is not. People who remember her 2008 campaign with alarm can take at least some solace in the fact that she seems to have improved on her weaknesses.

If the statute only requires gross negligence and Comey spent 15 minutes detailing Clinton's gross negligence, he made the case she broke the law.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

You and all other Clintonistas can't seem to understand that a a refusal to recommend prosecution based on the opinion that a jury won't care about the wording of the statute and insist upon a showing of intent, is not exoneration.

If the statute only requires gross negligence and Comey spent 15 minutes detailing Clinton's gross negligence, he made the case she broke the law.

(f) 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.

Blah blah blah