3 ms·

Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. He then continues to say that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against her – not

Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. He then continues to say that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against her – not for lack of evidence, but just because they wouldn't. "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." ... "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. " ... "With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level." ... "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information [no one is saying she's a spy], there is evidence that they were extremely careless [gross negligence] in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." In fact, the FBI stated the exact opposite: there is evidence of legal violations, but due to "a number of factors," they don't recommend charges: "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." He goes on to explicitly say that these consequences would be different for other people: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." Source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. No, he didn't. > He then continues to say that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against her – not for lack of evidence, but just because they wouldn't. He doesn't say it is not for lack of sufficient evidence. In fact, he strongly suggests it is exactly for that reason. > In fact, the FBI stated the exact opposite: there is evidence of legal violations Actually, it says -- in your own quote -- "potential violations". Which is saying that there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law, but falls far short of saying that there is evidence that demands that conclusion. And it goes on to say that that evidence is not such that a reasonable prosecutor would prosecute based on it. > He goes on to explicitly say that these consequences would be different for other people He goes on to explicitly say that consequences other the decisions on criminal prosecution ("security and administrative sanctions" being specifically called out as examples) would potentially be different for other people, but that those consequences which might be different are not the subject that the immediate discussion (focussed on recommendations on criminal prosecution) is about. Every one of your statements misrepresents the substance of the quote offered to support it.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  How is "there is evidence of legal violations" substantively different from "there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law?" Now we're back to whether actual guilt is ascertained by a prosecutor or by a court. Ah, good. So maybe she wouldn't be charged if she were a normal person. She'd just lose her job and her security clearance, which totally doesn't affect her candidacy for POTUS. Anyways, someone actually was charged and sentenced for equivalent actions: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/press-releases/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news... Regarding his plainly stating that they broke the law: "a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." ... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation" Pretty direct, no?

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. No, he didn't. > He then continues to say that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against her – not for lack of evidence, but just because they wouldn't. He doesn't say it is not for lack of sufficient evidence. In fact, he strongly suggests it is exactly for that reason. > In fact, the FBI stated the exact opposite: there is evidence of legal violations Actually, it says -- in your own quote -- "potential violations". Which is saying that there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law, but falls far short of saying that there is evidence that demands that conclusion. And it goes on to say that that evidence is not such that a reasonable prosecutor would prosecute based on it. > He goes on to explicitly say that these consequences would be different for other people He goes on to explicitly say that consequences other the decisions on criminal prosecution ("security and administrative sanctions" being specifically called out as examples) would potentially be different for other people, but that those consequences which might be different are not the subject that the immediate discussion (focussed on recommendations on criminal prosecution) is about. Every one of your statements misrepresents the substance of the quote offered to support it.

ethanbond 10y ago
How is "there is evidence of legal violations" substantively different from "there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law?" Now we're back to whether actual guilt is ascertained by a prosecutor or by a court. Ah, good. So maybe she wouldn't be charged if she were a normal person. She'd just lose her job and her security clearance, which totally doesn't affect her candidacy for POTUS. Anyways, someone actually was charged and sentenced for equivalent actions: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/press-releases/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news... Regarding his plainly stating that they broke the law: "a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." ... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation" Pretty direct, no?