Just watched a live feed of the FBI director on the Clinton email investigation.

Even though there were classified emails found among those she turned over and there is evidence that she and her staff were "careless" in their handling of said emails, and the evidence supports the distinct possibility that her server was hacked, though no direct evidence was found due the nature of her server,

THE FBI RECOMMENDS THAT NO CHARGES BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE HILDEBEAST.


Gee, I just didn't see that one coming.   

So the fact that Loretta Lynch stepped aside was just smoke and mirrors......

"Careless but not criminal". Sure. Except that there are provisions of the law that require no intent at all for conviction, and there are people who have been convicted and imprisoned for far less serious infractions of those laws. Comey has always taken questions from the press at his press conferences. Today he took no questions from the press, who would have asked him about the contradiction in this case to those other cases prosecuted and won on far less serious violations.

Putting on my tinfoil hat: gotta wonder if "someone" has something on Comey, or maybe just threats against him and his family. Otherwise, explain the contradiction above.

So now what? Hope someone leaks the actual reports so the truth gets out?

I am trying to be objective and think what actual explanation would justify this but I am coming up dry.

Even if there is not evidence enough to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton did all the things alleged, it seems that there should absolutely be enough for some level or criminal charge or policy violation or something.

So now what? Hope someone leaks the actual reports so the truth gets out?

I am trying to be objective and think what actual explanation would justify this but I am coming up dry.

Even if there is not evidence enough to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton did all the things alleged, it seems that there should absolutely be enough for some level or criminal charge or policy violation or something.

Comey already laid it all out. He states what she did. Other people have been prosecuted and convicted and jailed for less serious violations. There is no "explanation" other than he has "discretion" about who to recommend for prosecution, and he "decided" that though others have been prosecuted for less, Ms. Clinton does not meet this threshold in this case for unknown reasons (his "explanation" that he believes there was no "criminal intent" falls short because no criminal intent is required for prosecution). I think we all know the "explanation". And that there is absolutely no recourse of any kind that will make any difference at all as Clinton walks into the presidency and we (advocates of Second Amendment rights, and all our rights, and the Constitution in general) get even more screwed. The snowball may now proceed downhill with no further possible obstructions. Though I'm sure the fantasists will be weaving all kinds of Trump victory scenarios of one kind of another.

Now to wait for the justice dept to do absolutely nothing and drop all charges.  Give Clinton a medal and have lynch get some additional flights with Clinton on Obama's jet.

A disgusting display of the lawlessness  of this regime.   Hope any whistleblowers will come out quickly to expose this crime.  People talk about WROL as if it isn't here yet, but this proves that WROL is here under Obama.
At the very least, Hellery should be barred from holding any future office that may handle any classified material including FOUO.   
Based on this every fed employee with any mishandling of classified material should be promoted instead of reprimanded.   Hope this motivates the country to dump this frumpy witch.

When she admitted to deleting over 30K emails, and then wiped the disks while failing to turn  the server over after leaving State Dept, that's at a MINIMUM destruction of government property and obstruction of justice.

Martha Stewart was sent to prison for obstruction, even though  she would have been acquitted of any insider trading charges.

The cover-up is worse than the crime when entrusted with a high-level public office.

I like this column (written prior to today's announcement about Clinton by FBI director Comey) by Kurt Schlicter (an attorney and retired Army infantry colonel) about the status of "law" in America, and some comments specific to Clinton.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/04/you-owe-them-nothing--not-respect-not-loyalty-not-obedience-n2186865

You Owe Them Nothing - Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

Excerpts:

Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. It is high time to declare our personal independence from any remnant of obligation to those who have spit upon the rule of law. We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.

The law mattered. It applied equally to everyone. We demanded that it did, all of us – politicians, the media, and regular citizens. Oh, there were mistakes and miscarriages of justice but they weren’t common and they weren’t celebrated – they were universally reviled. And, more importantly, they weren’t part and parcel of the ideology of one particular party. There was once a time where you could imagine a Democrat scandal where the media actually called for the head of the Democrat instead of deploying to cover it up.

People assumed that the law mattered, that the same rules applied to everyone. That duly enacted laws would be enforced equally until repealed. That the Constitution set the foundation and that its guarantees would be honored even if we disliked the result in a particular case. But that’s not our country today.

The idea of the rule of law today is a lie. There is no law. There is no justice. There are only lies.

Hillary Clinton is manifestly guilty of multiple felonies. Her fans deny it half-heartedly, but mostly out of habit – in the end, it’s fine with them if she’s a felon. They don’t care. It’s just some law. What’s the big deal? It doesn’t matter that anyone else would be in jail right now for doing a fraction of what she did. But the law is not important. Justice is not important.

Only power matters, and Hillary stands ready to accumulate more power on their behalf so their oaths, their alleged principles, their duty to the country – all of it goes out the window. But it’s much worse than just one scandal that seems not to scandalize anyone in the elite. Just read the Declaration of Independence – it’s almost like those dead white Christian male proto-NRA members foresaw and cataloged the myriad oppressions of liberalism’s current junior varsity tyranny.

The Charlie Daniels Band

The Old Double Standard - Charlie's Soapbox 7/5/16

If any ordinary citizen had done one tenth of what Hillary Clinton has done, they would be whiling away several years of their lives in a federal prison.

But let's put the felonious part aside for a minute and consider the woman's judgment.

She once practiced law, there are those who claim she’s the most brilliant woman on earth, she's seen government operate from the highest echelons, has been privy to America's most sensitive secrets, has been a Senator and Secretary of State and yet she sent email over an unsecured server.

She claims that the secret documents she sent out were not marked secret at the time, which - at least in my estimation - brings her judgment into serious question.

Should any of the business of the United States government, even if it was a lunch order to a delicatessen, be put on an unsecured Internet server for the whole world to see?

Would not any eighth grader have known that exposing even the minor doings of an entity as sensitive as the United States State Department would be a serious breach of national security, and should not a woman with the experience and inside knowledge of Hillary Clinton have known beyond a shadow of a doubt, that using an unsecured server for even the most mundane of transactions should never, by any means, ever happen?

Did this woman, smart, politically savvy, with experience in the highest offices of government, well-connected, privy to inside information at the highest level, really believe that what she did was not dangerous to national security, that any document sensitive enough to be deemed top secret later on was not too important to be exposed to every hacker and foreign government intelligence agency in the world?

Did she REALLY not know, or was it just the arrogance of an elitist who thinks that there is one set of rules for people like her and another set for the ordinary citizen?

Did she really think that the pleadings of Ambassador Chris Stevens for more security in the days before the Benghazi debacle were not important enough to listen to or did she just think she knew better than anybody else and ignore it?

And when the attack first started and the desperate pleas for reinforcement started coming in, did she really think she knew how long they would be under siege? What does it tell you about her concern for those in her charge when she didn't go to the president and plead for help to be dispatched to save her people, distance and time notwithstanding?

Isn't that what a real leader would do, to try, no matter what the odds, so she could at least look the families of the fallen in the eye and truthfully say that she had done the very best she could?

Does such behavior instill confidence in our armed forces who would serve under a President Hillary Clinton that when push came to shove and they were pinned down in some Middle East hell hole, that help would get dispatched in a timely fashion or at all for that matter?

And was it good judgment to deliberately lie about some video tape that was supposed to have incited the whole thing, especially to the grieving families standing over the coffins of their loved ones who had died defending the Embassy???

Even if you accept Hillary at her word - and many of you will - that she has done nothing worthy of prosecution by sending sensitive material on an unsecured email server, even if you accept excuses for her cold and inept handling of Benghazi, even if you're willing to give her a pass on the bald faced lie she told to grieving families and America at large, if you're a rational person you have to seriously question her judgment.

The presidency requires split second action, getting it right the first time, decisiveness, striking while the iron is hot and at times, five minutes can mean lives being saved or lost. It requires trust and confidence from the people, respect from world leaders and fear from our enemies, knowing that attacking America and it's interests, foreign or domestic will not be tolerated and will be dealt with immediately, the kind of uniforms our troops are wearing notwithstanding.

And now FBI director, James Comey, has recommended that while Hillary and her staff were “extremely careless” with her emails, no charges should be filed.

The law states that “gross negligence” with regards to national security documents is grounds for fines and up to ten years in prison.

How is “extremely careless” not the same as “gross negligence?”

This nation has got a lot of catching up to do just to get back on even keel.

Our next president will either preside over America's recovery or America’s demise.

And yes, Mrs. Clinton, it does make a difference.

 What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels


https://www.facebook.com/charliedanielsband/posts/10154512740368287

I expect some freedom of information act lawsuits to be filed as soon as an official decision not to charge is made.

To me the biggest thing here is a clear ethical violation. Even if the rules didn't explicitly state she couldn't have a private server any smart person should have known that a private server is unethical as it flies in the face of government transparency and accountability.

Her server possibly being hacked isn't a criminal charge though, just an obvious concern right?

As for "criminal intent" it might matter. In law there are states of mind, in Hawaii law it defines them as intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and negligently. Each criminal violation establishes a state of mind required for an offense. So in this case, if the state of mind for having classified information on a private server was intentionally and knowingly but they could only prove she did so recklessly then that could explain how a standard is not met. Again, that is just an example, not saying that is what happened. I don't know the states of mind required for a criminal violation of classified documents but that could be an explanation. The state of mind might even be different depending on what level of classification the information is.

I expect some freedom of information act lawsuits to be filed as soon as an official decision not to charge is made.

To me the biggest thing here is a clear ethical violation. Even if the rules didn't explicitly state she couldn't have a private server any smart person should have known that a private server is unethical as it flies in the face of government transparency and accountability.

Her server possibly being hacked isn't a criminal charge though, just an obvious concern right?

As for "criminal intent" it might matter. In law there are states of mind, in Hawaii law it defines them as intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and negligently. Each criminal violation establishes a state of mind required for an offense. So in this case, if the state of mind for having classified information on a private server was intentionally and knowingly but they could only prove she did so recklessly then that could explain how a standard is not met. Again, that is just an example, not saying that is what happened. I don't know the states of mind required for a criminal violation of classified documents but that could be an explanation. The state of mind might even be different depending on what level of classification the information is.

No, negligence is covered under the non-disclosure agreement she signed.  "Willful act" is not required to be proven.  She's admitted to being incompetent and lacking knowledge of how to properly treat classified data.  That's 100% on her and Obama.

Also, there are government rules that require her to turn over all materials (emails included) as part of the record while in office.  She never did until Gowdy's team discovered  the email accounts on the private server. 

Her #1 intent was to circumvent FOIA requests.  There are emails stating as much discovered in her and  others' emails.

I expect some freedom of information act lawsuits to be filed as soon as an official decision not to charge is made.

To me the biggest thing here is a clear ethical violation. Even if the rules didn't explicitly state she couldn't have a private server any smart person should have known that a private server is unethical as it flies in the face of government transparency and accountability.

Her server possibly being hacked isn't a criminal charge though, just an obvious concern right?

As for "criminal intent" it might matter. In law there are states of mind, in Hawaii law it defines them as intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and negligently. Each criminal violation establishes a state of mind required for an offense. So in this case, if the state of mind for having classified information on a private server was intentionally and knowingly but they could only prove she did so recklessly then that could explain how a standard is not met. Again, that is just an example, not saying that is what happened. I don't know the states of mind required for a criminal violation of classified documents but that could be an explanation. The state of mind might even be different depending on what level of classification the information is.

You need to get up to speed. There are many hundreds (thousands?) of articles about all the details of these issues. You are asking questions that have already been answered dozens of times by different authors. No intent is required by various sections of law to be charged and found guilty. If one could prove intent, that is a different law with different penalties.

Judicial Watch has the most extensive FOIA requests that have been in the works for years. They have finally deposed most of Clinton's staff, including the guy who set up and maintained her private server... he took the 5th amendment over 125 times during his deposition. Not that he or Clinton did anything wrong. And he has already been granted some kind of immunity by DOJ. Just sayin'.

I'd have to look up what I signed when I started my current job, but I believe the simple mishandling of classified material is grounds for disciplinary action, including criminal charges depending on the extent of mishandling.  Yes, ethics, criminal intent, states of mind, etc are important, but when you're talking about classified material that pose risks/threats to national security, the information itself is what needs to be safeguarded.  Leaks, even unintentional, can have severe repercussions.  Like mentioned many times, people have gone to prison for much less. . .

"Careless but not criminal". Sure. Except that there are provisions of the law that require no intent at all for conviction, and there are people who have been convicted and imprisoned for far less serious infractions of those laws.

Yep, handled classified material for decades.  Plenty of briefings and explanations of prosecution that WOULD happen if material was mishandled.  Intent may have changed the severity of the sentencing, but you were going to jail if it was compromised.

Just watched a live feed of the FBI director on the Clinton email investigation.

THE FBI RECOMMENDS THAT NO CHARGES BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE HILDEBEAST.


Gee, I just didn't see that one coming.   

Yes, and I  bet the White House did not exert any pressure not to prosecute.  No doubt a honest and fair investigation was conducted.

So why was this moved to "political discussion"? That is a board/forum/thread is not available/cannot be viewed by visitors/lurkers to the site, but only to members who are logged in. What's the point of that restriction? My main reason for writing is that there may be readers who are simply looking for information/viewpoints about issues and are amenable to persuasion. The members of this site have mostly all already made up their minds about most of these issues.

Again, why the move to "political"? And why is "political discussion" limited to signed-in members only?

I've asked this previously and not gotten one peep of an answer.

So why was this moved to "political discussion"? That is a board/forum/thread is not available/cannot be viewed by visitors/lurkers to the site, but only to members who are logged in. What's the point of that restriction? My main reason for writing is that there may be readers who are simply looking for information/viewpoints about issues and are amenable to persuasion. The members of this site have mostly all already made up their minds about most of these issues.

Again, why the move to "political"? And why is "political discussion" limited to signed-in members only?

I've asked this previously and not gotten one peep of an answer.

Hi punaperson, sorry for the confusion.   

I moved topics this morning to political discussions (and other sections) to keep the site organized.  As stated in an earlier post, I am trying to keep the General Discussion board firearms related and moving political discussions to the correct section. 

As for why political discussion is for members only, I will ask 2aHawaii about that.  Please stand by.  Will have a PM discussion with 2aHawaii about it.

Did any of you really expect any other result ? Seriously ?

You have warned me about the nature of this site,
so I'll preface that I'm not advocating anything illegal,
but as long as you permit Democrats to rule
unopposed this is what you get.  Americans once rose
up and killed the agents of an oppressive regime, in
order to be free.  Metaphorically speaking, it is time
to repeat that action.