I voted maybe.

I voted maybe. Honestly I don't know enough about the case to say whether there was in fact enough evidence wrongdoing to take a case to court.

Did you not watch the reveal by the FBI director?  Every thing the dude presented is a CRIME.  The fact that he recommends not pursuing a case is a CRIME.  Any reasonable person with an iota of common sense and decency  would have to convict, even with what little was revealed in the news conference.

Simply put, I do not know what the FBI knows. I don't know the federal codes and I don't know what exculpatory evidence there might be.

I know Hillary sent classified information through her email (Illegal, anyone that held any type of clearance knows and is briefed NEVER TO DO THIS or face criminal charges), but I doubt that alone is enough information to convict her (YES, Yes it is.  It has been done many times before WITH convictions). Were these emails marked classified to the point she knew they were classified?( (This does not matter.  The originator has the responsibility to safeguard any data that could be possibly classified) Did they contain information that Clinton knows should be considered classified? (This does not matter.  The originator has the responsibility to safeguard any data that could be possibly classified)  If the FBI cannot prove that Clinton knew or should have known the emails she sent were classified then they can't prove she knowingly broke the law. (Any person privy to clearance is briefed and trained on this, she did know, or should have known, even if she claimed ignorance, that is no excuse in the eyes of the law.  She should have known as a responsibility and duty of her office.)

We may all know she is guilty as hell but when it comes to a court setting, if a prosecutor cannot show enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt then they might decide not to take it to trial.  (Cases have been made AND WON on much less.  Certain people, less 'connected', have met their consequence for data breech.  The corruption is plain to see.)

Having had a day to think about this, I find myself conflicted regarding this poll.

While I absolutely believe Clinton should be charged, convicted, and disqualified from running for ANY public office for mishandling classified information , I'm less inclined to demand Comey's resignation.

Here's why: Think about his statements. He laid out what basically amounts to a cut and dried case against Clinton. He took great pains to list each and every instance where she had abused the the regulations regarding the handling of classified materials. He then proceeded to inform us that if it were anyone else, or should someone try this in the future, they would indeed face prosecution. The break occurred when he discussed what the DOJ would do, or wouldn't do, to be more accurate. He basically informed us that the DOJ wouldn't press charges against Clinton, regardless of the evidence presented and the fact that anyone else WOULD be prosecuted.

Granted, he should have recommended indictment, but in doing so he would've committed professional suicide. Knowing how those that go up against the Clinton's tend to have "accidents" it may have been a more personal worry.

I think he was doing what he could to let us know that the "fix" was in, and that his hands were being tied due to orders from above.

How does it not matter if she knew it was classified? Not saying you are wrong but trying to reason through a criminal prosecution case.

Say I email you about something but I don't tell you it is classified. You then forward or reply to this email not knowing it contained classified information. How are you culpable?

Hopefully a prosecutor will disregard the FBI's recommendation then! I am not holding my breath.

How does it not matter if she knew it was classified? Not saying you are wrong but trying to reason through a criminal prosecution case.

Say I email you about something but I don't tell you it is classified. You then forward or reply to this email not knowing it contained classified information. How are you culpable?

Hopefully a prosecutor will disregard the FBI's recommendation then! I am not holding my breath.

Having had a day to think about this, I find myself conflicted regarding this poll.

While I absolutely believe Clinton should be charged, convicted, and disqualified from running for ANY public office for mishandling classified information , I'm less inclined to demand Comey's resignation.

Here's why: Think about his statements. He laid out what basically amounts to a cut and dried case against Clinton. He took great pains to list each and every instance where she had abused the the regulations regarding the handling of classified materials. He then proceeded to inform us that if it were anyone else, or should someone try this in the future, they would indeed face prosecution. The break occurred when he discussed what the DOJ would do, or wouldn't do, to be more accurate. He basically informed us that the DOJ wouldn't press charges against Clinton, regardless of the evidence presented and the fact that anyone else WOULD be prosecuted.

Granted, he should have recommended indictment, but in doing so he would've committed professional suicide. Knowing how those that go up against the Clinton's tend to have "accidents" it may have been a more personal worry.

I think he was doing what he could to let us know that the "fix" was in, and that his hands were being tied due to orders from above.

If the case were to go to court, then the details of why it is wrong, illegal, and completely clinton's responsibility would be explained and laid out.  All I can say is that she is responsible for the data sent.  Persons that may have forwarded sensitive information should have been flagging that as potential for a sensitive data breech, and are now just as responsible for not reporting improper handling of the data.   



I agree with what ed said above.  However, isn't in the dude's job description, ethically, and morally to service justice and the American people?  He should step down if he cannot fulfill his job and oath of office.

If there comes a day where you are granted the required security clearance and go through the precautionary briefs, required yearly training, etc. perhaps you will understand the situation better.  Until then, you are simply speculating on situations that you have no experience.  Or at least appear to have no experience since I have no idea whether or not you actually have security clearance. You very may well have security clearance and are just trying to be argumentative.  You seem to keep asking questions that have been answered for you. 

What level of sensitivity that particular information is and how it can be distributed can be quite complex.  The standards read worse than many gun laws.  Anyways, just the presence of the classified information on the server is a HUGE no-no.  It was my understanding that she knew that some of those emails contained classified information since apparently she commented something in the effect of "filter stuff" so that it can be transmitted via unsecure channels.  Ok, say she didn't know something was classified and it was passed to her.  If you have ever handled classified documents, you KNOW when they are classified.

It is part of his job, but if he resigns who takes his place? Some lackey that will do as they're told without question and without alerting the public to what's really going on. He didn't have to list all the instances where Clinton broke the rules. He could have simply said "We don't have sufficient evidence to recommend charges against her." I'm sure Clinton and the DOJ would have preferred that. Instead, he went out on a limb to make sure this was part of the public record.

I am looking at this from a defense attorney angle. They are going to look for a technicality and try to create doubt in a juror's mind. The prosecutor has to be confident they can overcome the questions a defense attorney will try to raise. That is why I was thinking that if they couldn't prove that she knew or should have known an email she sent then they might not be able to meet the proof needed to obtain a conviction. Yes I am speculating here, I am trying to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt in case there is some actual good reason for them to not recommend prosecution because it Is theoretically possible there was not enough evidence for a criminal conviction. Hopefully subsequent inquiry will answer this question.


Don't get me wrong, it sure reeks of corruption but I try to be objective even though I would be happy to see Clinton crash and burn.