Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking: FBI Won’t Prosecute Clinton Over Emails
Via the WSJ:
Published in GeneralFBI Director James Comey said the bureau won’t recommend Hillary Clinton be indicted over use of private email while secretary of state, but he said there is evidence Clinton and colleagues “were extremely careless” in their handling of highly sensitive information.
It’s beginning all over again.
When those two planes hit the World Trade Center, a collective amnesia seemed to take over this nation about the Clinton Years: Most people don’t remember that those were eight solid years of petty scandal. The fact that the nation was so absorbed in cattle futures, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, the parade of fondled women. Because of them, we actually didn’t notice Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s development, the collapse of Russia, the gradual metastasis of the EU, the rise of Hugo Chávez, and a whole parade of horribles that have plagued us in the last fifteen years. They all had their start in the Clinton Years, all because the administration then did nothing to nip the problems in the bud then because it was too busy fending off its many domestic scandals.
And here it comes again, the same Clinton Minstrel Show of Calumny and Corruption, ready to shove all their skeletons back into the White House closets…
A penny for Scooter Libby’s thoughts….
The great American experiment just couldn’t last. Ah well. What time are the Judge Wapner reruns on?
It now seems both presumptive nominees could get away with shooting someone on 5th Avenue. I guess that makes this a fair fight.
If only they’d shoot each other and be done with it.
No, no, if YOU mishandle secret information there will be dire consequences. ummm . . . . . unless the “C” stands for Clinton.
Matt – I felt the *exact* same way, both when I heard today’s news AND when I heard the Obamacare ruling. And when I heard SCOTUS’s Obergefell decision. Like others have said, batten down the hatches. The silver lining to this Clinton drama may be that she is denied the presidency after all – God works in mysterious ways to mete out justice here on earth, & He uses unlikely people to help secure those ends. Say what you will about Trump’s scruples & character, but he may be the most epic foil yet to the Clinton crime family if he gets elected over Her & she is DENIED. Oh what a glorious day that would be….
Presidential Election by Thunderdome, now that would get good ratings.
I’m just gonna leave this here…
You know, the Nixon impeachment train didn’t truly get rolling until THE REPUBLICANS couldn’t check their consciences at the door anymore.
I haven’t felt this sick since reading the sheer judicial absurdity of the Obergefell majority opinion one year ago.
Wonder what the price for selling your integrity is these days?
Yes, but what happened to Nixon? Resigned in disgrace.
Yeah. He was willing to speak truth to power when working in a Republican administration, in a Democrat administration – not so much.
Maybe we’ll get a little fun out of this on twitter today….
Imperator Furiosa for President!
Some animals are more equal that others, silly.
As I recall Richard Nixon was impeached with the Amen of most republicans. He made the mistake of turning over the incriminating tapes just because the Supreme Court ordered him to. You can bet the Clintons will make no such mistakes.
You can’t have intent to commit negligence. They’re mutually exclusive, by definition.
Frank’s right.
Nixon wasn’t impeached.
Petraeus participated in the email “drop” system and actually handed over confidential documents. That later fact is intent – flagrante.
Joe,
Because conscience is a funny thing. Once you get used to having one it’s really hard to stop. Comey’s soul is owned. We Jews don’t believe in a Devil the way the Christians do. For us, there is three parts to evil. First, The Evil Inclination tempts you to sin. Second, The Satan, Gd’s prosecuting angel, convicts you of sin. Finally, The Angel of Death comes to collect.
I think the collecting part is all that remains.
Regards,
Jim
I’m disappointed and distressed by this decision, but not surprised because I’ve lost faith in our government and in the rule of law.
Most sad.
I guess the State Department is going to give her a strict talking-to? That’s not what the training courses suggest – they claim that people go to prison.
Suppose we take Comey at his word … that Clinton showed no overt criminal intent but was foolish, deceitful, and reckless in her handling of secrets necessary to her job … the Clintons are going to screan “Vindication!” and claim “victory!” They’ll put it on a campaign banner: “Hillary’s only a lying fool, folks, but she’s not criminal!”
I think that Comey was tripping all over himself in calling her careless and reckless. He was trying to preserve his reputation.
But her counsel would say, she had no way of knowing and surely you cannot believe the Secretary of State would dream of disclosing information or leaving for others to find even if she knew it was classified. After all, the guy at State set up her server – proving the best government standards were applied. He is the culprit.
Getting an indictment is hard – but not that hard. Getting a conviction on intent – 18U.S.C. Sec. 793(f) or not – is very, very hard.
Well, if you wield political power, it is. It wasn’t supposed to be this way in our country. No one was supposed to be above the law.
This is by far the silliest argument ever had on Ricochet.
You forgot the best part – if it been someone else they would have at least recommended sanctions, but it’s Hillary.
I’m sure that ham sandwiches across the country are pleased with James Comey today.
Be careful conflating different cases , Petaeus, Saucier, etc. The facts and circumstances are different. Intent was more easily established in those cases. And for those who have not read my other feed, intent can be required even in gross negligence cases…for example:
You drive a car at 75 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. You kill a pedestrian. The law presumes you are grossly negligent (in most jurisdictions).
You show up in court and your lawyer shows your speed control was not working and therefore you had no intent to drive that fast – the equipment failed. If the facts support your case, you were driving the car, but you did not have any intent to drive at 75 MPH. Gross negligence has implied intent.
Again, intent – and Hillary understood this. She never “received nor sent materials marked classified.” There you have it.
As for the server, it was set up by a State Department guy and any normal personal would assume it would be protected like the State Department. Yes people asked her to shut down the server, but no one said it was a national security risk and until they do and show why, she was just following the system they set up and were charged with maintaining for her convenience. She was just doing her job – and trying to keep her work load under control with one email address. Huma may have complained, the State Department may have complained, but no one said, “STOP. CRITICAL DANGER.”
I have no idea but maybe someone can enlighten us – is there anyone currently indicted or serving some kind of sentence that did exactly what HC did? Granted there are no Sec’s of State in that situation, but if there is even one then this is a total sham.
And to be intently negligent is absolutely an oxymoron, as another poster said. Negligence would have been the easiest thing to prove here.