Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
news.sky.com
Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#2I wonder how John Deutsche and Samuel Berger feel about this. Both were charged for retaining classified data. And the many regular people whose clearances have been revoked or who faced administrative sanctions and lost jobs. The FBI recommendation is statutorily correct, but the absence of any accountability doesn't seem just.
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#3Gotta be careful, don't wanna piss off your future boss.
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#4I wonder how John Deutsche and Samuel Berger feel about this. Both were charged for retaining classified data. And the many regular people whose clearances have been revoked or who faced administrative sanctions and lost jobs. The FBI recommendation is statutorily correct, but the absence of any accountability doesn't seem just.
Statutorily correct, what does that mean? They claim a lack of precedent. The only reason there's a lack of precedent is that email is a young technology.
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#5The difference between Hillary Clinton and others who were charged for retaining classified data is that Hillary Clinton had the authority bestowed to her by Executive Order 12958 and 13526 to classify and declassify information at the "top secret" level that originated from the State Department.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#6The difference between Hillary Clinton and others who were charged for retaining classified data is that Hillary Clinton had the authority bestowed to her by Executive Order 12958 and 13526 to classify and declassify information at the "top secret" level that originated from the State Department. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...
Ah, so she's not an sketchy outlaw... she's a sketchy lawman.
That puts my mind at ease.
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#7The difference between Hillary Clinton and others who were charged for retaining classified data is that Hillary Clinton had the authority bestowed to her by Executive Order 12958 and 13526 to classify and declassify information at the "top secret" level that originated from the State Department. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...
[deleted]
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#8I'll just leave this here. Eerily similar: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-na...
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#9The difference between Hillary Clinton and others who were charged for retaining classified data is that Hillary Clinton had the authority bestowed to her by Executive Order 12958 and 13526 to classify and declassify information at the "top secret" level that originated from the State Department. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...
I guess we would have to read the emails to know if she had the authority to reclassify them. Otherwise “This authority(...) did not extend to information generated by other agencies, such as CIA.”
Re: Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges'
#10I wonder how John Deutsche and Samuel Berger feel about this. Both were charged for retaining classified data. And the many regular people whose clearances have been revoked or who faced administrative sanctions and lost jobs. The FBI recommendation is statutorily correct, but the absence of any accountability doesn't seem just.
Statutorily correct, what does that mean? They claim a lack of precedent. The only reason there's a lack of precedent is that email is a young technology.
No, they claim no evidence of intent, which is key for proving criminality. Gross negligence is an impossible prosecution where a defendant at a jury trial is a 68 yr old grandmother and the central issue is an email server. The upside here - if there is any - is that now Comey has all the credibility he needs to investigate the Clinton Foundation.