Will Hillary's email problem be her undoing?

[Wu Wei]

'Extremely careless,' but FBI advises no charges for Clinton's emails

 

[metis]

'Extremely careless,' but FBI advises no charges for Clinton's emails

But the right will find her guilty anyway.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But the right will find her guilty anyway.

The fact of the matter is, had any young schmuck done anything remotely equivalent he or she would almost certainly have faced a far more serious response. What she did was grossly irresponsible and she carefully wordsmithed her response right up to the end. It's yet another case of entitlement run amok.

 

[esmith]

As per article given by the Rev.
She got away with it because as per the Director of the FBI said "She did not have "intent" to harm the US"
Tell you what boys and girls from now on if you get stopped for something just use the excuse "But officer I didn't have the INTENT to break the law"
Think it will work.......

 

[Acim]

An interesting article in the news.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
It sheds some light on how the law is bent to serve the political elite.

It also makes sense as to how Snowden was a) not guilty and b) heroic, for he didn't intend on hurting the U.S., but in helping the citizens.

Yes, I'm conflating the issues. The ruling today shows such conflation is deserving. Negligence is no longer part of a criminal act and the FBI has made this abundantly clear.

If Hillary neglects her oath of office (for POTUS), how could that possibly matter going forward? Just need to claim she had no intent on harming the U.S. and it's all good.

 

[tytlyf]

No surprise here. Republican phony scandals are easy to spot a mile away. Another one down.

 

[metis]

The fact of the matter is, had any young schmuck done anything remotely equivalent he or she would almost certainly have faced a far more serious response. What she did was grossly irresponsible and she carefully wordsmithed her response right up to the end. It's yet another case of entitlement run amok.

I have badmouthed her move from the get-go, but the apparent key for indictment on this matter was the issue of whether she "knowingly" knew what she was doing was in violation, and the highly-respected Republican-appointed director apparently didn't feel that there was sufficient evidence of such. He didn't say she was innocent-- just that there was insufficient evidence that she may have been guilty.

And/or he may have felt "let the voters decide" because of the high-profile of the case when an election is just months away.

 

[Wu Wei]

But the right will find her guilty anyway.

one can only hope

 

[Wirey]

She slipped by one there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No surprise here. Republican phony scandals are easy to spot a mile away. Another one down.

What she did was scandalous as were her repeated lies. Lucky for her, being scandalous is not the same as being criminal.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have badmouthed her move from the get-go, but the apparent key for indictment on this matter was the issue of whether she "knowingly" knew what she was doing was in violation, and the highly-respected Republican-appointed director apparently didn't feel that there was sufficient evidence of such. He didn't say she was innocent-- just that there was insufficient evidence that she may have been guilty.

And/or he may have felt "let the voters decide" because of the high-profile of the case when an election is just months away.

US political leadership is technologically naive and inept. Most of the senate can't tell the difference between an encryption key and key lime pie. They barely know how to email.

 

[tytlyf]

What she did was scandalous as were her repeated lies. Lucky for her, being scandalous is not the same as being criminal.

Scandalous? Sounds like a conspiracy theory. What did she lie about? There was no wrong doing, move on. Same thing with Benghazi.

Tons of republican tears and anger today. Now they'll move on to the next conspiracy theory about the Clinton Foundation. No shame in the republican game.

 

[Revoltingest]

It also makes sense as to how Snowden was a) not guilty and b) heroic, for he didn't intend on hurting the U.S., but in helping the citizens.

Yes, I'm conflating the issues. The ruling today shows such conflation is deserving. Negligence is no longer part of a criminal act and the FBI has made this abundantly clear.

If Hillary neglects her oath of office (for POTUS), how could that possibly matter going forward? Just need to claim she had no intent on harming the U.S. and it's all good.

Snowden would be prosecuted if he returned to Americastan.
(He's one of the little people who made some powerful enemies by exposing their heinous illegalities.)
His intentions were honorable (IMO), but intentionally illegal.
While Hillary's acts were unintentionally (IMO) illegal, but horribly irresponsible at best.
So he's very different from her.

 

[Revoltingest]

As per article given by the Rev.
She got away with it because as per the Director of the FBI said "She did not have "intent" to harm the US"
Tell you what boys and girls from now on if you get stopped for something just use the excuse "But officer I didn't have the INTENT to break the law"
Think it will work.......

When I was a licensed real estate broker, lack of intent to break the law was no defense.
If one did violate the law, one would be prosecuted.
The issue of intent would arise only during sentencing.
More & more, Hillary reminds me of Nixon.

 

[esmith]

I only have a couple of things to put forth

 

[Revoltingest]

"Too big to jail" is pretty good!

 

[columbus]

I only have a couple of things to put forth

But the pics are missing a couple of important features.
She is alone, when she should be flanked by Bill and Obama.
Tom

 

[Acim]

 

[tytlyf]

I only have a couple of things to put forth

You must really hate the FBI and LE professionals.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What did she lie about?

Seriously?

Edited to add: He said / She said