FBI: No charges for Clinton

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not a strawman.  You said she should have gone for a peaceful, diplomatic solution, and I'm just wondering how someone is supposed to go about that when a murderous dictator is involved.

I refer you to this commentary on the Chilcot report:

Defenders of the Iraq invasion invoke all kinds of justifications – and some have a certain logic.

But here's the thing – if those justifications were the benchmark for must-do, morally or humanitarian-based interventions around the globe, we could be invading a different country each month. Chilcot make the point that were that the rationale to be applied, the assessment at the time of British intelligence was that Iran, North Korea and Libya were greater threats than Iraq, in terms of the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

I've said this since the Bush Administration started plumping the war in 02.

[ReptilianPeon]

I don't think she's to retarded to know she was breaking the law but if she is then she shouldn't be nominated for presidency and if she is not then she knew what she was doing and the mens rea wouldn't be satisfied still because they couldn't find any evidence to prove she's not retarded...so she still shouldn't be president.

I don't know how somebody can be secretary of state and not know they'll be receiving classified and top secret information. If she legitimately didn't know that then she must have a few 'screws lose', as they say. You cannot be the United State's highest diplomat and not handle sensitive information. If Russia, China, DPRK, etc did not manage to successfully hack into her homebrew server then they should be ashamed of themselves.

[KevinM1]

I don't think she's to retarded to know she was breaking the law but if she is then she shouldn't be nominated for presidency and if she is not then she knew what she was doing and the mens rea wouldn't be satisfied still because they couldn't find any evidence to prove she's not retarded...so she still shouldn't be president.

I don't know how somebody can be secretary of state and not know they'll be receiving classified and top secret information. If she legitimately didn't know that then she must have a few 'screws lose', as they say. You cannot be the United State's highest diplomat and not handle sensitive information. If Russia, China, DPRK, etc did not manage to successfully hack into her homebrew server then they should be ashamed of themselves.

This.  I mean, look at Hilary's track record:

Attorney at a prestigious Arkansas law firm
First Lady
NY Senator
Secretary of State (with the power to determine who has security clearance, and what materiel requires such clearance)

There's very little chance that she's so unsavvy that she's unaware of the risks that using a private email server presents.  From a legal standpoint, anyway, her resume suggests she's an expert at understanding the ramifications of not doing things the right way.  And even if she doesn't get the technical necessity of keeping classified information on specified devices, her aides and handlers do/should.

So, she's either a criminal (and her lawyers (who don't have security clearance, mind you) destroying ~30,000 emails to the extent that they're impossible to forensically retrieve/piece back together certainly implies that), or utterly inept.  Either way, she shouldn't be the nominee for President.  And, no, I don't care if Colin Powell did something similar.  The point isn't to excuse her because someone else did something similar and got away with it, but to demand that our elected officials don't act with wanton, perhaps criminally intended, negligence.

Anyone else handling secure communications and/or documents in such a manner would be fired.

[account_inactive]

US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe.

[dyresand]

US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe.

They had more than enough information to just throw the damn book at her even if she hadn't
or will fully wasn't going to redistribute the emails she took them off of secure government servers 
that right there is more than enough to put it her in jail.

[Losty]

No, it is not. You have to prove intent. Meaning you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew what she was doing was illegal. According to the FBI, there isn't evidence to prove that. Destroying evidence doesn't prove it because her lawyers did that and there is no evidence that she told them to. Signing a paper that said she wouldn't do it is also not evidence but I'm not actually sure why...
I think likely the FBI did their part right mostly at least and Clinton is maybe just really good at loopholes.

[Losty]

Comey said today that they didn't record the interview with Clinton. I wonder if they never record interviews.

[dyresand]

No, it is not. You have to prove intent. Meaning you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew what she was doing was illegal. According to the FBI, there isn't evidence to prove that. Destroying evidence doesn't prove it because her lawyers did that and there is no evidence that she told them to. Signing a paper that said she wouldn't do it is also not evidence but I'm not actually sure why...
I think likely the FBI did their part right mostly at least and Clinton is maybe just really good at loopholes.

I checked BBC the FBI is redoing the whole probe all over again

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36742095

There is the other case for election fraud and public corruption even if this one doesn't stick
there is more than enough evidence for the other case.

Just because she feels like it's her turn to be president doesn't automatically make her the next president.
If running for president is like taking turns then maybe but that's not how it works.

[account_inactive]

No, it is not. You have to prove intent. Meaning you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew what she was doing was illegal. According to the FBI, there isn't evidence to prove that. Destroying evidence doesn't prove it because her lawyers did that and there is no evidence that she told them to. Signing a paper that said she wouldn't do it is also not evidence but I'm not actually sure why...
I think likely the FBI did their part right mostly at least and Clinton is maybe just really good at loopholes.

I checked BBC the FBI is redoing the whole probe all over again

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36742095

There is the other case for election fraud and public corruption even if this one doesn't stick
there is more than enough evidence for the other case.

Pretty sure the article says State Dept.

[Losty]

Comey said it was a unanimous vote he said he was confident...why are they doing it again? Everything is weird. I don't understand how anything works anymore.