FBI: Nothing found in new email investigation

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 minute ago, CoCo1 said:

Objectively she has. The grounds on which the FBI recommended not to indict her was 'lack of intent' (which is very dubious), but it's a crime nonetheless , just like manslaughter. 

Thats not dubious at all, its precedent of how they handle cases like this, and for good reason  If you mean its dubious that there was a lack of intent, then idk what to tell you  

If it's technically a crime, I don't mind. 'Punishable" offenses are often unpunished, and I don't mean in an unjust sense. Nuance is important. Misconduct sounds more appropriate here.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

9 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

Oddly enough this doesn't make me trust any 

It's human nature to discount evidence that goes against strongly held beliefs  

Hence some what, 50-80% of Americans thinking shes a criminal despite all of the evidence to the contrary  (Can't remember the exact figure)

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

.

[Luc 4,776]

If there were good grounds to indict her, it would've happened already. A staggering 100 million dollars was used on research to get her indicted! What the actual ****?! The FBI (aka white straight males 40-60 aka overwhelmingly republicans) tried to find everything they could but they still failed.

 

There's just ONE bad thing in all of this and that's Comey's lack of RESPECT for the FUNDAMENTS of Western civilisation - the lack of RESPECT for DEMOCRACY! What he did is against all that democracy stands for.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

25 minutes ago, CoCo1 said:

18 USC §793(f): “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing...note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody… or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody…and fails to make prompt report…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

So it's both. Not only should intent be irrelevant in this case in the demonstration of gross negligence, but as the Secretary of State she had no excuse to not understand the laws surrounding the handling of classified documents, and how to read labels.

Sigh. Yes, 18 USC 793 is one of those ones that doesn't require ill intent, only "gross negligence", but the wording of that statute is vague and Comey knew it, but there isn't even that. Objectively. Gross Negligence is defined as...

"A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence…" and Hillary easily does not meet this standard. It would take SERIOUS fudging to try to fit using a private email server for the sake of convenience and turn it into that, which is very much partisan and is why Comey knew that prosecuting Hillary for a case like this would be unjust. There is no precedent for it, and to use her to set some type of example would be a failing of justice.

For the other potentially close statutes that prosecution may have thought to try, intent is of paramount importance, and there was no ill-intent here. The reasons why she used a private email server have been repeated time and time again... all of this on top of the fact that there were no reported major security breaches in the first place. It would be different if she had repeatedly willingly shared national defense (those words arent black and white either) information with others. But she did not.

 

[PaperIz 7,354]

7 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It's human nature to discount evidence that goes against strongly held beliefs  

Hence some what, 50-80% of Americans thinking shes a criminal despite all of the evidence to the contrary  (Can't remember the exact figure)

I liked Hillary before this election. I just can't believe everything about her is a lie, from the emails, to Benghazi, to even the primaries and on top of her flip flopping politics and the way she treated bill's women. I can't believe she's good. I mean the one thing I agree with the orange devil on, is the whole system us corrupt.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

23 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

I liked Hillary before this election. I just can't believe everything about her is a lie, from the emails, to Benghazi, to even the primaries and on top of her flip flopping politics and the way she treated bill's women. I can't believe she's good. I mean the one thing I agree with the orange devil on, is the whole system us corrupt.

Well, the emails are basically a done deal. They've been debunked, disproven, whatever else you need.

Objectively, she did not take the appropriate precautions to protect her emails and opted to use a different email server for convenience, which was an unintelligent decision, she also didn't back them up or re-send them to their appropriate place (which is required if you use alternative systems IIRC). However, nothing bad actually happened because of this. She's apologized for her misstep. You can read her emails though  if there's anything specifically troubling you about them  

She is also just really not at fault for Benghazi, like I'm not sure why this is even being brought up any more, its much more clear cut than this email business... Though she did misspeak about the video being the motivation.

About the primaries, she did not specifically collude WITH the DNC to try to give her a better chance at winning than Bernie, it is more that they had faith in her over Bernie and were willing to place all of their chips on her over him (and O'Malley). While I think this was a mistake, It's not really "corrupt" in my eyes... If Trump hadn't started pulling ahead so suddenly, I fully expected the RNC to throw all of their chips to Jeb Bush or Rand Paul or Ben Carson (probably not, cause #black  )

Also, there was no rigging of polls/votes or anything during the primaries, and even if there were, it is not nearly on the scale to have tipped things in Bernie's direction. He still would have lost, because he did not garner the minority vote in the same way Hillary did. About attempts to use Bernie's religion, age, etc. to get easy votes, I mean, I don't really care tbh, even Obama threw stones at Hillary (and vice versa) in 2008, idk if anyone remembers though. Hell, even Bernie started to throw them at the end of his cycle  There's no such thing as a clean campaign. (Though IIRC it again wasn't Hillary's people who were going to do this directly)

The only real argument I see here is the "flip-flopping politics" one, which I personally am totally okay with  Was it nice that Bernie had always* been for gay marriage? Yes. (That's actually more complicated than that, he wasn't in the sense we are thinking of, but he kind of was) Was it bad that it took Hillary until X to come out in favor of gay marriage? Eh. She is a prolific politician, and career suicide isn't a smart decision for most.. especially when you're a woman that is already pretty hated by the Right  Ive still never been like 100% in line with Clinton's policies... especially on War and the Environment, but at least she understands war to some degree and believes Climate Change is real  (Her views on Fracking and Pipelines are especially worrying to me btw~) She DOES seem war-hawkish to me, and her involvement with the Middle East troubles me some, but I can't say I believe that ANY of the Republicans (maybe Kasich? Idk) would have done better. Bernie could have done much better or much worse. He seems way more idealistic and caring and personable, but that's not "always" what is best... (Side-note, I'm a pacifist)

Whether or not you believe Hillary Clinton really "cares" about these issues because shes "flip-flopped" on them, she has shown herself to be a dutiful public defender for a very long time; she wouldn't have started doing it or continued if she didn't care at all. Regardless, Hillary Clinton definitely comes across to me as the type of character who will not act against the best interests of the people she serves, even if she personally opposes it. Obama was similar. Trump is not. Trump claims to be for the gays, but very easily makes promises that will harm the LGBTQ+ community. Hillary claims to be for the gays and whether she is or not (I personally suspect she is) she's going to do everything she can for them.

The system is corrupt. But I honestly believe that while Bernie may have had a chance of putting a dent in it's armor, he would not have defeated it. Hillary may not even attempt to dent its armor for all we know, but Trump will reinforce it; It's an easy decision for me  

[PaperIz 7,354]

9 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Well, the emails are basically a done deal. They've been debunked, disproven, whatever else you need.

Objectively, she did not take the appropriate precautions to protect her emails and opted to use a different email server for convenience, which was an unintelligent decision, she also didn't back them up or re-send them to their appropriate place (which is required if you use alternative systems IIRC). However, nothing bad actually happened because of this. She's apologized for her misstep. You can read her emails though  if there's anything specifically troubling you about them  

She is also just really not at fault for Benghazi, like I'm not sure why this is even being brought up any more, its much more clear cut than this email business... Though she did misspeak about the video being the motivation.

About the primaries, she did not specifically collude WITH the DNC to try to give her a better chance at winning than Bernie, it is more that they had faith in her over Bernie and were willing to place all of their chips on her over him (and O'Malley). While I think this was a mistake, It's not really "corrupt" in my eyes... If Trump hadn't started pulling ahead so suddenly, I fully expected the RNC to throw all of their chips to Jeb Bush or Rand Paul or Ben Carson (probably not, cause #black  )

Also, there was no rigging of polls/votes or anything during the primaries, and even if there were, it is not nearly on the scale to have tipped things in Bernie's direction. He still would have lost, because he did not garner the minority vote in the same way Hillary did. About attempts to use Bernie's religion, age, etc. to get easy votes, I mean, I don't really care tbh, even Obama threw stones at Hillary (and vice versa) in 2008, idk if anyone remembers though. Hell, even Bernie started to throw them at the end of his cycle  There's no such thing as a clean campaign. (Though IIRC it again wasn't Hillary's people who were going to do this directly)

The only real argument I see here is the "flip-flopping politics" one, which I personally am totally okay with  Was it nice that Bernie had always* been for gay marriage? Yes. (That's actually more complicated than that, he wasn't in the sense we are thinking of, but he kind of was) Was it bad that it took Hillary until X to come out in favor of gay marriage? Eh. She is a prolific politician, and career suicide isn't a smart decision for most.. especially when you're a woman that is already pretty hated by the Right  Ive still never been like 100% in line with Clinton's policies... especially on War and the Environment, but at least she understands war to some degree and believes Climate Change is real  (Her views on Fracking and Pipelines are especially worrying to me btw~) She DOES seem war-hawkish to me, and her involvement with the Middle East troubles me some, but I can't say I believe that ANY of the Republicans (maybe Kasich? Idk) would have done better. Bernie could have done much better or much worse. He seems way more idealistic and caring and personable, but that's not "always" what is best... (Side-note, I'm a pacifist)

Whether or not you believe Hillary Clinton really "cares" about these issues because shes "flip-flopped" on them, she has shown herself to be a dutiful public defender for a very long time; she wouldn't have started doing it or continued if she didn't care at all. Regardless, Hillary Clinton definitely comes across to me as the type of character who will not act against the best interests of the people she serves, even if she personally opposes it. Obama was similar. Trump is not. Trump claims to be for the gays, but very easily makes promises that will harm the LGBTQ+ community. Hillary claims to be for the gays and whether she is or not (I personally suspect she is) she's going to do everything she can for them.

The system is corrupt. But I honestly believe that while Bernie may have had a chance of putting a dent in it's armor, he would not have defeated it. Hillary may not even attempt to dent its armor for all we know, but Trump will reinforce it; It's an easy decision for me  

I mean if Hillary loses against Trump it's quite literally her fault and the DNC's. She most definitely is crooked. There's too much to just look over. I mean just the emails could've put all us in jeopardy. She's dangerous and as far as her flip-flopping, right now it's in our favor but what happens when it's not? I just cannot trust her. I weep for our country that we're trapped in picking one of these two devils. Benghazi, I mean we act as if those people aren't dead but they are. Americans dead and she's just sort of shrugged it off. Not to mention the mysterious trail of other dead people that have challenged her. I can't look past any of it.

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

.

[Delusional Aura 5,129]

Am I the only one waiting for this person to post Hillary's illegal doings from her emails? Come on whoever you are, show us and drag that person who told you to find proof. Oh... I forgot there isn't any 

[GloZell Green 11,723]

@Goosey @SISTERV

 

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, GloZell Green said:

@Goosey @SISTERV

 

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

55 minutes ago, Goosey said:

 

Eh.. they didn't review "650K" emails.. they only reviewed the emails that were sent to and from Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin (because these were Anthony Weiner's emails). 

Reading Wiener's own emails, those unrelated to his wife Huma or Hillary, is unlikely to be productive. Therefore, the FBI is going to filter those 650,000 Wiener emails to get at those emails that were also sent to/from Hillary and Huma.

That's easy for automated tools to do. Just search the From: and To: fields for email addresses known to be used by Hillary and associates. For example, search for [email protected] (Hillary's current email address) and [email protected](Huma Abedin's current email).

This is likely to filter down the emails to a manageable few thousand.

Next, filter the emails for ones already in the FBI's possession. The easiest way is using the Message-ID: header. It's a random value created for every email. If a Weiner email has the same Message-ID as an email already retrieved from Huma and Hillary, then the FBI can ignore it.

This is then like to reduce the number of emails need for review to less than a thousand, or less than 100, or even all the way down to zero. And indeed, that's what NBC news is reporting:

http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/11/yes-fbi-can-review-650000-emails-in-8.html#.WB_wBWorL6o

The 33K took longer because they were ALL Hillary's emails.

[13VictorC 1,105]

FBI just wanted some promo. 

[Lion Heart 15,041]