上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]MSpainting [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Imagine my complete lack of surprise.

If George Bush can essentially make the US go to war over make believe WMDs and not be charged with treason what made people think HRC would ever get charged for emails?

[–]airz23s_coffee [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ahahaha. So many months of people being so sure the indictment was coming.

Reddit is going to be delightful for the next few months.

[–]Vermilion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What kind of agenda shows the worst of Reason of America, the Great Seal Myth on the $1 Bill, in sorting by New?

[–]Simpull_mann [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Straight from the statement by FBI director on the investigation of Clinton's Email system: To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

[–]igetreallybored [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

ELI5 please? How does she pass Go and collect $200?

[–]vbfronkis [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I thought ignorance was no defense.

Oh yeah, unless you're named "Clinton."

[–]earnedmystripes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Silly plebs, laws are for poor people.

[–]mikoul [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

USA: The best country where justice is the main value !

/s

[–]shockakan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So now that Hilary isn't going to jail, what company's stocks should I buy if I want a massive return over the next 4-8 years?

[–]HendersonDaRainKing [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Maj. Jason Brezler sent one unsecured email. One. Simply trying to stop boys being raped.

[–]Bwhite1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What happened? I haven't heard this story.

[–]Mattythebeaver [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Regardless of the recommendation, the investigation brought to light that Hillary was grossly negligent in the handling of classified information. According to 18 USC 793, Hillary MUST be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years. [opinion] Considering the severity of what she did what with using her personal server in the land of "significant adversaries'" territory, she should be serving near enough 10 years [/opinion]. Remember, "no one person should be above the law" -- Hillary Clinton. It's time to prove it.

[–]qtyapa [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

CNN is discussing star david trump's tweet, instead of discussing this minor matter.

[–]jziegle1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well I guess we have to hope Hillary goes through with her "Manhattan project scale assault on encryption" so we can find out what hostile actors she gave access to top secret documents.

[–]Bwhite1 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is a game ender. How can any American accept the current justice system if an average citizen would face life for this, but because its Hillarys its okay... Round 2, we just need to find a new Washington.

[–]xcharlie702 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yay for the Justice system. Lol what a fucking joke.

[–]Jippylong12 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It seems to be all about intent. Now I know many of people on Reddit will just see the headline and say that either Hillary is Vindicated or say that the FBI is corrupted and whatnot. Now personally I am not a fan of Hillary at all. When I got into politics Last Summer I was unbiased I guess in terms of who I want to vote for. So I went looking, and found a man I wanted to vote 4 and I supported him and I still do. That being said, I also looked at Hillary and said hey if she wins I'll support her as well. Now I had heard of all the sketchy things about Hillary but I grew up in the South where she is not like so I just thought that it was all an uneducated. talk but as I watched the debates and as I watched the primary season unfold I started to see why people had this image of her. I say all of this because I want people to know where I am coming from. If you look at my history you will see posts on Sanders for president and I want to be transparent and try to say this is not biased.

Now that being said after reading the FBI's statement on the matter I truly believe and support what he has stated. We have to remember to try to look at this from an unbiased point of view and although I personally Bank that Hillary should have been indicted I do not have access to all the evidence like the FBI did. So I take this as the truth and will go with it as should everyone else. But now we move on to his statement and if we look at it closely we will see you what I think is one big theme. That is the incompetence of Hillary Clinton. The whole reason why charges were not recommended is because he determined that she did not purposefully expose this information. Basically the intent was not malicious and it was not malicious because of Hillary's incompetence. He even says it himself of her incompetence.

So the new question to answer is whether or not you would want somebody so incompetent to lead this nation. Someone who created not one but multiple email servers overtime comma who would send work-related emails when they were in a foreign country across a private server , and through all of this could have jeopardized some of the United States operations. I encourage everyone to read the statement and we should have a discussion on whether we want someone who the FBI clearly deems incompetent to hold a secretary of state position and give them even more powers and responsibilities to lead this country.

[–]zazzlekdazzle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When I got into politics Last Summer

I'm sorry, friend, but you lost me at that line. Thanks for being honest, though.

[–]Delicate-Flower [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Say hello to our next president. We are so blessed. Who could ask for more?

[–]Woodshadow [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

and we think other governments are corrupt. I would still vote for Clinton over Trump but if this isn't an example of how corrupt and rigged out country is I don't know what is. Rules don't apply to everyone and there is always a loophole. If this was Russia and Putin no one would believe it was fair

[–]HarmonyFlame [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So laws can be broken so as long as the subject can claim ignorance to the laws, even when its in your TITLE to know these laws??? If i told a judge i had no intent to break the law by selling drugs, i was just providing for my family, I should be getting off scott-free, right?

[–]YOLOSwag_McFartnut [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

He straight up said she's guilty, and had it been anyone else, they would've recommended charges.

That's incredible.

[–]CrackingYs [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We are witnessing the beginning of a dictatorial dynasty.

Good luck with that, America.

[–]I_Hardly_Know-Her [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

ITT: people who didn't watch the conference or read the article saying completely false things

[–]mountaintop123 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, if I murdered someone and didn't know it was illegal would I not be put in jail??

[–]Garandhero [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Not to mention, she perjured herself. She's said for months she sent no confidential or secret info from her private servers. We now know that to be untrue. Still no consequences. Unreal.

[–]piceaglauca [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Was she on the stand when she said those things? Thought it had to be in court to be perjury. Not trying to attack what you said - I literally don't know enough and am curious.

[–]AThievingStableBoy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well it's not illegal to lie to the american people. It should be cause to not vote for her, but she can't be jailed for it.

[–]mothman83 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Can't wait for the conspiracy theories! I am sure we will get some fun ones today

[–]RIP_Betty_White [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Any normal person would be in big trouble for mishandling classified information, but rules don't apply to Clinton.

Thanks FBI for further proving the corruption of the system.

[–]labelkills1331 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Does this mean that there is precedent being set in regards to not knowing something is illegal and not being in trouble for it? I don't see how this doesn't get turned around on someone else later who does the same thing, but gets in trouble.

[–]JohnnySmithe80 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

FBI recommends charges, they are not the courts and cannot set precedents.

[–]herohomicide [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No necessarily. AFAIK precedent isn't the decider for filing charges, just in court proceedings.

[–]cjluthy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not sure why the Republican House hasn't brought charges in an Impeachment-after-the-fact of Hillary. I believe Congress can bring Articles of Impeachment after the fact, because she was Secretary of State. This trial in which, if she was found guilty, basically nullifies her title after the fact. More importantly, It also disqualifies her from holding future office. It would pass in a second in the House, and the trial in the Senate would surely find something to convict on, even if for a technicality. It would end her shot at President.

This really needs to happen.

[–]MrMolonLabe [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't understand how Reddit can be so "anti-corruption" and "anti-establishment" but when it comes to this its "Oh well, Hillary will do."

[–]cabbage_peddler [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So, just barely not a criminal? Great, let's make her president.

[–]truthBeUncomfortable [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The FBI protects the clinton oligarchy. Color me surprised.

Laws only apply to the peasants.

[–]RyanGUK [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Deffo no clear intent Clinton meant to do it, but that does not mean it's alright and she's going to get off with it.

Clinton fans, replace Clinton with Trump in this situation and you may understand how... Absurd, this is.

[–]farcetragedy[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

no one but Clinton would've ever been investigated for this.

[–]Warphead [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

At least now the FBI can get back to their real job of manufacturing terrorists and fighting against the evils of privacy. Anyone got an encrypted iPhone they can pretend matters?

[–]OmeronX [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately what I expected to happen. Funny how they admitted anyone else wouldn't get away with it.

[–]EnhancedGrappler [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Listen, I think Hilary is evil too, but there's a little thing called scienter that's very important in the law.

[–]satellitesinger [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Yeah I'm pretty sure she had knowledge of her wrongdoing.

[–]EnhancedGrappler [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I understand that that's your opinion, shoot it sounded that way to me as well, but that's not what the investigation determined.

[–]IAmMohit [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Fuck man this is making me too emotional.. and I don't even know why :(

[–]IBlameTheMachine [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'll put money on the election being rigged.

[–]PinnedWrists [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The key to living in America now is to just be middle class, richer if you are lucky enough. Don't be poor. Don't make waves or you will be crushed.

[–]ApatheticAbsurdist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It doesn't need to be. It's already two friends running against each other.

[–]brianbrianbrian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is like that Dave Chapelle skit.

"I'm sorry, FBI. I didn't know I couldn't do that."

Well... we'll let you off with a warning!

"I did know I couldn't do that!" ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF

[–]100jumpingbeans [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

"Recommend that no charges be filed"

I fucking knew they would do this

[–]chockZ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Congratulations, you're a reasonable person!

[–]MilmoWK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Thee you have it, ignorance of the law will not get you out of a $10 parking ticket, but apparently risking national security is A-OK.

[–]x2Infinity [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's been great seeing people with no legal knowledge whatsoever praise Comey for months on this sub and now he's another evil Hitler protecting the establishment. When you're this deep in the koolaid it doesn't matter anymore. People who believe you can sum a case up in a reddit post aren't going to be swayed by this.

[–]jochexum[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

People are expressing confusion over extreme carelessness vs. gross negligence and how intent plays in. Very few people are saying what you claim? But I guess that doesn't jive with your narrative? Mmmmkay buddy

[–]-INFOWARS- [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Fuck the establishment.

Fuck the illuminati.

Fuck the nwo.

Fuck Clinton.

[–]agarret83 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, posting in this thread was a mistake

[–]pacified69 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

somebody go hold the donald and sanders4prez

[–]Malaix [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Well that concludes this election. The unlikely scenario of Clinton getting indicted was the only way Trump or Sanders could get elected. With that removed so goes the last forseeable obstacle to Hillary's first four years. Trump can't beat her in the general. He needed this indictment to grab the presidency.

[–]sejintsume [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We'll see. From my perspective our last hope at this point is Trump. Before I had hopes Hillary would get indicted and the democrats would offer up a better alternative. But.... All aboard #TheTrumpTrain?

[–]roxtafari [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The fact that the FBI "interview" was on a holiday Saturday and the press conference started the first news cycle after the same holiday tells me the fix was in and this was all carefully coordinated and timed. It's like her debate schedule, all managed in her favor while preporting to be neutral. I'm disappointed in Comey today.

[–]hawkwings [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He said that there is no precedent for prosecuting cases like this. There is no precedent, because this has probably not happened before. If a low level employee did this, she would be fired. Only a high ranking person could even do this. Colin Powell had a server, but laws have changed since then and knowledge about hacking has changed since then.

Some emails were deleted by mistake. If they were using a mistake prone system, they should have not deleted so they could make a second pass. For most personal emails, there is no strong reason to keep them secret unless she's hiring prostitutes or something.

[–]justsomeguy5 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Money, and influence, can make anything disappear.

[–]My-whatever-account [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

[–]Conscripted [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

So did Bernie unless it is totally a coincidence the constant spam of articles stopped immediately when he cut down his social media team last month.

[–]My-whatever-account [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

  1. I don't care about Bernie

  2. Unless you actually have a source about that, then your comment is irrelevant. Unlike mine, which you know... Is actually TRUE

[–]bobthewriter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

See, she's not evil -- just incompetent.

Neither major party candidate is qualified to be president.

[–]cuteintern [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Fuck this. Free Snowden. What a load of horseshit.

[–]VSavage [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Went to law school, this is Criminal Law 101.

The law they were investigating Clinton for is an exception to the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the law itself, it says that to be guilty of violating that particular law, you must know that what you are doing is illegal. That is why all of this talk about Clinton's intent matters. It is extremely hard to prosecute, and I am not surprised that it is not being prosecuted. The only reason it got this much attention from the FBI at all is because Clinton is important, and the FBI wanted to show that they took it seriously.

[–]Sxeptomaniac [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Legal analysts have been saying this from the very beginning. Anyone surprised by this result has not been paying attention (or was paying attention to the wrong sources).

[–]GearBrain [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How long has that law been around? And what is the justification for its existence?

Why do we have an exception for such a narrow sliver of actions that, arguably, have significant potential for negative impact on the country?

[–]shutts67 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So, no one on her staff told her it was a bad idea and ultimately, illegal?

[–]PsychMarketing [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

WOW!!! No Intent means No Punishment??? So ... we can now just walk around, and "accidentally" commit crimes, and it's okay? no punishment now??? I can GUARANTEE someone is going to cite this case in a future court case as to why the person is innocent...

[–]phiwings [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This particular law actual requires that you knowingly violated it.

[–]SerouisMe [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Na mate you need to be rich and powerful otherwise it doesn't work.

[–]DaltoniusRex1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The Orlando shooter didn't mean to kill anybody. He just wanted to spray bullets in that direction.

[–]suddenly_ponies [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Maybe she shouldn't go to jail, but shouldn't her ability to hold a clearance or a job with a clearance be snuffed permanently? It's what would happen to ANYONE ELSE in the government! At a bare, bare minimum

[–]PsychMarketing [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

yeah, having worked for a gov't contractor in a previous life - this is SO true... if someone walked out with a physical copy of classified information... TOP SECRET no less... good luck maintaining your clearance... but to keep TOP SECRET documents on a private server open to the public internet... I just... I don't even... I mean, this is a big fucking kick in the american teeth...

[–]Killtrend [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I liken this result to a drunk driving case:

"There's no evidence Clinton meant any harm in doing this"

Well, neither does a drunk driver. He just wants to get home and doesn't give a fuck who's in the way. That's Clinton. Clinton is on a war path for power and drunk or not, she's coming home.

[–]zoidboix [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's not the same. You don't need to have intent to get charged with drunk driving. While, in Clinton's case, knowing the degree of intent is baked into the statute Comey was looking at.

[–]dudeguyy23 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Except that this statute requires intent and drunk driving doesn't. Apples to oranges.

[–]obrazovanshchina [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

So many experts here CERTAIN the FBI is WRONG and CLEARLY the evidence demands charges be brought.

Awesome! You should present your evidence to the FBI's investigators and Director Comey, a Republican, stat. I'm then sure your insider knowledge, expert opinion, and insight will compel the FBI to reopen the case and bring the charges you are certain--experts that you are--demands.

Here. I'll get you started. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us

[–]toybrandon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No thanks, I'm happy with our extremely careless candidate.

Careless Clinton

[–]dudeguyy23 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

RIP intern that has to check responses to that link.

[–]American_FETUS [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When I worked at a hospital, we had a specific break room because of the worry of a medical history being overheard if you made a personal call. This bitch can't even figure out the spam folder while she is passing out free screenings of whats next on the Clinton's agenda.

[–]jziegle1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well at least this puts to rest the preposterous notion that 'Hillary's the most qualified candidate in history.' I'd suspect that claim would have to include understanding basic protocol for handling classified information.

[–]7890h123e98h3d [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

She's losing her security clearance right? That's an administrative punishment. How can you be president without one?

[–]Radiocide [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

This actually silences two groups.

First would be the group that said the email issue wasn't serious. The FBI director disagrees.

Second would be the people that demanded prison time. Not happening.

I'm not sure where we stand at the moment.

[–]Possiblyreef [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Its bollocks.

There are plenty of government contractors that have access to similar classifications of material. If they were to keep them on a home computer then they would lose their job and go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect £200

[–]Lacerta00 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

At a place that allows her to continue her presidency with no change of public opinion with a result like this.

[–]gspleen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

First would be the group that said the email issue wasn't serious. The FBI director disagrees.

The FBI director may also love cherry pie. That, too, appears to have little impact on his decision in this case.

This will be trumpeted as a win for the Hillary camp. That's what it is here. The officer pulled her over for speeding and told her to be more careful and have a pleasant day.

[–]cuckingfomputer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So we have a serious issue that the FBI disapproves of and would recommend to indict for any person other than Hillary, but won't recommend indictment for in this case. How did we get here?

[–]TrpWhyre [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why would it silence the people that demands she needs to go to prison? Comey basically said she deserves it. This will only FUEL the demonstrations and escalate the violence during the rallies. This fall will be very interesting indeed.

[–]Psy1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You do realize if Trump gets in, Comey's statement would be enough for Trump to press indictments.

[–]CndConnection [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

In the release it mentions that because the FBI could not find evidence of intent, which is supposedly required for an indictment, they will not charge her.

So in the matter of handling classified documents...if you just say "oh well I didn't know and I didn't intend for this to happen" you can get off?

That seems so unbelievably fucking stupid that I have no other way to acknowledge this info other than to just chalk it up to the FBI finding the best and most fancy way to explain "ehhh, we let her off cuz, well she's Hillary and running for president"

I'd just love to see some Judge explain away the bullshit when someone else gets pegged for a very similar crime and mentions "Hey Hillary had no intent and neither did I so I'm good to go right?"

[–]KDingbat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Some crimes, like speeding, are "strict liability" in that they don't require any particular mental state. But most crimes, especially serious ones, do require a specific, culpable mental state - called mens rea. That required mental state, plus the action necessary for the crime (called the "actus reus"), generally both have to be present in order for a crime to be committed.

[–]The_Impresario [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Mens rea is a standard legal doctrine that applies to a lot of crimes. In those cases the prosecution has to demonstrate intent in order to get a conviction. Some offenses are strict liability and intent doesn't matter.

I'm not rendering an opinion on Hillary, just that establishing intent is normal part of the process.

[–]Panzerkatzen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And it's not even required for intent, if you are in the military and say you accidentally left a harddrive on the table instead of putting it back in the drawer it belongs in, then you've mishandled sensitive information and you're off to jail.

[–]Woozah77 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Because you get to Secretary of State without a single class on handling sensitive information.

[–]jziegle1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Comey left the door open for whatever Assange has. Our FBI: "top secrets documents may have been acquired by hostile actors, we just can't know. Either way, who knows if Clinton's use of a private server was intentional. What do we know?"

[–]upparoom [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Kind of like General Patreus? He got 100K in fines, stripped of security clearance and other penalties for just a handful of possible leaks of data

[–]uMunthu [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Even without indictment, Comey saddled her with a gift that will follow her for the rest of the campaign ie two words that will stick: "Extremely careless". Chew on that one for a bit.

[–]armrha [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The goal posts shift before your eyes. It doesn't matter that she was indicted! The FBI director criticizing an email server she didn't even configure, that's surely good enough!

[–]howlongtilaban [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It is a tiny appetizer compared to the Trump main course.

[–]Doonce [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Hillary supporters:

puts fingers in ears

"lalalalalalalala"

[–]_KanyeWest_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is ironic because Trump/Bernie supporters had become so convinced she was going to jail that they woke up this morning shell shocked now that she isn't.

[–]kingkarlor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

jesus better avoid reddit for the next few days lol

[–]Oracle712 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This was expected. The establishment would never let their preferred choice go down. Let it had been anyone else though.

[–]dildog [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

So yah ... about that Snowden guy, it's all OK then now...right ??

[–]zoidboix [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Snowden intended to break the law though, that's why he left to country to go to Hong Kong.

[–]cuckingfomputer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He didn't mean to. He was just extremely careless.

[–]WasabiBomb [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He did it on purpose, and even admitted such. Hillary didn't. Learn the difference.

[–]JoshuaZ1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The primary distinction is intent. Snowden intended to leak information.

[–]fonetik [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Consider their choice. You can piss off the presumptive next president and possibly hand the job over to Donald Trump, or you can let this slide while also making it perfectly clear for others to know that this isn't going to fly when someone else gets caught. The only thing that surprises me is that they did any of this before November.

[–]ArmyofNorthernVA [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think your comment is very insightful. But I hate that someone who clearly broke the law (and I know this is /r/politics, so feel free to not agree, but I don't want to argue it) gets off just because the other option is unpalatable. And I don't know how much of a signal this sends that the next guy won't get off, when this one clearly did. And I am not a Trump supporter.

[–]howlongtilaban [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The FBI aren't actually charlatans like most of reddit seems to be, they take their jobs seriously.

[–]ukfan758 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What would happen if I used a private email (like one from yahoo or a cable company) to view confidential information sent from a company when I was supposed to use their own email service?

[–]PoliticalTheater101 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A well connected politician not going down for breaking some law? This is new... Remember Cheney's email controversy?

[–]OhGreatItsHim [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Can someone do a wellness check on H.A. Goodman.

[–]lapone1 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

[–]ArmyofNorthernVA [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're right. But its like our parents always said, "I don't care that some other kid did something wrong. YOU did something wrong."

[–]JoeIsHereBSU [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

I don't understand. Even if I didn't intend to break the law and did it anyway I'd be in jail already.

[–]ERgamer70 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Remember that Dad that killed his son with a gun yesterday in a shooting range? Not a homicide, not even manslaughter. He goes home because he didn't mean it.

[–]bunnypaos [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I guess that's why he's director of the FBI and we're just schlubs on the internet...

[–]_KanyeWest_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If only he spent more time reading the front page of /r/politics than he would see there is no other option other than indictment

[–]j-j-jesus_auntmarie [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

No clear evidence Clinton intended to violate laws

Since when does intent make a difference?

[–]GreenieXP [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Actually intent frequently makes a difference for legal cases. See: difference between manslaughter and murder.

[–]Mtl325 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

are you joking? mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (bad act) are the central elements of our criminal justice system.

[–]JoshuaZ1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The statute allows prosecution for gross negligence rather than just intent, but Comey has essentially observed that no criminal prosecutions have ever occurred without some intent aspect.

[–]FasterThanTW [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

depends on the crime.

i was recently on a jury on a burglary case. the defendant had entered someone's home and stole jewelry. we were specifically told that his intent mattered - it was only a burglary if he entered the home intending to steal. if he entered for some other reason, even another illegal reason, and stole the jewelry on a whim, it wasn't burglary.

[–]serfdomgotsaga [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The difference between manslaughter and murder.

[–]canis777 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Except that manslaughter carries penalties, and this, apparently, doesn't.

[–]MoreBeansAndRice [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Many laws have intent factored in. As an example, murder. This is one of the exact reasons why most legal experts expected this. There was never any evidence of intent.

[–]BasedBoyScout [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Look up #followthefoundation or #BreakTheFoundation on Twitter. The amount of data being mined and released to the public is staggering.

[–]bunnypaos [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Is it as staggering as the amount of salt being mined from this thread?

[–]AlisherUsmanov [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If the strategy was to expose her for criminal wrongdoing, they should have picked a winner from the beginning. It will all be viewed as crying wolf henceforth.

[–]NickKurt-Dale [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

What.The.Fuck.

[–]robbdire [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That is the quote that makes the whole thing.

Why is she not? It matters not if it was knowingly or not, she made a very big mistake, which has repercussions. At least it's supposed to have.

One law for the rich and powerful and another for everyone else I guess.

[–]Cacafuego [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The FBI is looking into potential criminal charges. Not security or administrative sanctions. And I suspect that there are very few people who are in a position to apply those sanctions to the secretary of state.

This is like finding out the president of your company didn't follow security policy. The chief security officer is not going to punish her.

[–]Delicate-Flower [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

She suffers from affluenza. We wouldn't understand.

[–]MoreBeansAndRice [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How is that hard to understand? Administrative of security sanctions mean that if a person could lose their job or security clearance but they weren't deciding that they were looking at criminal charges.

[–]bumbo90 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He is not deciding sanctions in the job, he is deciding to press criminal charges.

[–]Catbone57 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nobody should be allowed to vote this November unless they have read "The Family" by Mario Puzo.

[–]3VP [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

So James Comey said,

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

What I get from this is: although what she did would get her sanctioned or fired if she was a rank-and-file employee, it would not get that rank-and-file employee jail time. And since she is technically not an employee she cannot be sanctioned or fired.