Comey: FBI recommends no indictment re: Clinton emails

IDUnavailable · 32分前

Interesting to look at how different groups report this news:

FOX:

FBI: Clinton 'extremely careless' about emails but shouldn't be charged

CNN:

FBI urges no charges against Clinton

RT:

Clinton hid thousands of emails, put classified data on her server, but shouldn't be charged - FBI

WaPo:

FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe

WSJ:

FBI Won’t Seek Charges in Clinton Case Despite ‘Careless’ Email Use

MSNBC:

FBI: No criminal charges against Clinton

Bloomberg:

Comey Recommends No Clinton Charges Despite ‘Carelessness’

Politico:

FBI recommends no charges against Clinton in email probe

ABC:

FBI RECOMMENDS NO CHARGES OVER CLINTON EMAIL USE

My personal favorite, Breitbart:

The Fix Is In!

FBI: No Charges

Comey Rips Clinton Repeatedly — Then Let’s Her Off Hook!

I guess none of these are actually that surprising, though.

legacy_of_fail · 59分前

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.

Okay, thanks for that.

InSOmnlaC · 19分前

I don't understand this. They say she didn't knowingly break the law, yet she sent 110 MARKED classified emails through unsecure email on servers she had setup to bypass government accountability.

How is that not knowingly breaking the law?

innerknowing · 48分前

I never sent nor received classified information. - Hillary Clinton

Cekuro · 52分前

Welp, House of Cards just got its plot resolution for next season.

urbaezru · 54分前

Alright, Assange, what do you got.

notscj · 47分前

Hillary's State Department recommended criminal charges against a career diplomat for mishandling classified information. He linked to a WikiLeaks cable on his personal blog and included three non-secrets in a book he submitted for department review:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/14/if-your-name-isnt-hillary-the-hammer-for-mishandling-secrets

HelluvaNinjineer · 23分前

The highlights:

It is a felony to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way
It is a felony to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems
110 emails were classified at the time they were sent, 8 at the Top Secret level Outside of the scope of mishandling classified info, this is a violation of FOIA laws, as it's the destruction of government records - "The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014."
TS/SAP programs are the most highly classified programs in the Military/Intelligence Community, frequently involving information that could literally get intelligence sources killed or result in permanently losing a source of critical intelligence - "For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters."
It's highly likely that this classified information, and other sensitive information, was compromised by foreign intelligence services - "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account"
HRC and every other person involved should have known what they were doing was wrong - "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation"
Despite all of this, no charges will be filed, as "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"
Just because Clinton got away with it, other less powerful people should be warned they'll be prosecuted - "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

terminator3456 · 1時間前

The r/politics meltdown begins!

Pianoman1092 · 37分前

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

Llim · 1時間前

He went on at length about how negligent she was and about how hackers quite possibly could have gained access. And yet "no reasonable" attorney general would recommend charges?

Cedsi · 43分前

"DID YOU DO THIS ON PURPOSE?"

"No, I was being negligent." - ~~Michael Scott~~ Hillary Clinton

GraphicNovelty · 1時間前

Tom Brady Guilty and Hillary Clinton innocent. What a lovely 2016.

emr1028 · 1時間前

She won the FBI primary!

Edit: Just one more thing to point out, Comey said that there was no evidence of her server being hacked. Now, this obviously does not mean that it wasn't hacked, but I hope that it finally puts to rest this notion that "Guccifer" is some elite hacker who read her briefings during breakfast and such.

Edit2: Guccifer was extradited and interviewed, if he had really hacked the server they would have known about it. When they were talking about it being possible, they were talking about sophisticated state actors, not some basement dweller whose "hacks" involve guessing people's AOL account recovery passwords.

Edit3: I know what Comey said about other hackers, I am specifically referring to Guccifer because some redditors seem to think he's some sort of folk hero.

anon902503 · 33分前

Circle jerk gets it wrong again. Shocker.

helpmeredditimbored · 1時間前

someone check on HA Goodman. I fear for his safety

Direbane · 52分前

As someone that could possibly be leading this country , Being called "extremely careless." should be scary enough.

TopCuntMate · 1時間前

so basically she broke the rules but it's fine because she didn't mean to do it?

ShortFuse · 29分前

I don't think people understand what Comey said.

She ~~broke~~ acted against the law, yes, but it was:

not intentional
out of negligence

What he said was that they could not find a similar case with such a (relatively) smaller amount of negligence where the DOJ brought a case.

In my opinion, it's like prosecuting something jaywalking. Yes, it's illegal, but we've never really prosecuted it before. I'm not saying what she did was as small as jaywalking, but along the same vein there is a limit as to how far the DOJ prosecutes.

Of course, just because there isn't a precedent from a previous case doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted. It's just things of this (smaller) magnitude aren't generally prosecuted.

Edit: To clarify, the key is gross negligence, and nothing in known history, in previous cases, constitutes this as gross. I changed broke to act against. For the law to be broken, it would have to be have been gross negligence.

Edit2: You CAN try to prosecute, and it would go to a jury. The jury would have to decide whether this was gross negligence. Comey states, nothing in history shows that should could be considered gross negligence.

To clarify further. Some laws have a tolerance with negligence, the one is question does. Other laws (like murder) don't.

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession [...] (1) through gross negligence [...] or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

NebraskaGunOwner · 1時間前

Hilariously I think Trump and Clinton both like this outcome. Comey lists all the ways she acted 'carelessly' but obviously no indictment.

So the race stays as is, but now Trump has ammo to hit her on judgement and qualifications, and Clinton gets to continue.

EDIT: This outcome is 100% acceptable. James Comey was pretty transparent in his briefing. Of course, there are questions I still have but I'm hoping more information will eventually come out.

kgt5003 · 40分前

So do we all just ignore everything Comey said for the first 14 minutes and just talk about how there is no indictment and pretend Hillary did nothing wrong? Everything he said about her handling of classified information and how she ran the state department and all the lies she told and because Comey thinks there are no charges (though he said there should be consequences) we vote Hillary? How do you give top security clearance to a woman who should have her security clearance pulled?

Qu1nlan · 49分前

Christ, guys.

No, the FBI is not showing evidence of corruption. I feel like half the people in this thread didn't even watch the address.

Comey hit home for ten minutes straight how negligent Clinton was. He hammered time after time how she did wrong, she was foolish to do it, and a reasonable person would not have done so. He is hardly glorifying her.

He went on to say that, though she did break guidelines and was negligent, these actions are not the sort that would generally have prosecutors bring litigation against. She did bad, but would not typically be indicted according to history of other people doing similar actions.

The FBI isn't pro-Clinton. The law isn't pro-Clinton. The law is the law, the FBI did its job.

res1n_ · 59分前

We have people serving lifelong sentences for marijuana possession and she grossly mishandled classified information "unintentionally" and her server could have very well been compromised thus exposing confidential information to our enemies and she walks.

This country is a joke.

Edit:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time;

This person has the opportunity to have access to our nuclear weapons. Hopefully she doesn't unintentionally press the wrong button. Oopsies.

ShakespearInTheAlley · 1時間前

Those who hated her over this will continue to hate her. Those who didn't will waive it away. World keeps on spinnin'

outlooker707 · 19分前

And thus Bernie's last hope flutters away in the wind.

etr906 · 58分前

"Hello darkness, my old friend."

dicelife · 46分前

Official FBI statement: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Saarai90 · 45分前

What does this mean for Bernie? Serious question.

nomad80 · 41分前

Tl;dr: she's unintentionally incompetent

DonutsOnThird · 40分前

I would love to see Judge Napolitano's face right now.....

mrdilldozer · 28分前

Can r/politics get in on sports betting? I could make so much money by simply just doing the exact opposite of their predictions

pocketjacks · 24分前

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." ....

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

If "any reasonable person...should have known" isn't the measure of "grossly negligent", I don't know what is.

throwaway96388 · 18分前

Let the FOIA requests flow!

maybeshouldntsaythis · 17分前

I'm kind of blown away by how good that statement by Comey was. Authoritative, stern, reasonable, impartial. Delineated the facts clearly and got his point across. He came across as exactly the type of FBI director we would want running that agency.

Barkey922 · 9分前

I've worked with classified material before, and the first thing that should happen is her clearance should be revoked. I know folks who have worked for her at state and among the military, and they have all said she is terrible about keeping things confidential and has unwittingly given out information to people without clearance multiple times in her past.

They can't discipline her as a GOV employee, because she no longer works for the state department. They can't indict her on criminal charges, because her actions were in a really gray area that can be construed to not be criminal, so there's also that.

Can't punish her as an employee or charge her as a criminal? AT LEAST TAKE THE GODDAMN WOMANS CLEARANCE AWAY! I had a guy accidentally take his cell phone into an intelligence brief, and it rang. He got dragged out of the room, had his clearance revoked, and was sent back Stateside and discharged.

For a fucking cellphone, one time. And that isn't a special circumstance or anything. You get fucked for that sort of thing.

Hillary should not have any sort of clearance or access to classified information. Period. Despite not working for State anymore, I bet you her clearances are still technically active. They revoke that shit if you get a DUI or diagnosed with depression, why not for this?

Vyceron · 8分前

Cue Walter Sobchak quote from The Big Lebowski: "Am I the ONLY one around here who gives a SHIT about the rules?!!!!"

jayare9412 · 1時間前

Shit, what will r/politics flood the front page with now?

SambalRahmani · 1時間前

Beautiful.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

chalbersma · 44分前

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.

James Comey

jestlolk · 52分前

I think special thanks should be given to Comey. I don't necessarily enjoy hearing his conclusion, but damn if he didn't deliver it in a way that made it seem as unbiased and a-political as possible. He even went out of his way to say this particular situation required an above and beyond level of transparency.

He reiterated what people already knew, which is the unfortunate thing. No malice in her exposing secret information, but it was exposed. It's "possible" that foreign intelligence agencies had access to her server. The server contained above top-secret information, which she consistently said it did not. She lied in saying she sent nothing that was classified at the time.

He exposed a couple of blatant lies she'd been feeding the media, but I doubt anybody will be talking about that. He said they didn't have enough evidence to proceed with criminal indictment, and the mainstream media will take that as a sign that she's done nothing wrong.

Unforunate.

Scamp3D0g · 1時間前

So Wikileaks, what ya got?

yuyuyayu · 25分前

COMPARE

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.

WITH

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

What I am having trouble reconciling is that "extremely careless" sounds, to me, like recklessness, which is a higher standard than both ordinary negligence and gross negligence. Recklessness is found when someone knowingly disregards a substantial risk, which it is clear from Comey's statements that the standard was met. See

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

To me it seemed like Comey only focused on the "intentional" mishandling of classified information and seemed to totally overlook or ignore the "gross negligence" standard in the statute when deciding not to recommend indictment. Whoever believes that this decision was not made with politics in mind is a fool. As the man himself so kindly clarified for us all:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that, in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

In other words, she and others like her can get away with this, but that doesn't mean you can.

And before people start calling me an arm-chair lawyer, I am not. I am actually writing this a few minutes before I walk into a courtroom.

Downbound92 · 31分前

Bonus good news: After being wrong when he reported in March about these interviews happening in April with a recommendation soon to follow, and wrong when he reported this weekend about an indictment happening, we can now officially write off David Shuster as a partisan hack who isn't so much a journalist as an unemployed professional Twitter shitposter.

Oh, and CNN was right.

GudSpellar · 59分前

This seems like it sets a dangerous standard for future handling of classified material.

Renarudo · 52分前

As a late-20s black male born and raised in NYC under Guilliani, Stop and Frisk, cops getting off for the murders of Amadou Diallo and Eric Garner (among others), and even getting off for the assault and sodomy of Abner Louima, I want to warmly welcome everyone saying "The Justice System is rigged" to reality.

There's plenty of space here, get cozy.

crono1224 · 38分前

Last thing I want to say is, forget if this was a person in the military or a lowly employee for the government. Imagine if this was a contractor for the government that was found to be storing classified information so negligently, charges or not, would they still be contracting for the government? I think not.

MrInRageous · 1時間前

Hillary wants to be president of the United States--yet the FBI has just outlined an incredible lack of judgement on her part. It doesn't matter charges won't be filed. Clinton makes terrible decisions, and she is unfit for office on this reason alone. She should not be president. IMO Obama is showing gross partisan decision-making in supporting her.

TrippyTheSnail · 50分前

now I really want to know what Loretta Lynch and Bill talked about.

UnseelieAccordsRule · 1時間前

I hope everyone who was bootlicking Comey's fairness because "he has been burnt by the Clintons before" accepts the final conclusion of this charade

WeJustOrderedBisque · 1時間前

What will all of /r/politics's budding lawyers say?

Killadillas · 59分前

When and where will the riot take place?

HandSack135 · 59分前

My guess on polling: Hillary will take a hit 3-4 points (need to make sure poll was conducted after these points were made), Trump picks up 1-2. He will then get a further bump from the VP pick and the GOP convention, so they are back to being neck and neck. At which point with this behind her and the Democratic Convention, she starts getting her lead back again slowly, but surely.

luckyjames99 · 43分前

I remember reading about some low level government grunts who were fired/charged for improper handling of classified information.

Does anyone know of such a story? Please reply with link.

beelzuhbub · 41分前

Well leakers have a new Avenue to do it without consequences. They just need to set up an unsecured server.

SunriseSurprise · 40分前

How is knowingly sending emails that had classification markings on them, something Hillary denied denied denied, not full well showing intent to expose classified information to people without the clearance to view it? How is it any different at all than what Petraeus did for a misdemeanor?

FrankBullitt68 · 44分前

I really don't understand. I read this analysis from an attorney (https://beckandlee.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/why-hillary-clintons-emails-matter-a-legal-analysis/) who thinks Trump is terrible, but he said the relevant law is Title 18 Section 793, Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793) which says:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, 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 delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

So the law says that intent is not required, but gross negligence. Comey says that Hillary was negligent in her behavior. So why no indictment? Anecdotally, I served in the military and can't imagine anyone not getting criminally punished for behavior like this. It's quite shocking.

Edit: On actually reading the entire statement, he basically said she did violate the text of the statute "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information", but that a prosecutor would be unlikely to bring charges because she didn't intentionally violate the law. Not the answer to the above I was expecting...

d3adbutbl33ding · 43分前

Well, it's over. Whatever you were hoping for (indictment or not) we have our answer. What the people of this sub (and voters in our country in general need to do is look at all that has transpired and make an informed decision). On one hand, the FBI said that while there was definitely wrong doing, it appears unintentional and not worth recommending jail time over. On the other hand, the FBI also (in so many words) said Clinton was careless and stupid. I know to a lot of people this election is Trump V. Clinton, but there are other choices if neither feels right to you. Each of us has a voice and a vote. Don't like Trump? Don't vote for him. Don't like Clinton? Don't vote for her. Read up on issues that matter to you and make an informed decision that way. See where all of the candidates stand on said issues. If you feel voting for third party is the right thing to do, do it. That is your right as an American. You have the right to write in a candidates name. Hell, you have the right to stay home and ignore the general election. Don't vote for someone out of spite or because of party lines. Vote who you think will do the country the most good. Now, enough shit posting about e-mails. Enough calling people names on the internet because they like candidate "x". We need to get back on track and start discussing and posting about actual issues that are affecting this country.

TsarPerhaps · 59分前

Passive aggressive as fuck. I do think he had his hands tied, and wanted to throw as much shit he could at her politely without sinking her with an indictment.

kurtchella · 53分前

Today I learned that people in poor areas smoking some weed are going to get more punished than someone rich leaving information out in the open for terrorists.

JonathanAlexander · 57分前

A Clinton always pays his/her debts.

AbeLincolnsVapePen · 53分前

It's gonna suck when our next President has no security clearance

BombingLegend · 45分前

Predictions for title of most invited post related to this on r/sandersforpresident and r/thedonald ?

fleentrain89 · 42分前

Watch this not be controversial at all.

Zeeker12 · 32分前

Where my guy nebraskagunowner at?

VeritasWay · 23分前

Secret meeting on a plane proved to be effective!!

eroggen · 18分前

Everyone should remember that at the beginning of this investigation, the Clinton campaign went through the emails and deleted 30,000 of them because they were "personal." No one in the FBI or anyone else ever had a chance to see these emails. Clinton unilaterally went through and decided which ones SHE decided were personal.

The idea that a person under investigation should have the ability to decide what evidence is relevant is ludicrous. This is particularly infuriating because it is well documented that the purpose of maintaining the private server was specifically to avoid FOIA. This whole investigation is a farce.

Pester_Stone · 17分前

ITT: People who don't know what "criminal intent" means

Knowakennedy · 16分前

So here's what I don't get.... Publicly available was this:

turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.

How is that not intent?

ancientappleiic · 16分前

To those who believe that this will somehow bring order and balance back to /r/politics, because the major participants here have been so focused on this case and a potential indictment, I do not think the resolution you hope for will happen.

I expect those who hope for this to return to a subreddit with more balanced coverage, think the same way as people who respond to trolls with the idea that: "obviously this person doesn't have all the information, all I have to do is explain it to him/her calmly and articulately using supportable facts and he/she will surely come around."


Be civil	Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
Do not post users' personal information.	Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
Vote based on quality, not opinion.	Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.	Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.


Articles must deal explicitly with US politics.	See our on-topic statement here.
Articles must be published within the last 31 days.	More Info.
Post titles must be exact headline or exact quote.	Your headline must be comprised only of the copied and pasted headline of the article, a continuous quote taken from the article, or both the headline and a continuous quote taken from the article. If using a quote, it should reflect the article as a whole. More Info.
Submissions must be an original source.	An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.
Spam is bad!	If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.
Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips.	We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles.	The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

politics

Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating.

Our full rules Reddiquette

Comment Guidelines:

Submission Guidelines:

Other Resources:

Full list of Related Subreddits

Chat with us on OrangeChat/IRC

Follow us on Twitter

Events Calendar

Apply to be a mod

Register To Vote

調停者

Previous Thread

Summary