Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 11:48am)

People keep talking intent because it was brought up by Comey himself. Choosing to indict rests on whether enough evidence exists to go to trial, which there obviously is. It is at trial where they hash out whether the negligence (which there was negligence) was "gross" or not. Comey committed nothing short of malfeasance in office.

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 19 2016 01:08pm)

I think you're making a subjective judgement about the amount of evidence needed, as it is always a subjective judgement, and it's without precedent. I mean sure we can point to a few soldiers or Colin Powell but there is no direct precedent, which is important.

I think in essence this situation is similar to a ref not making a close call in the 4th quarter. It wasn't as black-white as you're suggesting and an indictment in the middle of a campaign, even if she's later absolved, would be the end of her campaign.

Quote

A grand jury's job is very different than that of a trial, or "petit" (small) jury. The grand jury determines whether there is enough evidence to warrant sending the case to trial -- whether there's "probable cause" to conclude that a particular person comitted a crime. A trial jury, on the other hand, decides actual guilt and sometimes punishment. One consequence of this difference is that grand juries can consider evidence that would otherwise be excluded at trial, such as evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Similarly, a grand jury can consider hearsay evidence (evidence offered by someone who did not have personal experience with the subject matter of the testimony).

Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 12:19pm)

There is a difference between the amount/quality of evidence to obtain a conviction and the amount/quality of evidence to bring an indictment.

Quote

It is undeniable that enough evidence exists to send a case to trial. Classified information was indeed found on her private server, no one of any intellectual integrity denies this.

Quote

Whether she is engaged in a campaign is immaterial to whether she committed a crime or that he government is obliged to prosecute a crime.

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 19 2016 01:29pm)

Yes.



That's not what I'm questioning at all, I'm questioning if having classified information on a private server based on the wording of the law inherently requires an indictment, I disagree that gross negligence is a judgement only for the court.

From interviews I saw Comey said repeatedly their benchmark was to ask whether a reasonable prosecutor would have charger her. We're talking about the highest crime of the land, the evidence to prove that is substantial and i feel you're downplaying the evidence requirements. Possibly because you like me believe they manually destroyed computers and deleted files to hide much of the evidence. But that doesn't make it usable in court.



Whether it's the end of the came is immaterial to whether he committed a penalty or not. See anyone can do it.

I wasn't suggesting it SHOULD have an impact i was suggesting it DID have an impact.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 12:43pm)

We're not talking treason, we're talking a felony. She had national security information stored on an improperly secured server. I'm not talking about the other issues of destroying evidence or using the server to circumvent FOIA laws, just the fact that she had classified information where she clearly was not supposed to have it.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 10:38am)

The FBI director told us it would be pointless prosecuting because she "didn't intend" to harm the United States.

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 19 2016 10:36am)

For once.

Quote (excellence @ Oct 19 2016 10:52am)

never said she broke a law - looks like you can't read just like (C)linton
the help gets a medal too? Thats cute, like the dork who rides the pine all year gets a little trophy too.

Obligatory: thanks for yet one more fucking laugh!

He cramped up typing that rage response to me :cry:

Quote (Pollster @ Oct 19 2016 12:52pm)

Well what response is there in continuation of an argument that I didn't actually offer, in reality? A very simple, straightforward argument was presented in the OP; if you can't follow it then perhaps it would be better if you found somewhere else to fall down.

Quote (Pollster @ 19 Oct 2016 14:52)

No he didn't. Why even bother trying to reduce the decision to this? Is this your way of telling me that you've fully receded back into the bubble and will no longer be adhering to reality-based conclusions? That's Peak Bubble-Dweller talk.



Well what response is there in continuation of an argument that I didn't actually offer, in reality? A very simple, straightforward argument was presented in the OP; if you can't follow it then perhaps it would be better if you found somewhere else to fall down.



If you weren't advancing the argument that she broke a law, which is what I was inquiring in the post you quoted, then all you managed to do was provide what I explicitly said I wasn't interested in: bubble-babble bullshit.

I appreciate the laugh on the rest of your blathering, though.

Quote (Pollster @ Oct 19 2016 01:52pm)

No he didn't. Why even bother trying to reduce the decision to this? Is this your way of telling me that you've fully receded back into the bubble and will no longer be adhering to reality-based conclusions? That's Peak Bubble-Dweller talk.

Quote

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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.