Excluding other statutes then, that should make things easy. Pretty much a redesigned outcome if that's the case. That's definitely the way to do it.No intentional mis conduct
That should be a problem for her as well.Evidence Hillary was extremely careless in handling classified info.
- That SHOULD BE your negligence charge.Dustin Volz Verified account @dnvolz
Comey: There is evidence Clinton was "extremely careless" in handling highly classified info, despite no intent to violate laws
That's sec. 1924/793 negligence.Any reasonable person in Hillary's position should've known an unclassified system was no place for these emails.
And it will be. It's up to the voters to determine if this issue is disqualifying.That should be a problem for her as well.
Right before Obama meets Hillary.And it will be. It's up to the voters to determine if this issue is disqualifying.
If Clinton supporters cared, they had Enough information to form a decision. They don't care.I think most people are dug into their corners and believe what they want to believe.
And it will be. It's up to the voters to determine if this issue is disqualifying.
More like, if you can't get a security clearance you shouldn't be president.she should lose security clearance..
They didn't even need to hack. Electronic eavesdropping would do it.Why hack when they could just figure out her login? Lol
ExceptionalI will say that Comey is doing a heck of a job explaining himself here.
He needs to take care of his own business and his own rep.Good presser by Comey. Regardless of outcome. This is strong.
Yeah - Congress and POTUS don't need clearances.More like, if you can't get a security clearance you shouldn't be president.
Oh shut it lemmingHe needs to take care of his own business and his own rep.
Do you believe him that in similar situations, usually charges are not brought?As far as I'm concerned the findings of "extreme carelessness" merit a sec. 1924 charge - it's purely a top of the DOJ decision not to bring the indictment.
Tim, how is it not disqualifying? She was the damn Secretary of State and left classified info vulnerable to being hacked. It's the most careless, stupid, reckless, irresponible thing that someone in her position could do.And it will be. It's up to the voters to determine if this issue is disqualifying.
Yeah if Comey says it I believe it. Doesn't change the fact the statute was violated. (And fwiw I think it's 793, not 1924).Do you believe him that in similar situations, usually charges are not brought?
Congrats?And once again Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Judge Andrew Napolitano look like total idiots. For months they have been swearing up and down that there would be indictments for sure, that they had "solid" inside sources.
I haven't followed or posted on Napolitano but this is exactly the sort of thing he was talking about IIRC, leaks, but in this situation Comey's come right out and said it.And once again Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Judge Andrew Napolitano look like total idiots. For months they have been swearing up and down that there would be indictments for sure, that they had "solid" inside sources.
I see. So you think everyone who violates this statute should be indicted. Fair enough.Yeah if Comey says it I believe it. Doesn't change the fact the statute was violated. (And fwiw I think it's 793, not 1924).
I don't know what you're crowing about here. I think most of us knew she would NOT be indicted, but this conference did her no favors and made her look very bad.Byyyyyyyyye bye Indictment Fairy! Aw. I bet some regulars in this thread have a sad. :(
And now, let’s get back to the important issues, like how the do-nothing Republicans have done their best to ruin the country.
Well gosh all Trump has to do is 1. understand the issue and 2. enunciate it. Gee that should be eeassssyyy.Oh shut it lemming
If you believe it is disqualifying, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it was a wise decision, but it's not for me a momentous one. That would be true even if she were running against a less dangerous, more competent opponent. But the fact that she is running against Donald Trump makes this doubly so IMO.Tim, how is it not disqualifying? She was the damn Secretary of State and left classified info vulnerable to being hacked. It's the most careless, stupid, reckless, irresponible thing that someone in her position could do.
I think I understand why the government does not enforce the statute - because they don't want this stuff challenged in court.I see. So you think everyone who violates this statute should be indicted. Fair enough.
I tend to agree with Comey (ugh) that smallish, unintentional violations should be punished internally and not through charges. But I can understand disagreement on that.
Well, let's not get carried away, it's not like she went full Condi and put her weight behind supporting something as lethally reckless and bogus as the Iraq invasion. Er.Tim, how is it not disqualifying? She was the damn Secretary of State and left classified info vulnerable to being hacked. It's the most careless, stupid, reckless, irresponible thing that someone in her position could do.