FBI recommends no charges for Hillary

[Balog]

In all seriousness; what difference, at that point, would it make?

If she's elected to the highest office in the land, after all the facts (and the rumors) that have already come out in the past two or three decades, what could be revealed about the Clintons that would actually harm them?

I'm actually starting to wonder if the emails would be useful for blackmail anyway.

What good will it be to expose proof that she's a corrupt, treasonous, money-grubber when her opponents already believe that and her supporters do to, but don't care?

Maybe it wouldn't make any difference, but there is a whole world of difference between "Oh, everyone knows X does Y even if they officially deny it" and seeing the actual proof. Look at the Snowden leaks.

[RoadKingLarry]

But is she batshit crazy enough to nuke the Kremlin to keep Putin quiet?

[Ben]

But is she batshit crazy enough to nuke the Kremlin to keep Putin quiet?

Are you kidding? As long as she and her close personal friends and enough servants and smart people to fix things are underground when she presses the button, I honestly think she wouldn't have a single qualm about a few million US deaths in the retaliation strike.

[RoadKingLarry]

Are you kidding? As long as she and her close personal friends and enough servants and smart people to fix things are underground when she presses the button, I honestly think she wouldn't have a single qualm about a few million US deaths in the retaliation strike.

At that point what difference would it make?

[RoadKingLarry]

So Comey is going to testify in front of congress tomorrow.
Any odds on him taking the 5th?

[zxcvbob]

So Comey is going to testify in front of congress tomorrow.
Any odds on him taking the 5th?

That would be good.  I can't think of anything he could say that would be more damaging.  (maybe he's reading APS and will realize what a good idea it is)

[Angel Eyes]

[freakazoid]

http://www.snopes.com/guccifer-missing-from-jail-cell

So they say it's fake because "authorities" at the jail told them so?

[Ben]

Comey is about to testify. I think I'm going to skip it and read the Executive Summary. For my health.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. It looks like "careless" is the "is" of the new Clinton era. If you're an unlucky working stiff with a clearance, "careless" is a word used to prosecute you. If you're special, "careless" is your defense.

[TommyGunn]

So Comey is going to testify in front of congress tomorrow.
Any odds on him taking the 5th?

To his credit, he hasn't.
Some of the republicans are tearing him a new *******.
Many of the demorats are kissing his hand.
And Comey is spinning his testimony fast enough to power a 757.

[Ben]

Fox Business is broadcasting the hearing, so I started listening through parts on the buffer on my Sirius radio (still can't take listening to the whole thing).

Holy spin doctor, Batman! I'm losing my benefit of the doubt for Comey. Especially one particular question he continually ducked and dodged: "If you had evidence that someone applying for an FBI position mishandled classified data in the past, would you hire them?" Totally danced around it. Of course he would never hire them.

Also, for the sake of argument, let's say there is nothing to criminally prosecute. He still won't come out and directly say that there would be non-criminal punishment, such as being banned from clearance for life. He keeps talking about "reprimands".

EDIT: Oh hell. He also said that he doesn't believe Clinton is sophisticated enough to know what a classified header looks like, which is one of the reasons he didn't recommend prosecution. The SECSTATE (also former Senator) is unable to identify clearly marked classified material? If it doen't mean prosecution, it should certainly mean incompetence and inability to do any job of significance.

Also the dem defense seems to be that others got away with it, so Hillary should too. One dem said, "Colin Powell had a private email address and he was able to email anyone on the Internet with it. He even said so in his book." These are the people we elect.

[RoadKingLarry]

I tried watching it, the dry heaves it gave me made me change channels.

[Ben]

I've just read that Clinton's interview with the FBI was neither recorded, nor under oath.

Saving this info in case I'm ever interviewed by the FBI for severely breaching national security.

[roo_ster]

I've just read that Clinton's interview with the FBI was neither recorded, nor under oath.

Saving this info in case I'm ever interviewed by the FBI for severely breaching national security.

If you are innocent, record it.  FBI policy was and may still be not to record an interview.

The FBI has then used its agents' notes vs subjects' recollections of interviews in court to prosecute perjury.  Ask Martha Stewart about that.

[Ben]

The FBI has then used its agents' notes vs subjects' recollections of interviews in court to prosecute perjury.  Ask Martha Stewart about that.

Just don't ask Hillary, because apparently perjury doesn't count if it's her, even though we now have more than enough documented evidence.

[RoadKingLarry]

Just don't ask Hillary, because apparently perjury doesn't count if it's her, even though we now have more than enough documented evidence.

Is it still perjury if they are not under oath?

[Balog]

Is it still perjury if they are not under oath?

Not perjury, but lying to the feds is considered a crime. Obstruction maybe?

[Ben]

Is it still perjury if they are not under oath?

My understanding is that she was under oath during another questioning (before a congressional committee?), where she said, "I never slept with that woman...." err, I mean, "I never knowingly had classified material".

[dm1333]

Fox Business is broadcasting the hearing, so I started listening through parts on the buffer on my Sirius radio (still can't take listening to the whole thing).

Holy spin doctor, Batman! I'm losing my benefit of the doubt for Comey. Especially one particular question he continually ducked and dodged: "If you had evidence that someone applying for an FBI position mishandled classified data in the past, would you hire them?" Totally danced around it. Of course he would never hire them.

Also, for the sake of argument, let's say there is nothing to criminally prosecute. He still won't come out and directly say that there would be non-criminal punishment, such as being banned from clearance for life. He keeps talking about "reprimands".

EDIT: Oh hell. He also said that he doesn't believe Clinton is sophisticated enough to know what a classified header looks like, which is one of the reasons he didn't recommend prosecution. The SECSTATE (also former Senator) is unable to identify clearly marked classified material? If it doen't mean prosecution, it should certainly mean incompetence and inability to do any job of significance.

Also the dem defense seems to be that others got away with it, so Hillary should too. One dem said, "Colin Powell had a private email address and he was able to email anyone on the Internet with it. He even said so in his book." These are the people we elect.

As Secretary of State she had original classification authority.  You would think she would have received some training to go along with that.  Maybe I'm just expecting too much. 

On a side note, the Clinton Defense is being spun up already by MAJ Jason Brezler.  His story is here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/07/marines-defense-for-disseminating-classified-information-will-cite-hillary-clintons-case/

[RoadKingLarry]

On the surface it looks lime Comey is hard in the tank for Clinton. But, if you take a second to think about his statements he lays it out like she is a blithering idiot that is incapable of knowing right from wrong.
I don't know if it is his intent but if the Trump team is on the ball there are hours and hours of 30 second sound bites to use against Hillary.

[Ben]

So it turns out all the FBI agents directly involved in the investigation had to sign non-disclosure agreements. I don't know what the normal protocols are, but it appears it's very unusual.

I'm betting any agent that talks won't escape prosecution on the "careless" defense.

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/07/13/remember-when-the-fbis-hillary-investigation-was-going-to-be-super-transparent-about-that/

[Hawkmoon]

Judge Napolitano has just weighed in:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/fbi-exoneration-of-hillary-clinton-raises-disturbi/

[Fly320s]

Too many 'what ifs' in that article.  Tell Napolitano to get to the point and make an opinion.

[TommyGunn]

Judge Napolitano has just weighed in:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/fbi-exoneration-of-hillary-clinton-raises-disturbi/

Too many 'what ifs' in that article.  Tell Napolitano to get to the point and make an opinion.

I was going to say what Fly320s said.   Buncha  "what ifs?"     However hum.