Hillary Found Innocent by FBI Investigation

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one is questioning whether presumption of innocence is a legal right. Fine for Mrs Clinton to be acquitted (found not guilty) she would need to face trail which she has not. There is a third scenario according to Scots law, that being not proven.

You can quibble with semantics all day long but if the FBI says she did nothing wrong in a legal sense then, not being charged, she is logically innocent of charges that were never made. So she is innocent.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can quibble with semantics all day long but if the FBI says she did nothing wrong in a legal sense then, not being charged, she is logically innocent of charges that were never made. So she is innocent.

In other words, as long as it is fixed you will always be innocent.

Originally posted by Eladar
In other words, as long as it is fixed you will always be innocent.

Stop it, just stop it!

I've finally seen the light. All of these scandals over the years have proven nothing. It's all part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Hillary and Bill are as pure as the white driven snow.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
😛😀

The only thing he did was draw attention to the Fact that Hillary's #1 aide committed perjury, lied to the FBI, withheld a device on which she used to store 650,000 confidential/classified e-mails - a device and e-mails she shared with her estranged pedophile husband who has no security clearance.

If nothing else, as Comey pointed out, Hillary was careless as hell (breaking those laws like that) and demonstrated piss-poor judgment that endangered National Security.

The not so United States is a Banana Republic.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can quibble with semantics all day long but if the FBI says she did nothing wrong in a legal sense then, not being charged, she is logically innocent of charges that were never made. So she is innocent.

Actually the FBI said nothing of the sort, all the FBI stated was that their position from July had not changed. Mrs Clinton was grossly negligent but they found no evidence of criminality. This does not make her innocent. All it means is that the FBI have found no evidence of criminality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually the FBI said nothing of the sort, all the FBI stated was that their position from July had not changed. Mrs Clinton was grossly negligent but they found no evidence of criminality. This does not make her innocent. All it means is that the FBI have found no evidence of criminality.

The FBI never claimed or stated HRC was "grossly negligent".

Originally posted by no1marauder
The FBI never claimed or stated HRC was "grossly negligent".

careless or words to that effect, it amounts to the same thing, I just happen to be more articulate than Mr. Comey.

Originally posted by whodey
The only thing he did was draw attention to the Fact that Hillary's #1 aide committed perjury, lied to the FBI, withheld a device on which she used to store 650,000 confidential/classified e-mails - a device and e-mails she shared with her estranged pedophile husband who has no security clearance.

If nothing else, as Comey pointed out, Hillary was careles ...[text shortened]... or judgment that endangered National Security.

The not so United States is a Banana Republic.

Don't worry whodey. This is only the beggining of many investigations of which this can only get in the way of. These investigations will have the greatest impact when there is no one in office to parden her. If Trump wins she will loose everything. If she wins the country will loose everything. Unfurtunately Jill Stein does not have a chance so we gotta back Trump and his big time Republican vp choice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
careless or words to that effect, it amounts to the same thing, I just happen to be more articulate than Mr. Comey.

No it doesn't. You just happen to be more ignorant of the law then Mr. Comey.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
😛😀

They did no such thing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No it doesn't. You just happen to be more ignorant of the law then Mr. Comey.

He said she was "extremely careless."
I don't know that there is a legal distinction between the two, as Comey cited not indicting her on the basis of being unable to determine intent...
a first.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The FBI never claimed or stated HRC was "grossly negligent".

Right, she was grossly careless, a big distinction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
He said she was "extremely careless."
I don't know that there is a legal distinction between the two, as Comey cited not indicting her on the basis of being unable to determine intent...
a first.

There is a huuuuuuge difference between being careless and negligent. If you do something stupid that may cost lives and your last name is not Clinton, it's negligence, but if it is Clinton, it's only carelessness.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
He said she was "extremely careless."
I don't know that there is a legal distinction between the two, as Comey cited not indicting her on the basis of being unable to determine intent...
a first.

I covered this in a thread 4 months ago but it doesn't seem to have sunk into the craniums of the right wingers here (nothing that clashes with their preconceived ideas based on their ideological preferences every seems to). I suppose I'll have to dig up the relevant post AGAIN.

EDIT: It is discussed in the "No indictment!" thread. My post on p. 5 is the short version:

From Comey's statement:

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.

Nor is "carelessness" even "extreme carelessness" equal to "gross negligence". Criminal gross negligence has the requirement that the disregard be "willful" and also that there be a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care. There is no evidence of "willfulness" and prior Secretaries of State also used private e-mail accounts.

Unbiased legal experts have said for months that this was not a case that was going to lead to any criminal charges.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/no-indictment.169323/page-5

EDIT2: For clarification, the paragraph starting with "In looking back" is from Comey's statement; the rest is my contribution.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I covered this in a thread 4 months ago but it doesn't seem to have sunk into the craniums of the right wingers here (nothing that clashes with their preconceived ideas based on their ideological preferences every seems to). I suppose I'll have to dig up the relevant post AGAIN.

EDIT: It is discussed in the "No indictment!" thread. My post on p. 5 is ...[text shortened]... aragraph starting with "In looking back" is from Comey's statement; the rest is my contribution.

but I was not talking about criminal gross negligence I was simply talking about gross negligence as in being extremely careless.

negligence
failure to take proper care over something.
synonyms: carelessness, lack of care, lack of proper care and attention.

One would hope that Mr Comey does know more about the law than me, he was after all a lawyer. Its a pity he is not as articulate though. 😵