Hillary Clinton

FBI Director Recommends Against Prosecuting Hillary Clinton Over Email Actions

Slams her and staff for gross negligence and carelessness.

|

MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA/Newscom

FBI Director James Comey has just recommended that Hillary Clinton not be subject to criminal prosecution for using poorly secured private email servers while secretary of state.

This isn't to say that Comey went easy of the presumptive Democratic Party nominee. He called here "extremely careless" in how she handled information (including more than a half-dozen "top secret" emails) and stressed that "this is not to suggest that an individual in similar circumstances would not face" charges." Rather, the widely respected Comey said that in his view, it was unlikely that any sort of criminal case would win a conviction, as they need more proof of malicious motive.

From his official statement:

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. 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. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" e-mails).

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.

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.

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.

From USA Today's account:

The FBI recommended Tuesday that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges over her use of private e-mail as secretary of state, even though she and aides were "extremely careless" in handling classified information.

Though there is evidence Clinton acted improperly—and may have been hacked—no prosecutor would bring a case because there is no evidence she acted intentionally, FBI Director James Comey said.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch had previously announced that she almost certainly follow the FBI's recommendation, so that means this is the end of the line for what had emerged as one of the GOP's/anti-Clinton hail marys—that she would be indicted and have to drop out of the presidential race.

At the same time, from a purely political POV, Comey's comments leave the Trump campaign and others with plenty of ammunition to fire at Clinton. Clearly, Clinton will have to face up to her repeated assertions that she never sent or received any classified information via her private server. At best, she's so naive that she can't be taken seriously as a diplomat; at worst, she's simply lying. To the extent that her criticisms (many of them accurate, to be sure) of Donald Trump revolve around his temperament and judgment, this episode hardly covers her in glory.

What is most likely is that this outcome will simply harden the divide between the 40 percent (plus or minus) who prefer Hillary and the 40 percent (plus or minus) who prefer The Donald. Yes, Clinton has arguably the best resume of all time to assume the presidency. And yet she has effectively no vision for the country, other than a kinda-sorta status quo with whatever Barack Obama has been doing. While Obama may be popular these days, but about two-thirds of us think the country is going in the wrong direction. 

As important, the email episode will likely further erode trust and confidence in government and politicians. From a libertarian perspective, that seems like a good thing, but as I've noted before, lack of faith in government often translates into calls for more regulation and controls.

Shucks, if only there were some sort of alternative way of thinking about politics and goverment? If only…

NEXT: "The Scandal of K-12 Education" - and How To Fix It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Everyone knew this was coming.

    1. I guess if you accidentally break the law it’s all good.

      1. If only this was the standard for everyone, rather than just the politically connected.

        1. gross negligence and carelessness == felonies for you and I

          1. He even explained the definition of gross negligence at the beginning of the conference and made it a point to say that the standard of the law was regardless of intent.

            Then he said she wouldn’t face charges because there was no evidence of intent.

            The whole thing is fucking bizarre. He literally laid out everything she did wrong, and then said there was no case. It’s so fucked.

            1. I get the feeling there was no choice on his part and he was pushing the line as far as he could.

              1. Yeah, it sort of seems that way, doesn’t it?

              2. Yeah I was thinking that also. That he was basically saying that he wants to indict but his hands are tied.

              3. He could resign.

                1. I expect that will be coming shortly.

                2. I think it’s the converse. I think his Clinton-crony boss told him that if he did recommend indictment, that he should have his resignation letter typed up.

              4. So much for the foolish predictions on this site that Mrs. Clinton would be indicted, As Comey said, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring such charges. I’m now confused, however, about what charges “reasonable” prosecutors bring in the United States. Is such a standard workable, or even rational?

                For example, individuals across the country have been charged with crimes for writing anti-bank slogans on the sidewalk with chalk, and one can imagine the complaints of various undesirable elements to the effect that such charges are not “reasonable.” The author of a shocking Mohammed parody film was charged with crimes in California, after Hillary Clinton assured the Arab world he would be punished. Was that “reasonable,” or simply necessary? And let’s not forget America’s leading criminal “satire” case, documented at:

                https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

                News items on that case reveal that it was prosecuted as a special, personal favor to a New York University department chairman; the NYTimes even quotes the chairman himself as boasting of the special treatment he was given, on account of his contacts with the FBI, who made sure he got such treatment at the Manhattan D.A.’s office. And that’s precisely how such cases should be brought.

                So again, I’m confused about the “no reasonable prosecutor” statement: this sounds like a new standard, it is certainly not wise, and one must hope that it will be not be followed in every case.

                1. /adds string ‘raphaelgolb’ to reasonable content block list.

                  1. Yes indeed, something that’s a bit too reasonable should certainly be blocked. Here are the exact words in the NYTimes: the NYU department chairman “went to the F.B.I., contacting an agent he had advised on a prior case. “You know how the F.B.I. says, ‘once you’re one of ours, you’re always one of ours?’ ” he said. “It’s totally true. They told me the assistant D.A. to call. ‘Tell him you spoke to us.’ ” This is how cases (at least criminal “satire” cases) are, and should be, prosecuted in America, not through some kind of delicate “reasonableness” standard. Incidentally, the same department chairman also appears to have testified at the trial that “nobody reads” NYU’s faculty code of conduct. That, again, is exactly how it should be in our great nation. Who has time to waste on such things?

              5. How could there have been no choice on his part? What’s the worst that would have happened? He would have been fired?

                1. this is the Clintons… he would have just disappeared. Which is likely what will happen anyway, but it will be more figurative than literal.

                2. The worst that would’ve happened would’ve been that he’d henceforth be forever known as someone who interfered w a prez election, rather than letting the voters make up their own minds.

            2. Isn’t it the DoJ’s job to determine what the standard of the law is, and the FBI’s job to give the DoJ facts?

            3. 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.

              By saying this, he is saying that Hillary got away with it because of who she is. But you, mere citizen should not take this as a license to do the same thing yourself.

            4. Hilary Clinton was held to the Gregory Standard.

              “Yes, we all saw David Gregory on national television in possession of a 30-round magazine banned in D.C., but we aren’t going to prosecute because he’s One Of Ours.”

            5. What he said was, “Suck it, Democrats, you’re stuck with Hillary. I’m telling the world we’re letting her off because of who she is, convicting her in all but law, & I’m not doing you the favor of making it easy to get rid of her as a prez candidate wo you can sub someone w/o such high negatives.”

          2. no doubt. if I had done 1/10th of what she did I’d already be under gitmo getting whatever is worse than water boarding. I can’t even plug a USB drive into my work computer on the UNCLASS network without having my network port shut down, and having IT and Security anal probe me….

        2. “this is not to suggest that an individual in similar circumstances would not face” charges.”

          1. Yea, I couldn’t believe it when I heard that. That is the government equivalent of do as we say, not as we do.

            1. David Burge
              ?@iowahawkblog

              Yes, the same FBI that is about to let Hillary skate is the same one that prosecuted hundreds of teenagers for downloading music.

              1. The man is a National Treasure.

              2. Comey is obviously above reproach.

                He’ll prosecute defenseless teenagers, not matter how naive or even innocent they may be.

              3. New tip for those downloading teens. “I didn’t _intend_ to download that song.”

                1. “I thought I was just clicking a link to STREAM the song, which is perfectly legal. Then my computer suddenly just started downloading it and I didn’t know how to stop it. I didn’t _intend_ to download that song. If the future president can get out of punishment because she was simply technologically incompetent, why can’t I??

            2. Oh boy.

          2. That’s almost like an admission of favoritism.

          3. “Laws are for peasants, not the nobility.”

            1. That is the truth in this appalling case.

          4. Thomas Drake already has faced charges . There was nothing malicious about Drake inadvertently bringing home a few pages from work, but prosecutors ruined his life over it.

      2. One law for me, other laws for thee.

      3. The rule of law is officially over in the US. I look forward to the eventual revolution.

        1. Come now, everyone knows that the “rule of law” is merely a political slogan and that its application in this great nation would prevent prosecutors from doing their job. For example, the so-called First Amendment is still commonly considered to be the “law,” but who would dare to defend the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” filed by a single, isolated, liberal judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. “The rule of law is officially over in the US. I look forward to the eventual revolution.”

          As do I… as do I.

    2. Just like everyone knows that, in about a year or so, there will be an very high-profile prosecution of some well-known, semi-elite, and controversial person on similar charges. Kind of like Martha Stewart got it after Bill beat his perjury rap.

      TPTB need to reinforce the fact that the laws still apply to the little people.

  2. Though there is evidence Clinton acted improperly?and may have been hacked?no prosecutor would bring a case because there is no evidence she acted intentionally, FBI Director James Comey said.

    (a) There is plenty of evidence she acted intentionally.

    (b) Some of the crimes at issue are strict liability crimes – no intentionality needed.

    1. That’s just like your opinion man.

      1. Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I’ll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger ’til it goes “click.”

        -Donald Trump

    2. No – she accidentally set up an email server to hide her correspondence as Secretary of State. If she had intentionally set up that private server, she would be in big trouble.

      1. Nothing to see here, fake scandal, move along.

      2. It was totally accidental! She , like, said, “I need email!”

        But a state department’s IT people were slow to return her calls, so she improvised!

        1. They make it out like she was inspector general or a special prosecutor or some sort of unwanted outsider. She was the goddamn Secretary of State. The Department bureaucracy would have done anything short of blatantly violating the black letter of the law. Shit, they bend over fucking backwards for GS-15s and SESes all the time. Are we seriously supposed to believe that they were unhelpful to their own fucking Secretary?

          1. Thats why they’re all pleading the fifth. Because as “little people” they’d get the book thrown at them. Also as “little people” they were likely warned of the consequences of rolling over on their “betters”.

        2. Not that it has any bearing on criminal culpability. You don’t get to violate the law just because people were mean to you.

        3. Look, email servers just spontaneously pop into existence sometimes. It just happens.

          1. While theoretically possible, Brian Cox assures me that entropy is a far more prevalent state of existence.

          2. In some random dude’s bathroom in Colorado (or something), to wit. It just happens! We’ve all been there!

    3. As if she accidently used her own private server? Accidently hired someone to set it up?

      Obama protecting democrats at all costs, the biggest being credibility.

      1. No. Accidentally, not intentionally, did not know that setting up such a server was in violation of the policies she was responsible for.

        She signed off on them. — But she signed off on all sorts of things without having read and understood every last iota, trusting her aides to have done the hard work. It was all their fault!

        She had briefings on the very subject. — But she was too busy with important vital other stuff to pay attention to such minutiae. It was up to her aides to handle such trivia. It was all their fault!

    4. Yes, as a former attorney with prosecution experience, I can tell you what you just saw today is fascism in action. You vote for it. You accept it. Or you fight it.

  3. stressed that “this is not to suggest that an individual in similar circumstances would not face” charges

    Pretty blatant that she got off because she’s too big to jail.

    1. You have to be shitting me. He really said that? That’s basically an announcement that the law doesn’t apply to the Clintons.

      1. He didn’t say charges here. Some language about “sanctions”….

      2. Yes, he really said that.

      3. He said “consequences” and mentioned security sanctions. He didn’t say “charges.”

    2. At least someone in government has finally admitted that laws do not apply equally to everyone. Everyone is equal, but some hogs are more equal.

    3. Stop fat shaming. Her hips are plenty narrow enough to fit through a jail door.

    4. Rule of Law is dead.

      America is turning into a Banana Republic.

  4. This isn’t to say that Comey went easy of the presumptive Democratic Party nominee.

    Question for any lawyers around: are there no negligence charges for this kind of thing? It sounded like Comey said they simply didn’t find clear evidence for intent.

    1. Well, he’s just lying about “no evidence of intent”. There’s plenty of evidence of intent.

      Plus, some of the statutes she violated are strict liability statutes – no intent needed.

      1. Thanks. Didn’t refresh before I posted.

        Re: intent… So the intent to set up the server was enough? Or was Comey referring to an intent to harm the country by doing so? Or is that the strict liability portion?

        1. So the intent to set up the server was enough?

          Yes.

          Or was Comey referring to an intent to harm the country by doing so?

          Irrelevant to many if not all of the potential charges.

          1. Not to mention that Clinton stonewalled the investigation. Yet Martha Stewart went to jail, despite them not being able to prove she did anything wrong, but simply because they felt she was less than fully cooperative with the investigation.

            1. Martha was small potatoes!

              1. Yeah and realize this. If Martha Stewart is “little people” they we’re really really insignificant people.

    2. no evidence of intent even though Huma told them their was intent to hid the information from the government and they successfully did. I wonder if I wipe all of my accounting clean the IRS will accept that I made no money this year despite what my bank account says

      1. If you can make a big enough donation to the Hillary campaign, you can probably get away with it. Otherwise, prepare to live in a cage for a while.

    3. 18 USC 793(f)

      (f) 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, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer?
      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


      1. Peter Slen
        HOST: DOES THERE HAVE TO BE INTENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE?
        00:03:12

        Worth watching (from 3m->forward)

        1. interestingly – same guy in May

          DiGenova on email investigation: ‘The fix is in’
          posted at 8:01 pm on May 17, 2016 by Larry O’Connor

          Bad news for people reading the tea leaves and trying to discern whether Hillary Clinton will be brought up on federal charges over her use of an unsecured, personal email server for official government business during her four-year tenure as Secretary of State.

          Former US Attorney for the District of Columbia Joe diGenova unloaded on the Department of Justice in a radio interview yesterday proclaiming no charges will be brought against Clinton because “the fix is in.”

          “There have been leaks from the Justice Department that willfulness has not been established and that there is scant evidence of any illegal conduct. That is coming from the national security section of the Justice Department and that is a sign that the fix is in on any criminal case against Hillary and her aids.”

          Also worth listening to for more insight into the current reporting on the subject. This guy basically called the result 2 months ago. (*not just the non-charges, but the reasons for non-charges)

          1. Great find! Thanks for the links ^_^ What a soothsayer Joe is (or at least a man with great contacts into the FBI/DOJ).

  5. This is my shocked face.

  6. How does one unintentionally set up a private email server in your own house?

    Oh, yeah, FYTH.

  7. “Sorry James, I’m just too fucking stupid to understand how classified information and emails work.”
    “Well clearly you didn’t intend to do anything then.”

    Is not how this would’ve gone for a normal person.

  8. “Careless”? What, like Kaitlin Jenner fatal car accident careless or more like Bill Clinton perjury careless?

    1. More like Bill Cosby accidentally-roofied-her-drink careless.

      1. +1 “Fast Cosby”

  9. Yes, yes, we all knew there was zero chance a Democratic DoJ was going to prosecute the Democratic nominee in an election year where Donald Trump is the alternative.

    That being said, Comey basically made it abundantly clear that Clinton lied repeatedly to the American people regarding the severity of her “mistakes” and is only escaping prosecution because the law is sufficiently nebulous to permit the well-connected to weasel out of it and thus make pursuing the case a waste of time.

    So it’s not legal, but it’s Clinton legal. No way for Team Blue to positively spin this in a way that doesn’t make them sound like Pravda.

    1. Fortunately for them, the American media is always happy to assume the role of Pravda when it suits their political beliefs.

      1. Unfortunately for us, however, is the fact that Americans believe the MSM far more than Russians believed Pravda.

        The MSM is far more talented at propaganda than Pravda, for one thing. Americans are far more gullible, for another.

    2. It’s also the difference between the American political system and a parliamentary system. Pull this shit in Britain or any of its political colonies and, as soon as the news became public, you would have been forced to resign in disgrace.

    3. No way for Team Blue to positively spin this

      o_O

      1. They will try mightily.

        Hopefully they will look ridiculously foolish while doing so as well.

    4. Horse shit. It will be spun as “Republican witch hunt for the win. Old news, nothing to see here.”

      In fact, it’s so bad that if a new batch of emails were to come out tomorrow with Hillary specifically ordering the private server to keep the Foundation-Graft-SOS connection secret, it would now be dismissed as “old news. Not this again.”

      Team Red is royally fucked.

      1. Yep. Swap “flyover America” for “Vichy America”.

        They won’t even keep up the pretense of pretending that we are their fellow countrymen.

    5. Here’s what’s going to happen. Clintonistas will mentally redact all the bits except for the parts that say charges won’t be filed and then call it a fake scandal. The media will abet them. This is the Clinton way.

  10. Goddam banana republic is what it is.

    1. “A banana republic, if you can keep it”

      1. *** stands to applaud; sits to weep ***

      2. Banana Republic?

        You’re using patriarchal phallic symbolism against the first woman Presidential candidate (and soon to be President!) in history!

      3. Swiss Servator:
        “A banana republic, if you can keep it”

        LOL

    2. More like a banana hammock republic

  11. I’ll come back in few minutes when there are few hundred comments to read

    1. Exactly what I do.

  12. I haz a surprise.

  13. “This is not to say that a prole could have gotten away with something like this, so don’t get any ideas.”

  14. there is no evidence she acted intentionally, FBI Director James Comey said.

    That’s not the standard. This doesn’t pass the smell test.

    1. I didn’t intend to cheat on my taxes, drive drunk, or burn down the town.

      1. #FloridaMandeposition

  15. I’m looking forward to the behind-the-scenes leaks that will inevitably come out over the next few months.

    1. I dunno. I’m guessing that Comey and Lynch will stay on under a Hillary administration, which means anyone lower down the chain will be betting their career, if not their freedom, on leaking. Who knows if any FBI types have the stones for that?

      1. Nope – I’ll put my money on the FBI and security agencies leaking like a sieve. Wikileaks and the Russians will join the fun too.

        I lived under those security rules long ago – it’s infuriating to see the rules for me but not for thee.

        1. …isn’t Wikileaks already starting to dump a few things out into the public?

        2. The leaks won’t do a damn thing.

          The media will:

          1) ignore the leaks
          2) spin the leaks that can’t be ignored

          Enjoy President Hillary Clinton, Crook-in-Chief’s tenure for the next 8 years.

      2. The banality of evil strikes again.

        People have mortgage payments, tuition bills, and retirements to consider. Eschewing evil and moral consideration are much lower priorities.

        There aren’t many Snowdens because, well, look what happens to them.

      3. If Comey is part of the Clinton administration, people should begin to reference him as a eunich because that’s what he will be….

    2. Phaik skandul. Old news. Time to move on.

      Anyway, at this point, what difference does it make?

    3. Yep, and the incredible, spiteful prosecution of those whistleblowers as well…

  16. Is there chance that if the Republicans had nominated someone else and Bernie hadn’t done so well in the primaries, the outcome would be different? Indicting her might be the just course of action, but the consequences would be too terrible.

    1. If Trump should win, he should have the Clintons executed. Just for shits and giggles.

  17. Anyone else would already be strung up by their balls in a federal prison for this.

    I’m thinking that the people saying this was all a gigantic farce to rub it in the peasantry’s face that there’s a separate set of rules for our political overlords had the right idea.

  18. So what would happen if a “R” did this, or just a normal person with security clearance? Openly getting around multiple federal laws….

    1. That depends. How much has that person donated to the Clinton Global Initiative?

    2. Depends on the R and who is president and what exactly you mean by “this”. The scenario where there is a Republican secretary of state in the Obama administration is a bit far fetched.

      Maybe not as bad as this, but there were some shenanigans in the Bush administration involving similar things.

      1. Here’s the problem. I’m perfectly fine with saying that Colin Powell’s behavior as Secretary of State should preclude him from running for President.

        It sure as hell should have Precluded Hillary from doing so.

    3. Go take the email server from your place of work and set it up in your house. Don’t keep any backups and then wipe it ‘like with a cloth’. See what happens. There’s your answer.

  19. What a relief. Now we can get past this and on to more important matters.

    1. Transgender bathrooms ftw

      1. No one intends to use one bathroom over the other.

    2. Trump’s latest outrageous tweet.

  20. Rather, the widely respected Comey said that in his view, it was unlikely that any sort of criminal case would win a conviction, as they need more proof of malicious motive.

    Oh, so mens rea is still a thing; provided you’re a card carrying member of the Overclass.

    also- “widely respected”?

    1. I think “formerly widely respected” is more accurate.

      1. widely respected well-compensated…

        Fixed

      2. You beat me to it. +1.

    2. Yes, from now on, mens rea is the standard for ALL federal prosecutions.

      tee-hee

    3. “widely respected”

      If you believe that an incorruptible person can rise to the top of a govt bureaucracy. Something about camels through the eye of needles seems apt.

    4. “Widely respected” means that he followed the ruling class’s rules.

    5. I think he became ‘widely respected’ by conspicuously prosecuting Republicans even though he was nominated by President Bush.

    6. I saw plenty of conservatives treat him with respect before this morning. A major source of optimism was the thought that Comey wouldn’t bow to the administration’s political pressure.

  21. Well I’m just glad we can all put this behind us and it won’t have any impact on how people perceive the integrity of Federal Government.

    1. I was a little worried that I might have to respect the feds a little if they actually indicted her. Thankfully their integrity remains at zero.

      1. Nope, integrity for all intents and purposes should now be at negative levels.

  22. …and then Comey went on to say that, come to think of it, there’s no evidence Snowden had criminal intent either…ha ha just kidding

    1. Exactly. The idea that Comey is highly respected is laughable.

  23. This isn’t to say that Comey went easy of the presumptive Democratic Party nominee.

    You’ve got to be joking, right Nick?

    1. The screaming headlines will be “EXONERATED!!!!!”

  24. I would gladly see virtually anyone else in office – Johnson, Trump, Sanders, Jill Stein, Edwin Edwards, anyone – if it meant this gangster in pantsuits finally had to face charges. The Clintons do what they do because they correctly believe that they can brazenly break the law with impunity.

    Amidst any number of other depressing signs of the decline of the republic, the fact that the absurdly corrupt Clinton family is simply above the law is the most depressing, and the most alarming sign of the dying nature of the American experiment.

    1. You would enjoy this gem from the Z-Man. Never do business with con-men…

      http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=7955

    2. Agreed. Trump is horrible, but people need to wake up and realize just how corrupt and monstrous the Clintons really are. If they had a little r next to their names you know damn were they would not receive such favorable treatment.

      1. I’m no Trump fan, but Hillary is so much worse. She has to be stopped, period. Should Trump win, he should railroad the Clintons into prison anyway.

    3. I’d like to see Trump step down in favor of someone of his own choosing. Instead of a loser candidate, he’d be a kingmaker. I think he’d much prefer that role. Since he would not choose an establishment candidate, who might that be? I think he would be OK with his daughter, Ivanka. If he *was* really “crazy like a fox” as some of his supporters like to pretend, this would be an incredible move. More likely, he’ll just crash and burn and claim he was cheated.

      1. And at this point how could a claim he was cheated actually be refuted?

        When the fix is in the fix is in.

      2. Based on current polling, how is he a loser candidate?

  25. Isn’t there also (presumably) a public corruption investigation that wasn’t addressed by Comey today?

    1. Sure there is.

  26. E-mail Barbie says, “Security is HARD.”

    1. The republicains, if they were smart would make one hell of a campaign add out of this idea.

  27. Trump can easily turn this into a positive for him. Because now he’s not just running against “crooked Hillary”, he’s running against a corrupt system that has a different set of rules for the elites.

    1. I think he already started days ago.

    2. Yep, Crooked Hillary is now baked in.

  28. The Republic is Dead! Long live the Republic!

    1. The Republic is Dead! Long live the Banana Republic!

  29. So… how long before some career FBI guy goes all Deep Throat and starts revealing how much the Obama admin leaned on this investigation?

    I mean, it ain’t a coincidence this happened the same day Obama is going to campaign in NC for Hillary- they want to keep his hands clean. And while finding a paper to REPORT this information may be next to impossible (protect the great one!) it’s probably out there. Should be interesting for the historians of 100 years from now, if nothing else.

    1. some career FBI guy goes all Deep Throat

      And he’ll be standing down in that parking garage talking to who exactly? Nobody in the mainstream press wants to risk handing Trump the White House.

      1. I think it would be easier to find a reporter than a paper to publish it, actually. There is going to be some young reporter who goes, “Fuck it. Even if this helps Trump, I’M the next Woodward and have a great career.”

        Finding a paper who doesn’t stick it all on Page A16, however…

        1. The NYT is the one that broke the email story to begin with.

        2. Go back and look at the Watergate timeline. The story was not getting traction up for a long time. Nixon cruised through his reelection and it wasn’t until afterwards and over two years after the Watergate break in that Nixon resigned.

      2. And he’ll be standing down in that parking garage talking to who exactly?

        Alex Jones maybe?

      3. The only way that story gets written would be to praise the Obama White House for doing what is best for us drones.

  30. Comey’s a tool. You can not trust law enforcement on any level in this country. Mean while,if ‘regular folk’ deposit or with drawl their money in a non government approved way they could go to jail.

    1. That’s not fair…maybe the government will just steal the money!

  31. “I also will say this: A sternly worded memo of concern will be placed in Mrs Clinton’s personnel file for thirty days. Assuming no further breaches occur, the memo will be removed, and replaced with a commendation. Are you happy, now?”

  32. FBI Director James Comey has just recommended that Hillary Clinton not be subject to criminal prosecution for using poorly secured private email servers while secretary of state.

    I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.

  33. It’s like my asshole wants to vomit.

    1. Stick your finger in there, you’ll feel better afterwards.

      1. That’s your answer to everything.

    2. That’s your answer to everything.

  34. And we can all look forward to being shrilly lectured by progs about how this proves that nothing wrong was done.

    This is a truly grim day for America.

    1. Another date which will live in infamy.

    2. I dare you to go to DU right now. Triple dog dare.

      1. You first.

        1. As my husband just said: “there is no crime in ‘COULDA BEEN’.

          Woulda, coulda, shoulda. But that doesn’t constitute criminal behavior.

          However, they CAN be expected to cling to these crumbs the way crumbs of toilet paper cling to their own asses after certain sittings upon the commode.

          CNN brings on the haters!

      2. Are you out you Vulcan mind!

      3. No. My FB feed is bad enough.

        1. Use the Unfollow, Luke.

    3. Yup. Any remaining hope I had for any integrity in government officials and the rule of law has been extinguished. It’s now crystal clear that we live in a banana republic every bit as corrupt, if not more so, than you’ll find in South America.

      Even fucking Brazil impeached Rousseff, for crissakes. We’re now looking up the standings at Brazil when it comes to the rule of law.

      1. Rule of law is dead. Just wait until that evil/incompetent cunt gets into the white house

        1. Long live the law of Rule! He who rules, has no laws

        2. Look what she got away with as Secretary of State and imagine the shit she’ll pull as President. Be sure to vote for somebody who has no chance at all of winning so you can feel good about yourself when she gets a phone, a pen and two or three Supreme Court justices plus lots of other judges and bureaucratic regulators.

          1. Be sure to vote for somebody who has no chance at all of winning so you can feel good about yourself when she gets a phone, a pen and two or three Supreme Court justices plus lots of other judges and bureaucratic regulators.

            See what I mean? People panic.They start voting for crooks because they are terrified what the worse crook will do, and lose sight of the fact that they are installing crooks in office. The political classes win, everyone else loses.

            1. Voting for the lesser of two evils (and I can’t even tell which one that is, this time) is still voting for evil. If people don’t start realizing that this election cycle, they never will.

              1. So wait for a non-evil savior who won’t offend your feelz. That guy was here a couple of millennia ago and they tell me he’ll be back one of these days.

                Meanwhile, I’ll vote for the evil who will have his every sneeze scrutinized by the media, government agency and the opposite party rather than the one all these supposed watchdogs ignore and cover for.

                1. Voting for the lesser of two evils is why we’re currently in a position where the next president will either be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Your metagame voting strategy has failed. Maybe you should try voting your conscience?

                  1. How do you know I’m not voting my conscience?

                    My conscience != your feelz.

                2. No worries, Homple. The failure of your nerve doesn’t make us think any the less of you! Enjoy Trump – he may have endorsed Hillary in the past, purchased influence from her, endorsed many of her political positions, and demonstrated contempt for civil rights, but at least he’s not her!

                  1. I rather expect you don’t think very much of me anyway, but I don’t mind.

            2. I’ve never voted for the lesser of two evils before. But that’s because they were pretty much the same and it wouldn’t make any difference in the end. In this case the disparity is too great for me to ignore. I’ll vote for the guy congress hates, rather than the neocon who they adore.

              Johnson is just the lesser of three evils. If I’m gonna protest vote, it would only be for somebody I can truly support.

          2. I put the chances that she’ll dissolve the senate at 50/50

      2. Yes, and people are going to jail there for all sorts of corruption. It would be really nice to see top officials going to jail here, but we’re never going to see that. Now all of them are absolutely convinced that they can do anything and get away with it.

    4. shrilly lectured by progs

      The younger they are, the less likely they are to be pro-Hillary. A good few of them are aware enough to recognize that Clinton is the quintessential example of privilege. Here she is, right before our eyes, the embodiment of all they claim to despise. Some of them haven’t been properly indoctrinated into doublethink yet.

      1. Doesn’t matter. They’ll vote for her anyway.

    5. Well, I think this may also push a few of the remaining Bernie people into a “Never Hillary” option.

      But, yeah, overall, it’s going to be a lot of, “Oh, just move on! That’s been resolved!” etc. etc. etc.

      My hope now is for the H. Clinton admin to be so bad that it makes Nixon look like a lightweight and makes it impossible for the media to ignore. Then, a sane R can take it in 2020, and the Dems are also a little screwed because of 4 years of a scandal fueled admin (My feeling is that Trump will humble the Rs, but now it will be the Dems who need to be taken down a peg)

      1. The worst part of it, that there is no way to get rid of after, is that she will stack SCOTUS with the most horrible progs imaginable. She will be 1000x worse than Obama. We will look fondly back on the good old day of Obama where nothing much happened outside of the healthcare system of 320 million people being completely fucked up. Obama really didn’t get much done after that. And his SCOTUS appointments are libertarians compared with the corrupt leftist trash Hillary will install. Imagine Obama and Lynch on SCOTUS. And add to that, you will now have a president who truly believes they are above the law. And she will not be called on anything, no matter what she does. The stage is already set for that. A lawless president. Libertarian fucking moment.

        1. You might vote for another candidate who is likely to be nominated by the GOP and has a chance of beating her if, you know, enough people vote for him.

      2. “My hope now is for the H. Clinton admin to be so bad that it makes Nixon look like a lightweight and makes it impossible for the media to ignore. ”

        Hahaha!! Have you been paying attention the past 7 years?

    6. Let’s all make sure to turn that around and say that it was also proven that Darren Wilson, the NYPD cops who choked Garner, and the several cops in the Baltimore PD did nothing wrong.

      1. What possible credible evidence is there against Wilson?

  35. this is just the FBI’s way of saying Republicans give up and never try anything against any Democrat again no matter how much evidence of wrong doing is shown because we just won’t prosecute so sit back and take it in the woopsidaisy.

    1. ^this^ and it will work. We are in for some really bad times.

  36. I mean, I didn’t actually expect her to be indicted, but actually coming out and saying words to the effect of, “I wouldn’t recommend prosecution in this particular case, but yeah, if someone else did this in the future we’d want to prosecute”? That I didn’t see coming. Other people should be prosecuted, but not Hillary Clinton, because FYTW.

    1. The killer for me was the methodical way he laid out the case against her at the beginning of the press conference: Citing the number of emails and email chains with various levels of classified information, noting that her multiple (!) servers could have been hacked, describing how serious these sorts of violations are…and then nothing. He really had me going for a few minutes there.

      1. I totally agree. I figured that there wouldn’t be an indictment. But I was floored with the utter contempt and duplicity of the entire exercise. And all this to say nothing about the timing of her questioning (mere days ago), Lynch’s meeting with Bill, etc.

        I almost wonder if Comey laid this case out, as some other commenters have noted here, as a way of indicating that this order came from elsewhere.

        I’m almost speechless.

    2. Yeah, I sometimes get tired with how predictable things have gotten. But this time, I was a little shocked. I’m still trying to wrap my head around Comey’s intentions.

  37. Watergate was tame compared to all the shit politicians get away with these days, and Nixon was forced to resign.

    Remember, if progs didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

    1. Watergate was tame by the standards of those days, too. You think Nixon did much of anything that Kennedy and Johnson didn’t do?

    2. Watergate was literally nothing compared to this. A couple of hacks botched a burglary. They didn’t compromise years worth of correspondence by the Secretary of State in order to monetize U.S. Foreign Policy.

  38. VINDICATION

  39. Hillary Clinton is a crook.

    1. C’mon Ken. You know you want to use your favorite word for this one.

  40. It’s good to be the Crown Princess.

  41. Obama is out campaigning with Hillary today – just a coincidence.

  42. This isn’t to say that Comey went easy of the presumptive Democratic Party nominee.

    Yes he did.

    1. A stern lecture she won’t soon forget!

      1. Fingers were wagged. In Nick’s mind this was almost waterboarding.

        1. Well, in the future, I’m sure Hillary will restrain the finger wagging towards Comey. Even though he wasted her time with such nonsense as an espionage investigation.

  43. BernieBro flipping out on Gawker:

    J.K. Trotter
    7/05/16 11:44am
    Holy shit. My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets and I literally screamed at her and hit the plate of chicken nuggets out of her hand. She started yelling and swearing at me and I slammed the door on her. I’m so distressed right now I don’t know what to do. I didn’t mean to do that to my mom but I’m literally in shock from the results tonight. I feel like I’m going to explode. Why the fucking fuck isn’t she getting indicted? This can’t be happening. I’m having a fucking breakdown. I don’t want to believe the world is so corrupt. I want a future to believe in. I want her to be go to prison and for Sanders to fix this broken country. I cannot fucking deal with this right now. It wasn’t supposed to be like this, I thought the FBI was breathing down her neck???? This is so fucked.

    1. Were you expecting some kind of sober legal-analysis?

      1. No, grumpy uncle complains-a-lot, I just thought it was funny.

        1. don’t be sourpuss. I thought it was funny too.

          now who wants candy?!

          1. Not me, man. You got any chicken nuggets?

          2. NOT CANDY, CAKE!!!!

            *whirls like a Dervish*

            1. Damn it, I almost just killed myself drinking a sip of water and laughing at that. Literally started choking. (Not literally in the Joe Biden sense. Actually, literally.)

      2. “I want a future to believe in. I want her to be go to prison and for Sanders to fix this broken country”

        I’m giving him 50% on this one.

        1. I think =

          “My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets and I literally screamed at her and hit the plate of chicken nuggets out of her hand”

          is pretty timeless

          1. Can anybody paint a better picture of a Bernout?

            1. is that Belgian or something?

          2. What is a dead chicken nugget may never die.

    2. What a wonderful cornucopia of political factions we have in this country…

    3. The grammar and punctuation is perfect for that level of anger. I’m impressed. Also, the chicken nuggets is a nice touch.

      1. I was hoping for some mention of a fedora.

        1. needed a juicebox…

    4. Always with the melodramatics for the millennial types…..

    5. That mentality is always worth a laugh.

      1. dammit

    6. He’ll be voting for Hillary in this November, though.

    7. These are the people Trump should be pursuing.

    8. My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets

      Don’t yell at the hand that feeds you. Also, get a job. And a haircut. And a fucking spine, too.

      1. Is that what the kids are calling a penis these days?

    9. My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets…

      Thanks, man. Now everyone in my office is looking at me wondering why I’m laughing so hard tears are streaming down my face.

  44. Expected, yet still infuriating. And with the house Dems resuming their full-retard push for more gun-control, it’s really going to be a depressing week.

    1. Ryan is bending over backwards to help this. The new Boehner, same as the old Boehner.

  45. Well, if there was a scintilla of doubt about whether rule of law is dead in this country, this decision removes it.

  46. Has anyone at the FBI noticed that Hillary Clinton took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, and she continues to do so now–even as she’s running for President?

    That’s kind of a big deal.

    1. “That wasn’t intentional, it wasn’t willful”

    2. Nobody who matters cares, Ken.

      In fact, most of Our Betters are probably quite admiring of the Clinton influence peddling/mony laundering machine, and wondering how they can replicate it for themselves.

      1. “The Obama Foundation”

      2. “The Empire experienced ever increasing levels of corruption, as officials were seduced by the gold the barbarian tribes could place in their purses….”- The chapter we are in in the history books.

    3. Only TEATHUGLIKKANZ and other retrograde meanies

    4. Only TEATHUGLIKKANZ and other retrograde meanies

      1. And the squirrels, apparently

  47. I don’t want to believe the world is so corrupt.

    Not the “world” junior- the GOVERNMENT.

    You’re standing at the edge of the abyss, looking into the face of libertarianism.

    Go ahead, JUMP.

  48. Comey has been held up a straight shooter. Even Judge Nap said he’s a good guy. He just proved he’s nothing but a stooge.

    1. Takes balls to deep-six your career based on principles and integrity. Guess we know what Comey’s packing.

      I guess he consoles himself with the fact that he issued some STRONGLY WORDED STATEMENTS affirming that she broke the law, even as he said that he wouldn’t recommend prosecution. See, he didn’t really participate in a coverup – after all, he did admit that what she did was illegal!

  49. You guys are missing the point of why she set up the private server… Sending classified documents is the least of her concern.

    It’s fairly obvious that there was a “pay to play” scheme going on here. That’s why she was quick to erase all of her personal emails. She sold political favors in exchange for donations to her foundation. And she just got away with it.

    1. Who are you calling “you guys”?

  50. Also, the chicken nuggets is a nice touch.

    No mac and cheese? That kid’s mom is a heartless monster.

    1. He’s on a low-carb, high-cloaca diet.

      1. “Nuggets make contain beaks, talons, and assholes”

        1. Why do you think they’re so tasty?

  51. Among the innumerable problems with Comey’s position is saying this, “Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level”, when we KNOW that many thousands of the emails weren’t turned over and the server was destroyed before it could be examined. The seven mentioned are just the ones Hillary’s people missed.

  52. I miss Nixon. As bad as he was, at least nobody died, he made people genuinely concerned about government’s abuse of power, and his own party stepped in to help force him out of office.

    The Dems of today are beyond repulsive, disgusting, corrupt people. It’s like Tammany Hall but without the protections/concern for Middle America.

    1. [cough]Vietnam[cough]

      1. Nixon presided over Vietnamization and the drawdown of US ground troops. American forces peaked in 1968, then steadily decreased. Nixon was president from 1969 to 1974.

      2. Meh. I was speaking “politics” not “policy”, but point taken.

      3. Vietnam was a war begun by one Donk president and greatly expanded by another. Nixon was hardly what you’d call a noninterventionist, but he did pursue peace talks, reduce American ground forces, and hand the war over to South Vietnam.

      4. I’m convinced that the Democrats really wanted to lose in ’68 – so the minute that Nixon took over they could blame him for the war they started.

    2. Dems like Republican Bush appointee James Comey?

      1. That just shows Comey is sufficiently pliant to remain in a position of power.

      2. Fuck off, shitstain.

      3. You’re having a lot of problems grasping this idea of a Washington ruling class that spans both parties aren’t you, champ?

        1. Hillary Clinton not being hauled of to prison because you are a partisan psychopath is not, however, sufficient evidence of that claim.

          1. Who said anything about prison? She’s entitled to a trial first, just like anyone else who broke the law.

            I’m so partisan, I said that I’d be thrilled to see anyone including Sanders or Stein elected president if it meant that this monsterously corrupt wretched excuse for a human being finally be brought up on charges for her brazen criminality. Go team!

            1. Of course you would. This is the year of the very strange phenomenon of people whose politics are primarily focused on economic theory, but who could be comfortable with socialism or laissez-faire but nothing in between.

              Of course you should realize that if Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein were the overwhelmingly likely Democratic nominee, they would be the ones being painted as monstrously corrupt. If Hillary is as bad as she’s been described for 25 years, then she must be exceptionally good at getting away with things. Like unbelievably so.

              1. Bullshit. I think Bernie Sanders is a drooling idiot who is wrong about virtually everything, but I don’t believe he’s corrupt. He’s a destructive leftist jackass, but he’s honest about it.

              2. If Hillary is as bad as she’s been described for 25 years, then she must be exceptionally good at getting away with things. Like unbelievably so.

                I’ll give credit where credit is due.

              3. Like unbelievably so.

                She’s been caught in so many instances of corruption and lies that at this point it’s pretty clear the Democratic Party has no interest in fielding non-corrupt candidates. Living in MA, this is no shock to me; look at Warren, Healey, Coakley and the steady stream of speakers who keep getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar or abusing their offices. The corruption of the Democratic party is so common place here that we call it business as usual.

                The reason the Democrats do this stuff is because they know that no matter how tyrannical or corrupt their candidates are, a viable number of voters will still cast votes for them.

                1. and the media really will just give them a pass (not always, depends on how secure the seat is for the party)

            2. If they caught an Army Specialist with a couple hundred classified messages on his home PC, he would be awaiting trial in a brig.

      4. Like Republicans are reliable orators for liberty or justice; cf. Roberts.

        Don’t kid yourself, Tony. Hill is guilty as hell and your party managed to skirt the charges. Congratulations, you are an inheritor and promulgator of rotten political corruption.

        1. It’s fine, Tony, really, it is. You’ve all the novelty and moral tenacity of a grapefruit; nobody here expects any more of you. But don’t you then expect to show up here and talk down to the plebes as if you hold the moral heights. You are a partisan apologist. Enjoy cashiering what little honor you have left on behalf of the Clintons.

          1. It figures a fruit like you deserves a fruity analogy.

            You know why I still keep the word faggot in my vocabulary? It’s not because I hate gay men, Tony. It’s because I despise faggoty twerps like you for whom political prestige is a refuge to hide the fact that the center of your moral being is a pithy, seedy husk of saccharine sentimentality and the rotted stench of corruption. It’s all lefties like you know: the fantasy of wishful thinking and the penchant for using real men, men with guns and badges and steel cages, to make it reality. That’s why you’re a faggot, Tony, because you are a thoroughgoing coward and a craven opportunist. But do enjoy crawling into bed with Hillary and doing your duty on that musty mantrap of hers. It’s not a job any man would enjoy, let alone a gay man, but a faggot like you will just have to stuff your face in there and get to work.

            1. Oh, and before you raise that limp saccharine mewl of homophobia in protest, you might find this of interest.

  53. I liked the part of the press conference about how her attorneys actually know how to “destroy” files on their computers; unlike her “I T team”.

  54. That corrupt cunt got off? Fuck her, fuck Comey, fuck the Government. They just made me realize I need to invest into a fireproof bunker…Rome will be burning in the near future. Fuckity fuck fuck.

  55. She merely tripped and her classified information went into that email server entirely by accident!

    1. Don’t forget the server appeared, fully-formed, from her brow; like Athena and Zeus.

  56. Tomorrow’s buried headline: “Clinton Aide Abedin Hospitalized for Sprained Tongue”

    1. ARGH! I did NOT need that image….thanks for nothing. GAH!

  57. So much butthurt over the fact that the only person standing between us and a Trump presidency isn’t being put in shackles because she failed to completely adequately protect us from government secrets.

    1. It’s weird that a dude who believes laws create morality suddenly doesn’t care about laws when the right principal is involved.

      1. Actually, it’s not weird at all, because you’re a total slimeball, Tony.

      2. Tony’s an “ends justify the means” guy.

      3. If I did believe that then why would I have a problem with the findings of the investigatory and law enforcement agencies of government?

        1. It’s obvious that you’re willing to let it go for the right person.

    2. I seem to remember a certain talking point that Republicans make government ineffective because they have no respect for its institutions. Apparently, that is now Democratic Party SOP.

      1. Has been for a while, actually. See, for example, any of Barry’s comments on the Supreme Court over the past seven years.

    3. I believe you hit the nail right on the head there, Tony. The pro-Trump talk from literally everyone in the comments on this site is becoming absolutely insufferable. Not to mention having to sit through article after article just holding Trump up as some kind of saving angel for America.

      Everyone here obviously loves Trump so much that they want to see innocent people, like the former SoS, in jail for doing nothing wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with rule of law, or equal rights. Those things are just an excuse to basically hand Trump a scepter and a crown.

      So disgusting, ugh. I just can’t.. I’m totally done with this Trump-fest.

      1. If you’re so not supportive of Trump then today’s events should be a great relief, which was my point.

        1. Keep punching that strawman, dingleberry, I’m sure he’s just about to hit the canvas.

          There couldn’t possibly exist in the human mind a dislike for Donald Trump AND a realization that Hillary Clinton is obscenely corrupt! Why, such a dichotomy would cause the most powerful AI to melt down!

          1. As long as you understand that one of them is going to be the next president.

            1. And? The rule of law and the accountability of public officials is much, much more important than one single election. It’s entirely possible to find Trump a blithering idiot whose potential presidency would be a disaster AND think that it’s more important to hold a supremely corrupt gangster accountable for her crimes.

              And I don’t find the prospect of a Hillary presidency any less repulsive than a Trump presidency. Hillary’s actually scarier since the media and the DC political establishment would remain in 24/7 attack mode against Trump instead of the vigorous cankle-licking they’ll gladly perform for Hillary.

              1. Ah yes, that famous coziness between Hillary and the media.

                1. Ah yes, that famous coziness between Hillary and the media.

                  Only CNN, MSNBC, and 3 of the major networks, plus the NYT, WaPo, and other major newspapers. Not much more than that.

              2. The important thing is to understand that if you were to cast a vote for Trump, intending to keep Hillary out, it would be interpreted by the political class as a scumbag like Trump makes a viable candidate. Similarly, if you were cast a vote for Hillary in order to keep Trump out of office, it would be interpreted by the political class as a scumbag like Clinton makes a viable candidate.

                If you care about the rule of law, don’t vote for either of them.

                1. Whoever wins will be seen as having been a viable candidate regardless of whether you vote or not or how much they win by. If you really don’t care who wins, you should vote third-party which I suppose would mean Johnson. Not voting means absolutely nothing.

                2. Oh, I’m not voting for either one of them. Just saying that I fear a Trump presidency less than a Hillary presidency.

        2. If you’re so not supportive of Trump then today’s events should be a great relief, which was my point.

          Right on brother! Asking for accountability, especially where unbiased authorities have clearly stated that there was no wrong-doing to be found, is nothing other than thinly veiled racism and is literally overt cheer-leading for would-be corporate overlords like Trump.

        3. Lol

        4. Tony|7.5.16 @ 12:42PM|#
          “If you’re so not supportive of Trump then today’s events should be a great relief, which was my point.”

          Sorry, Tony. Most of us aren’t your equal in lack of moral agency.

      2. If you rearrange the letters in Gillespie’s article, it spells, “Vote Trump for president! I love him so much!” follow by a lot of gobbledygook.

    4. She’s not corrupt, see, just grossly inept! Vote for her or else Trump might win OMG!!!

  58. Well well well another day in Washington DC

  59. So if Clinton gets elected she will probably be the most hated President ever, even before taking office.

    Good job Dems.

    1. Same with Trump.

      In fact, fuck the GOP because if they had just run a “generic” candidate like Kasich, Clinton would quickly drop in the polls. Maybe the FBI would have recommended indictment knowing that even if she were charged, the alternative would be President Generic Republican.

      Not saying what the FBI did was right, but you’d have to consider that the thought of President Trump played into the decision.

      So fuck both parties and the people in them. Fuck ’em all.

      1. Yes.

      2. The “GOP” didn’t run Trump. Trump ran and voters chose him.

    2. I think it’s pretty tough to beat Lincoln, considering that half the country seceded because he got elected. Nixon (forced to resign) and GWB (25% approval ratings) are also pretty low bars to cross.

    3. Well, it’s guaranteed that we’ll have a very hated president and everyone already hates Congress. The Supreme Court is pissing off more and more people. It might just be happening (in slow motion).

      1. Don’t worry. Hillary will be able to nominate Leftist justices and the Democratic Senate will eagerly confirm them. It will make Kagan will look right-wing.

        1. Senate is 54/46 in Team Red favor as of this minute. Why do you think Team Blue will make gainz in the Senate? Are they taking pre-workout?

  60. Just let it sink in about what this means. It means that Hillary will never be held accountable for anything she does, for the rest of her life. And she could be president soon. The possibilities are truly horrifying.

    1. The horror!

      The next person in charge of one of the greatest criminal organizations on Earth might be a bona fide crook!

  61. At this point…. the government… all branches should just be considered “FIXED by the political class”. The people have no say and the checks and balances are officially: GONE. The grand experiment in freedom and the rule of law is over.

    FYI: PLEASE stop using the term “Banana Republic” wrong!!!!!!!!!!!
    The definition is: a small nation, especially in Central America, dependent on one crop or the influx of foreign capital.

    We are now a Broken Republic “fixed” by the political class to control the people.

    1. “In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power
      with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a
      noble experiment that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government
      has proved to be utopian”

      Rothbard

  62. Worst President Ever is a tough title to hold onto.

  63. Yes, Clinton has arguably the best resume of all time to assume the presidency

    Whoa whoa, wait a minute, WHAT??? The best resume of all time?

    Is our awesome commentariat seriously just going to let this one slide right on by with no comment at all?

    1. “Forget it, DD, this is Gillespie”

      I just stopped reading the moment I saw that too.

    2. Nothing Nick says is shocking. I believe he’s been dancing around this for a while now.

    3. Look, she’s held many government titles and that’s what really matters. Not how she did those jobs, how she got them, whether or not she deserved them, etc.

      Why are you being such a privileged CIS white male shitlord?

    4. Does Nick mean that she has the best resume that she’s ever had, or that anyone’s ever had? Because I’d say Clinton’s resume looked a lot better in 2008 than it does now, and the latter contention is so laughable that I can’t think he possibly meant it that way.

    5. What previous candidate has demonstrated so much expertise at political corruption even before assuming the presidency?

    6. Nick was baiting us, obviously. I refuse to play my role.

      If he truly wasn’t, and he honestly believes that, then every single “COSMO!!1!” slur hurled at him over the years was insufficient to truly describe what he is. I’m not his biggest fan, but I refuse to believe that he actually buys into that ridiculous line of how Pantsuit Capone’s 8 years as first lady, 8 years as a senator, and 4 years as SecState make her THE MOSTEST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR PREZIDENT EVERRRRRR!

    7. I think the commentariat is in the process of just giving up.

      That’s kinda where I am. Yeah, I knew it was coming, but its the contemptuous way they do these things that is dispiriting. They don’t even bother to try to put much of facade on their corruption any more.

      In fact, I wonder if the contempt that they show for the law and the little people isn’t intentional, a way to humiliate and degrade anyone who might be thinking of objecting out loud. They are telling us that no, this isn’t a mistake or an aberration. This is the way it works now. Don’t think that objecting will change it.

      1. Exactly. No fa?ade whatsoever – Comey came right out and said that someone else would be prosecuted for the same things. Hillary Clinton, however, is not like us peons. Why should she be constrained by the laws the rest of us must abide??

      2. In fact, I wonder if the contempt that they show for the law and the little people isn’t intentional, a way to humiliate and degrade anyone who might be thinking of objecting out loud.

        That’s how the commies used to roll. The point wasn’t to make people believe the things they were forced to accept at gun point, but to remind them that resistance was useless.

        1. Right. It’s not that they truly believed that 2+2=5, they just wanted to demonstrate that they had the power to compel people to publicly agree with obvious falsehoods.

      3. Yeah, but if they keep this up, they will get the American version of the Leave vote, which I don’t think is Trump, but is something. The Leave vote united really different sides of the political spectrum in England- the state capitalism socialists and the free market capitalists both wanted more local control, and both were uncomfortable with immigration.

        That doesn’t map the same to the United States, because we have a different history with immigration and race is probably a bigger divider than class in our country, which is why I think that the issues that Trump is focusing on aren’t quite our Brexit. Like, ultimately, I think that more power and wealth is going to be concentrated into DC in the next 4-8 years, with Hillary making that much worse because she allows the establishment to believe that everything is sustainable. Ultimately, I think DC is going to pick a fight with the states/the people it can’t win- gun control or pot, probably (imagine if California legalized and the Hillary admin decided that they couldn’t allow that. You can say they wouldn’t be that stupid… but our political establishment hasn’t been quiet on how horrified they are at the people’s decision to allow marijuana for regular, non-medical folks. Or imagine the shit show if Hillary made a serious move against guns… an issue that plays across economic AND racial lines in a way immigration doesn’t). And they will not like the snapback.

        1. Pulease. If CA legalized and HRC sent in the goon squads, they would still re-elect her in 2020 – by at least 5% over the Team Red candidate. The big blue dots in LA and SF cannot be reasoned with, and would vote for Hillary if she personally showed up, shot their dogs, took their joints, and threw their sons in jail.

      4. Yeah, that’s what I find most dispiriting, I think. It’s not just the corruption, it’s about how flagrant they’ve been about the corruption. They don’t even care about hiding it anymore. They rub it in our faces and say, “There’s nothing you can do about it.”

      5. I think the commentariat is in the process of just giving up.

        I’ve given up.

        I was holding out hope that the Rule of Law would prevail, but f*** no.

        You’re a prole and look at a cop funny, and you get tased and beat up.

        You’re a Clinton and you do all sorts of sh**, and you will get a red carpet to the Oval Office.

        I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: this is the sort of corruption I saw growing up in India. America is turning into what I left.

        Pervasive corruption ALWAYS starts at the top, and works its way down as the lower-level bureaucrats imitate their superiors.

        Eventually, the average citizen will lose his respect for the Rule of Law, and that will be the end of a healthy Republic. A corrupt form of government will continue, but the America will be nowhere near what it was.

    8. Can you offer a counter-argument?

      Grover Cleveland obviously had a better resume when he ran in ’92, and arguably VP nominees have better resumes. But Clinton was in the White House for 8 years and then Secretary of State for 4. Who beats that, you think?

      It doesn’t mean she’d be a good or competent president. It does suggest she has a better understanding of how the White House functions than legislators, businessmen, lawyers, or even governors.

      1. Yeah, fuck George Washington, James Madison, and John Quincy Adams.

        1. Old white male slavers don’t count. You are only allowed to count from the first President of color.

          Stop making excuses for the patriarchy!

      2. Can you offer a counter-argument?

        A resume shows only what the candidate wants you to see.

      3. But Clinton was in the White House for 8 years

        There’s a lot of people who have lived in the White House for that long, and even more that have actually worked in the White House for even longer. That doesn’t quality any of them to be President.

        and then Secretary of State for 4.

        That, plus her short stay in the Senate, are about the only relevant resume she has for President. But resumes aren’t just a list of the jobs you’ve had, its an accounting of what you did while you had those jobs. And her accomplishments as Jr Senator from NY and as SecState are less than stellar.

        1. But Clinton was in the White House for 8 years

          By this line of reasoning, Chelsea will be the most mostest qualified ever after Hilldog’s stint.

          1. You beat me to it. In ten or fifteen years, this schmuck will definitely be arguing that Chelsea is the most qualified person to be representative, senator, governor, president, whatever.

        2. I guess by his “logic”, that means Chelsea Clinton, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush the elder, Barbara Bush the younger, Jenna Bush, Michelle Obama, Sasha Obama, and Malia Obama are already among like the twenty or thirty most qualfied people in America to be president.

          I’m supposed to offer a counter-argument to this? What would even be the point.

        3. What does it mean to “qualify” as President? It’s such a singular position that it’s hard for any “resume” to look relevant. Even other leadership positions are quite different. If you were to ask me this question, I’d say that it’s stupid. But if pressed for an answer, I’d say that having an idea of how the executive of the functions and how international diplomacy gets done are big factors, being unique to the position compared to what legislators and governors experience. Clinton, being an active first lady and then SoS, arguably then has a better list of jobs under Relevant Experience than most candidates.

          But I guess we don’t have to go too far back to HW Bush, who was VP, UN ambassador, envoy to China, and director of the CIA. That’s a much more impressive resume by the above criteria.

          1. “how the executive of the federal government functions”

      4. Clinton was in the White House for 8 years and then Secretary of State for 4. Who beats that, you think?

        99% of the people of the United States who don’t have her lust for power.

        -jcr

      5. We could have been baited with a much more subdued, more easily defended standard like “most qualified in recent history”. But ever?

        Btw, JQA for the win.

    9. A resume is a document crafted to highlight one’s accomplishments while omitting and minimizing one’s failures. Resumes are what bullshit was invented for, and a lot of people hire other people to write them so that the bullshit is as professional and polished as possible.

      I think we can acquiesce that there’s a lot of material in Clinton’s political career to work with that any sufficiently skilled professional bullshitter could make a glittering resume from.

      Just look at all the places she’s been and things she’s done. She’s grown everywhere she’s gone and had a lasting impact. She’s got the most experience with all sorts and built connections that will last a lifetime. Am I describing Hillary Clinton or metastatic cancer? You decide.

      1. To the so-called “elite” and Washington leftists like “You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)”, things like successes and failures don’t even matter. It’s more important that you were “there” and can check off a box or put a title on a line

        1. The same could be said of metastatic cancer. It doesn’t matter if it succeeds or fails to take hold wherever it pops up. All that matters is that it’s there and that it gets results eventually.

    10. I assumed it was sarcasm. Was I not supposed to do that?

      1. We’ll be in need of a great many optimists soon.

  64. An excellent article that anticipated today’s announcement:

    You Owe Them Nothing – Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

    1. And that’s where this start to backfire. Does the political class really want to see what a world where no one respects or acknowledges their moral authority looks like? I don’t think so because, hint, it’s not going to be an ancap paradise.

    2. Think about it. If you are out driving at 3 a.m., do you stop at a stop sign when there’s no one coming? Of course you do. You don’t need a cop to be there to make you stop. You do it voluntarily because this is America and America is a country where obeying the law is the right thing to do because the law was justly made and is justly applied. Or it used to be.

      Fuckin’ conservatives.

      1. LOL, you don’t do it because it’s the right thing to do. You do it because you know that one time when “no one is around at 3 am” a cop will be waiting to give you a ticket or there’s a camera that you didn’t notice.

        1. LOL Juice-

          My last encounter with the cops was late 4th quarter of the Superbowl last year. I went to get a pack of smokes, roads were empty- didn’t see anyone within 500 yds., and made a “right on red” without the stop. (It _was_ pretty blatant- I think I got down to 7MPH.)

          That one fricking car 500 yards away was a cop. Pulled me over. “Have you been drinking?”* I did the drunk dances. (Follow my finger, stand on one leg, heel-toe-turn walk, etc.). Cop was so depressed that I passed the tests, he didn’t even write me the ticket for the red light violation- or maybe he just enjoyed the extra squeeze on my junk while searching me.

          *I probably would have blown an .06 or so…

  65. “This isn’t to say that Comey went easy of the presumptive Democratic Party nominee. He called here “extremely careless” in how she handled information”

    ‘Scuse me? That hag was ‘careless’ such that she destroyed subpoenaed evidence and he lets her skate? That’s not ‘going easy’ on her?

    1. I think the phrase we’re looking for is “obstruction of justice.”

    2. He didn’t go easy on her. He wagged his finger quite vigorously.

  66. Wait, how can Comey say they found no evidence to obstruct justice… when emails were deleted and it was all stored on freaking private server?

    Jesus, this is bad.

    1. Why?!?

      I’m kind of baffled; people who recognize that nation states incubate and enable all sorts of criminal acts are reacting in shock that the officers of the state are turning a blind eye to each other’s corruption. Why is this so stunning?

      This is the same entity that allowed blacks to die of untreated syphilis. It’s the same entity that is murdering opponents of the president of Yemen and jailed a journalist critical of him. It’s the same entity that is jailing and killing people for growing, shipping and consuming marijuana. Hell, they even kidnapped and imprisoned a Canadian citizen and admitted that it wasn’t for the paltry amount of contraband he had smuggled but his powerful advocacy to have the contraband legalized! Hell, they’ve even criminalized dissent in the presence of someone being guarded by the secret police, or in a location the secret police are guarding.

      You guys really need to lose your devotion to republics. They fall. They fall because as soon as a political class arises and starts dominating the offices of the republic, they begin to use it as a vehicle for plunder.

      1. -1 Rome

      2. For real, though, what that tarran fella said.

      3. I feel much better now tarran, thanks.

      4. Amen, brother.

        If you are truly surprised by this, you need to start paying attention.

      5. “I’m kind of baffled; people who recognize that nation states incubate and enable all sorts of criminal acts are reacting in shock that the officers of the state are turning a blind eye to each other’s corruption. Why is this so stunning?”

        Snowden. He gave me some hope that there are principled people in govt employ. I also know a couple of low level folks I find trustworthy.

  67. He called here “extremely careless” in how she handled information

    “Now go away, or I shall taunt you some more.”

  68. I have to call out Nick Gillespie on this one. The FBI director’s remarks said: “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.”

    Summing up the “consequences” as “charges” is inaccurate. As I read it, Comey is saying that people in such a position would not face charges, but would normally face “security or administrative sanctions”. In other words, at a bare minimum, their security clearances would be revoked and they’d never work with sensitive information again (unless elected president, perhaps). Comey might well think that Hillary and her aides should lose their clearances over this, but today’s announcement was strictly about whether to pursue criminal charges, not about “security or administrative sanctions”.

    I guess all is now clear to elect a president that the FBI has found “extremely careless” in handling highly classified information. Isn’t that a relief?

    1. Tell that to Kristian Saucier, if you live near the federal prison where he’s doing time.

      1. Hillary has little to do with seamen.

  69. Clinton has arguably the best resume of all time to assume the presidency? Fuck you Nick.

    1. He’s trolling/baiting us.

      1. Bullshit.

        1. Correct. His colleague, Welch, also suffers from Trumpaphobia. Fuck both those a-holes. Traitors to common sense are worse than outright enemies, undermining reason from within.

  70. So, the playbook is going to be, obfuscate with the Powell and Rice thing (even though the IG report was all about how what they did was different. Remember, every Democrats favorite comeback is still, “….but BUSH!”) and then rely on headline FBI director announcement, without the body of the statement.

    So, obfuscate, lie, mislead, wait until time has passed, and now it’s time to, “Move on” because, “Well, the government HAS to do stuff.”

    God, I defer to all you people who were politically aware in the 90s (I was a kid). The Clintons are slimy fucks.

    OTOH… I mean, they’re con artists with VERY willing victims, especially at this point. The people who support them WANT to support them, and stuff like this just gives them a way to sleep at night. This announcement, and the headlines it will generate, are for the people who already weren’t going to vote for Trump… but couldn’t quite yet bring themselves to fully support Hilary. Now, they can do so guilt free. So, as slimy as the Clinton’s are… they are targeting a population who wants to be suckers.

    1. stuff like this just gives them a way to sleep at night

      Nah. The kickbacks and favors are what let them sleep at night.

  71. Well, Putin still does have her emails….

  72. Aww man, Clinton isn’t going to the slammer for failing to upgrade her operating system to Mac OS 10.5.3 Snow Leopard? This is evidence that the whole government, media, Illuminati, And Jews are in the bag for her.

    I guess she’s an ex-felon running for President. Too bad.

    1. Somehow, piling enough corrupt incompetents into government will build utopia. I guess this makes sense to someone as braindead as you are.

  73. And Edward Snowden still lives in exile.

  74. Super big surprise, that. Laws are for little people. HRC is too important because she/it’s too important because she’s too (ka-ching!) important.

  75. “this is not to suggest that an individual in similar circumstances would not face” charges.”

    No shit. Tell us something we didn’t know.

  76. FBI Report Reveals No New Evidence in Clinton Probe.

    It cannot be proven that Mrs Clinton hand-delivered Top Secret documents to Vladimir Putin. Therefor, she is innocent of all wrongdoing.

  77. What surprising is not that she was let off the hook. Of course she was.

    But holy shit, they aren’t even trying to hide the reasons why! From Bill’s tarmac meet-up, to the news that Lynch will be asked to stay on as AG, to Comey basically coming straight out and saying that a different standard applies to Clinton than to everyone else – it’s so blatantly and out in the open. It’s like they are daring people to call them on their BS because they know it won’t make a damn bit of difference.

    Awful, just awful.

    1. Indeed, the optics of this all is very troubling.

      That’s how you’re supposed to describe it.

      1. It’s all a lot more than troubling. But, like I said, not surprising. Their blatant disregard for appearances, however, is surprising. Used to be that appearances was all they cared about.

  78. Seems he explains how she intentionally set up and did business on a non government system and then says no evidence to prove it was intentional and can’t say that others in a similar situation would not get prosecuted? WTF!!!

    More likely she communicated with Obama and he would have been brought into the trial. Hilary had the ultimate leverage, take Obama down with her if he didn’t call off the dogs.

    1. “More likely she communicated with Obama and he would have been brought into the trial. Hilary had the ultimate leverage, take Obama down with her if he didn’t call off the dogs.”

      Hadn’t considered that. Maybe those redacted emails are the smoking gun?

  79. I slept in this morning and then got up and showered, intending to go to work after lunch. Then I read this. Now I’m taking the afternoon off. Utterly disgusted.

  80. *ctrl-f*

    *”FOIA”*

    *0 hits*

    Isn’t that central to Hillary’s crimes? The top secret material is damning, yes, and in a just system she’d be up on treason charges. But that aside, she set up this scheme to avoid FOIA disclosures. She categorically stated that she did not want her emails accessible by the public. That is so incredibly corrupt and cynically motivated that everything else, including her rank incompetence, pales in comparison. Whatever crimes she may have committed with regard to classified emails, the fact is she attempted to hide her work product in her position as a senior official of the national administration, and then lied in order to cover it up. Why is that not being hammered by Republicans?

    Though there is evidence Clinton acted improperly?and may have been hacked?no prosecutor would bring a case because there is no evidence she acted intentionally, FBI Director James Comey said.

    Oh, that’s all well and good, Mr. Comey, but the woman attempted to hide her emails from the American public. THAT is the issue!

    1. “Why is that not being hammered by Republicans [in leadership]?”

      Because GOP leadership would rather work with President Hilary that with President Trump.

      Rank-and-file GOP won’t bring it up because they have been successfully distracted by the issue of whether the emails were classified or not.

      The only hope now is that judge who explicitly stated for the record that it looked like she might have done this to avoid FOIA.

  81. No mention of the potential public corruption charges surrounding the Clinton Foundation and its…*ahem*…”charitable operations” with foreign governments. I guess we’re just to quietly ignore that…

    1. That’ll be the next Republican phishing expedition. Just wait… You’ll still get to have your Two Minutes Hate.

      1. So you’d be completely cool with foreign heads of state paying large sums of money to, say, the spouse of Trump’s SoS while they have important decisions pending?

        1. I’m sure it will turn up to be more bullshit designed to convince the rubes. Why not talk about her support of the Iraq War?

          1. Tell us again how designing a scheme to avoid accountability and hide the goings-on of her political money-laundering operation is on the up-and-up.

            Ah, but what’s a socialist without his scorn for process and the rule of law?

            You really are a tool. And shilling for Hilldawg, no less. Contemptible.

            1. I could at least understanding prostrating yourself for that bumbling nincompoop Sanders. At least you share a common fondness for gulags and mass starvation. But Hillary?

        2. And, evidently, with betraying the American public and lying to cover it up. But what’s a socialist without a healthy dose of contempt for his country and fellow citizens?

      2. You think a “socialist” would be quite aghast at the cronyist corruption …. but this one really just worships power.

        1. Socialists are inconsistent commies. They have no philosophy, just an abject will to power and a desire to see millions murdered in the cause of sating their misanthropy. They are thinkers like Harambe was a thinker right after his handler pulled the trigger. Everything is inchoate rage and bloodlust.

    2. If you don’t ignore it and actually try to pursue it, expect to find yourself in a “freak accident” =/

  82. Didn’t all the swells just spend two weeks hyperventilating about the Brexit vote, and how it symbolizes the rejection of common sense, reason, logic, facts, experts, etc., and that this backsliding is now a worldwide phenomena?

    My my, just where do these racist hicks in the intellectual underclass get their retrograde, fantastical ideas?

  83. Yes, Clinton has arguably the best resume of all time to assume the presidency.

    I don’t see how anyone could argue this and be taken seriously. Clinton has absolutely no executive experience. While this is certainly not disqualifying, it would be a requirement for “the best resume of all time”. High level experience in the Executive, which Hillary does not have, would also help.

  84. Hey, anyone else remember when the FBI pretended to be a law enforcement agency?

    -jcr

    1. You mean when they were spying on dissidents and trying to drive the leader of the most important civil rights movement of the 20th century to commit suicide?

  85. GWWAAAHHH! TO WAR!!!! It’s time to shoot up the nearest federal building!

    1. Hey! It’s everybody’s favorite deadbeat!

      1. Dude, american socialist isn’t even his own mom’s favorite deadbeat.

    2. Go fuck yourself, better yet, go to a socialist country and have them fuck you.

      1. Maybe if you started talking about KKKlinton’s real crimes and not this diversionary bullshit I’d have more sympathetic. But to do so might require right-wingers to look in the mirror for a second so fat chance on that.

        1. Actually, i’m sort of curious about what american socialist feels Hillary’s “real crimes” are.

          1. Not being Bernie enough?

          2. “Find out what real socialists think with this one weird trick”

            1. “Find out what real socialists think with this one weird trick”

              Huff canned air!

            2. I said “feel,” not “think,” for a reason.

    3. It’s time to shoot up the nearest federal building!

      Muslims hate Hillary?

    4. Interesting that your mind goes straight to mass murder. Commies gonna commie I guess.

    5. american socialist: Be careful, I’m sure Reason doesn’t want another gag order.

  86. So I clicked through to a Mother Jones article that was basically saying what you would expect – yeah, Clinton acted stupidly, but we can trust the FBI on this one. But it’s not going to end for her because there is too much for Republicans to gain from continuing to harp on this.

    Not shocking – make it more about the reaction than the crimes.

    But, the comments were almost as scathing as they are here. The far left does not like this woman.

    1. The far left does not like this woman.

      Nor should they. Unlike, say, Bernie or Chief Warren, Hillary isn’t about socialism or progressivism or whatever. She’s about self-aggrandizement, and she’ll do whatever is convenient for her at the moment in order to achieve power.

    2. The NPR commenters are being complete shills for Hillary, complete with “But TRUMP! BUT BUUUUUUSH!”

      1. That doesn’t surprise me one bit. NPR’s target audience is DC and the urban northeast. Establishment “liberals” who believe that the best presidents the country has ever seen are FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton. They’re Progressives, yes, but they’re fundamentally technocrats, so even folks like Warren make them a little nervous.

      2. Yeah, NPR was always on the left, but in their coverage lately, they’ve thrown all pretense of responsible journalism out the window. This morning they were claiming that Trump was praising Sadaam Hussein, when he was pretty much saying the same thing the anti-Bush crowd was saying a few years earlier (that’s he’s bad, but he at least held the country together).

    3. Even Redditards despise her nearly as much as we do. Charmless, incompetent, evil Hillary is the perfect embodiment of machine politics and the result of enfranchising the various species of retard that constitute lofo American society.

  87. A vote for Bill’s wife is a vote for an openly corrupt regime…

  88. RE: FBI Director Recommends Against Prosecuting Hillary Clinton Over Email Actions
    Slams her and staff for gross negligence and carelessness.

    Heil Hitlary is one of the ruling elitist class, and as so, she can do no wrong.
    Having an law enforcement agency going after for criminal behavior is a crime in unto itself.
    We should all get down on our knees and thank God we have such benevolent and wise leaders to lead us all by the nose to the successful conclusion of the Glorious People’s Revolution so we can all enjoy all the benefits of a socialist slave state.
    More good news.
    Her “gross negligence and carelessness” will undoubtedly continue as she occupies the White House Dascha for the next 50 years.
    If that won’t make you sleep well at night, nothing will.

  89. So this is what the final days of the Hope and Change Administration look like.

  90. “We found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them,” he said. “Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed.”

    But isn’t she under an obligation to preserve *all* work related emails since they could be requested in FOIA investigations?

    1. “It is also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere,” Comey said.

      Those messages, he added, are likely “now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

      And yet that isn’t obstruction of justice? That doesn’t at least indicate the possibility of intent? Aren’t these the types of things a jury is supposed to decide?

      1. If you read between the lines, Comey is saying that she was guilty as sin. The entire statement was one repetition of “she committed multiple crimes, but she committed no crimes.”

        If he were anything other than another cabinet worm, he’d announce his resignation this afternoon and move to the shortlist for Trump Veep.

        1. If you read between the lines, he’s saying “she’s absolutely guilty, but the DOJ will never attempt to prosecute her in good faith.”

          1. Exactly. He admitted she broke the law, and then shrugged and said “Whaddya want from me?”

        2. I’d love to see Comey called before Congress to explain this.

          1. Would totally backfire.

            1. Sadly, you are probably right. The spin would be “see how bitter and spiteful these Republicans are!”

            2. Wouldn’t that depend on whether Comey is a hostile witness, the kind that the GOP has the most problem with?

      2. It was all obstruction of justice.

        Using a private server was a crime, regardless of why.

        Giving the contents of her server to her attorneys (who were not cleared to have it) was a crime.

        Deleting a single email from the server was a crime, in multiple ways (they were under subpoena, they were under FOIA requests, and I’m sure others).

  91. 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.

    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.

    IOW, while she is technically, clearly in violation of the law, such violations are normally handled administratively barring exacerbating circumstances. So, if additional evidence turned up later (say, in the Clinton Foundation investigation) that suggested she used the private email to cover-up wrongdoing and thereby obstruct justice, then that would re-characterize her actions in a way that would warrant prosecution?

    1. Ddue, you’re grasping at straws.

      They caught her red handed. They had plenty of evidence of illegal acts. They just chose to hand-wave it all away. I doubt they are going to do anything different with the Foundation.

    2. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;

      They have this – there were emails from Hillary directing that classified headers be removed.

      or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct

      The entirety of the SecState’s email traffic being exposed isn’t a vast enough quantity?

      indications of disloyalty to the United States

      Alright, this they don’t have evidence of.

      or efforts to obstruct justice.

      They have emails from Hillary stating that the point of the server was to shield her emails from discovery and investigations.

  92. The slide into a kleptocracy continues space.

  93. In related news, Clinton announced she’ll replace “Hail to the Chief” with “Damn it feels good to be a gangsta”

    1. “It’s good to be the Chief.”

  94. James Comey deliberately lied when he claimed they needed to prove intent regarding the national security violations. ALL that is necessary is to prove that violations were made. This is just another travesty of justice from Comrade Obama’s Administration,the “most ethical and transparent Administration ever…”,what a crock.
    Comey has been bought.

  95. Just curious if Clinton and Comey recently had a ‘chance meeting’ in his private jet on a runway somewhere. It would not surprise me if the real discussion on that Jet in Pheonix with Lynch was laying out what was going to be happening.

    1. How could you suspect such a thing! It’s a complete coincidence Hildog and Obumbles are campaigning together today.

    2. To paraphrase Ace Rothstein, “Normally, my prospects of coming back alive from a meeting with Hillary were 99 out of 100. But this time, when I heard her say a couple of hundred yards down the road, I gave myself 50-50.”

  96. “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.”

    Shorter: gotta save my job, maybe my scalp

  97. Most dispiriting part is that this happens all the time, like with Cheney, Libby, Petraeus, Clapper, etc. and nothing happens, so you suspect even most of the pols pretending to be outraged really only care about the political advantage and not about the actual corruption.

    1. Both Libby and Petraeus were convicted of crimes in connection with their acts. Libby’s sentence was commuted but he was not pardoned and still ended up disbarred. And the real man behind the Plame leak was Richard Armitrage.

      Not the best examples.

      1. In both cases they still got a slap on the wrist compared to what a little person would have gotten for doing the same thing. There’s also DNI Clapper flat out perjuring himself before congress. And there’s also the people responsible for the William Binney scandal, although we never even really found out who that was.

        1. A slap on the wrist is still a lot more than nothing.

  98. “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.”

    BULLSHIT. If I did anything like that, maliciously or be it by “mistake” at any of the places I’ve worked, I’d be in for any, or all, of the following:

    – any clearances I had or hoped to obtain in the future be revoked/denied
    – chances of gaining employment where I needed a clearance would be jeopardized, if not made entirely impossible
    – criminal charges and most likely a conviction
    – rotting in Leavenworth with Manning

    In fact, at my office now we even have signs all over the place telling people, cleared or uncleared, what’s up:
    http://imgur.com/uyH4dHj

    Even if you haven’t yet signed over your 1st amendment rights for a clearance and you worked at a place that had facilities clearance, it’d still be blatantly obvious. Everywhere I’ve worked had these and a myriad other situational awareness directives posted all over the office. Your typical office monkeys around DC know this.

    I’ve even had to deal with someone accidentally leaking info into a database I managed, and I was able to handle it properly with a little creativity on my part so as to not see anything I wasn’t supposed to and by simply following the fucking directions of my superiors who had the proper clearance.

    1. …..or is there something special about her situation that I’m missing here? Other than the fact that she’s a Clinton and will probably claw your face if you don’t dole out blank checks to her?

      1. If you or I or just about anyone else in the Goddamn country had done this we’d end up in fucking prison and saying “But I didn’t know” wouldn’t mean jack shit. Anybody who’s ever had a clearance knows this.

        She isn’t being charged because of who she is, simple as that.

    2. ** Clarification: The ruling being “bullshit”, not the quote.

      1. Err, rather – “decision” not ruling…

    3. Seriously, i know what you’re saying.

      I considered emailing our security manager (defense industry) after I read the news: “Say, Rick, now that the FBI has decided we don’t really take this security stuff seriously, are you going to have to find a new job?”

      But Rick doesn’t *quite* have a sense of humor so I decided against it.

  99. James Comey officially murdered the rule of law in the United States today.

    1. How can you murder that which has been dead for over a century?!?

      1. What is not indicted may never die, but rises again, more ruthless and corrupt!

        1. Rising from the ashes like a fuck-you Phoenix!

      2. Point taken. He dug up its corpse and skull fucked it then.

  100. Petraeus was convicted for less potential damage.

  101. and on the same day the president campaigns for the first time with hillary, which must be a coincidence.

    intent was by far the easiest element of the crime to prove, and when you state it’s the only reason you’re not proceeding, but you also won’t use that as a standard for future cases (re: ordinary people), then you might as well disband the fbi right now.

    i never expected an indictment, but i guess i still believe enough to be disappointed.

  102. The end is near.

    This is such overwhelming bullshit.

    People have been fired and imprisoned for leaving classified materials in an unlocked desk at a secure federal site, yet the secretary of state moves all her documents knowingly to an insecure location with zero ramifications.

    Hillary Clinton just wiped her ass with the US Constitution and threw it at “we the people” with a smug, “what are you going to do?”

  103. Quite the treatment the Queen received there. Im sure it will be awarded handsomely when she wins the Presidency.

  104. I’m sorry officer, I didn’t mean to exceed the speed limit.

    I’m sorry officer, I didn’t mean to embezzle that money.

    I’m sorry officer, I didn’t mean for some no-named staffer to arrange for me to buy those keys of coke you found on the dash of my car.

    I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to wipe my ass with the constitution, I just didn’t think it was important….

  105. Serious question – can the republicans call for an independent inquiry? It seems like Comey almost wants it – “well you know, someone else in this EXACT same scenario might be indicted, but we’re not doing that here”. Then he offhandedly remarked that sanctions might be appropriate for Clinton. He wants someone else to indict her.

    And he’s merely “recommending” there should be no charge, right? Lynch would never formally indict her future master, but there should be pressure on her. This should be made an campaign issue until the bitter end.

    When will Gary Johnson make his statement regarding this matter? Surely he can now say Clinton should ALSO become disqualified?

  106. I’m also reminded that the SC says it might be OK for official to accept de facto bribes pending “intent”

  107. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. – – – – – ????? ???????????? ???????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.