Skip to content

Hillary Clinton Cleared By FBI–No Charges To Be Filed

July 5, 2016

The FBI will not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton over the mishandling of classified documents on the personal email server she used as secretary of State.  That comes from FBI Director James B. Comey.

As the whole nation well understands, Comey is not a man to be trifled with.  No one was going to tell him what to do or short-circuit the process.    If there is any straight-shooter in Washington he is the one we can have trust in.  That is why his leadership along with a large team of investigators made a complete and solid review of what had transpired concerning this matter.  His conclusions can be trusted.

While I always felt the way Clinton’s sever was set up to be highly irregular and lacking the professional touch that someone in her position should have used, I also never felt she was going to be found running afoul of the law.

Comey did say that she and her staff were “extremely careless” in their handling of her emails as the they found 110 emails on 52 email chains that involved information that was classified at the time it was sent. He said eight of those email chains had top secret information, 36 had secret information and eight had classified.

At the same time, Comey said there was “no clear evidence” that Clinton and her staff had intentionally mishandled information, an element experts say is needed for prosecution.

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.

10 Comments leave one →
  1. July 7, 2016 2:22 PM

    What an absolute joke the Hillary interview was with the FBI. But even if she was under oath does anyone think she would be honest and tell the truth. Comey stated that he did not personally interview Clinton, and did not talk to all of the “five or six” who did interview Clinton and she was not under oath. Just amazing what lengths they go to protect Bill and Hillary.

  2. July 6, 2016 11:53 AM

    And I will never support a racist, xenophobic, misogynist, white power nationalist for president.

  3. orlin sellers permalink
    July 6, 2016 10:06 AM

    Personally, I could not vote for someone that the FBI has openly declared as “exceedingly careless” to be president. Obviously, you have no problem with that. Who’s a fervent partisan?

  4. July 6, 2016 7:57 AM

    This decision is no surprise, from day one everyone knew she would get a free pass, but that very clear after her husbands private meeting with the AG. This is the new America where the elite are now the untouchables and the rest of the population just follow along like sheep

  5. July 5, 2016 9:31 PM

    How precisely is Comey a “goner”?

    You write as if you thought the outcome would be different which means one of two things.

    1) You never followed the actual story.
    2) You are so partisan that facts do not interest you.

    The point is a very large investigative unit spent a lot of hours and resources and made a conclusion based on facts and law.

  6. orlin sellers permalink
    July 5, 2016 4:52 PM

    Why are you afraid to post the link to the actual law that I posted previously?

    Oh, so you want me to say I’m smarter than the FBI before you will discuss what my one-eyed potato can clearly see.

    btw, Comey is a Goner. He blew his reputation on this deal.

  7. July 5, 2016 3:45 PM

    Before we venture further let me ask if you consider yourself more able and smarter than the head of the FBI and the team who rendered the result? What is your background that brings you to the table? Tell me and then lets talk.

  8. orlin sellers permalink
    July 5, 2016 3:42 PM

    Perhaps you should actually read the law.

    The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant.

    Perhaps the law should be more lenient to drivers accused of drunken driving if their intent
    was not to exceed their BAC.

    Face it: We are a Banana Republic and the Rule of Law was just thrown out the window, again.

  9. July 5, 2016 3:14 PM

    No, she did not. Nor did her office staff.

  10. orlin sellers permalink
    July 5, 2016 2:06 PM

    Did she break the law? Yes or No?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: