
FBI won't recommend Clinton be indicted over private email use - Evolved
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-won-t-recommend-clinton-be-indicted-over-private-email-use-1467731774
======
Evolved
EDIT: Here are some non-paywall versions:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-
clinto...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-
email-comey.html?_r=0)

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/0...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-
comey-fbi-hillary-clinton/86702072/)

~~~
adam12
or just use the "web" link below the title.

------
bontoJR
> To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that
> Mrs. Clinton intentionally sent or received classified information —
> something that the F.B.I. did not find.

Interesting, I won't pay the taxes this year and I will prove that was
unintentionally and see what happens... I am quite sure the outcome is going
to be different.

~~~
phd514
Unclear why the parent deserves downvotes for the post. One of the points of
criminalizing gross negligence with respect to the handling of classified
information is to remove the element of intent -- just negligence is
sufficient to convict. The FBI totally side-stepped the issue in its haste to
exonerate Clinton when "lesser" people have been charged for less egregious
handling of classified information. I don't see how anyone can claim there was
no special treatment of Clinton in this case.

~~~
zzalpha
See your sibling post for why the GP is not, itself, a terribly insightful
comment.

As for yours (which raises a very legitimate question), Vice has an article
that mentions that element:

[http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-
by-t...](http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-the-fbi-
for-her-emails)

Basically, the key is that it must be deemed "intentional" or "gross"
negligence, and nothing they found rose to that level (in their opinion).

Of course, when mens rea is part of the sentencing criteria, there's lots of
room for interpretation, which will ensure there will be a limitless source of
fodder for Clinton's opponents and proponents to argue about for years to
come...

------
15charlimit
Well, yeah.

Even if they can make a rock-solid case right now, why would they waste the
chance to have a very powerful card they can hold over her head if (god
forbid) she gets elected?

Not surprising at all.

~~~
Evolved
I just don't see them doing that to an elected (or even newly elected)
President but I do think they're holding that card should she not win the
presidency.

