
FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton for personal email server use - Khol
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-investigation
======
patrickmay
Paul Ryan has already commented:

"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this
announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. Based upon
the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of
law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and
transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The
findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled
the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While
we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the
American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor
judgment."

Perhaps we'll see Congress appoint a Special Prosecutor.

~~~
FireBeyond
Yeah, what we need to do is appoint -another- hearing. Just like the eight, or
was it nine, hearings into Benghazi, the how many hearings into 9/11.

This is why the branches of the government are separate, so political parties
can't use them as attack dogs to further their own cause when they don't like
things.

~~~
killface
except there's a contingent of people (like the person you replied to) who
won't accept anything short of jail time.

they've already made up their minds. she's guilty, 100-point-zero percent
confidence, and anything that doesn't line up with that narrative is obviously
crooked politics or whatever.

congress is the attack dog that the republicans have used for the better part
of the last 2 decades to make anything stick to the clintons.

don't believe the lies about "where there's smoke, there's fire" here. they
invented all the smoke, hoping you'll believe there's a fire.

------
forgottenpass
Another active HN thread on this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042)

~~~
chvid
Flagged and not on the front page.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Something needs to be done about this in my opinion. More and more over the
last few months I've seen posts get flagged within minutes simply because
someone disagrees with the content. Flagging should be for stuff that's
irrelevant to HN and poor computer security practices by the woman running for
president seems relevant to me - especially compared with a lot of the other
stuff that gets upvoted.

~~~
dang
It seems relevant to you and off-topic to others. In such cases the votes and
flags combine to produce a community verdict. Nothing has changed about that
in the last few months.

We sometimes turn off user flags in exceptional cases but this doesn't seem
like one to me.

~~~
shitgoose
In this case one group of people with similar political views is creating a
safe space by silencing their opponents and preventing an inconvenient
discussion. It is hard to see it any other way.

~~~
killface
Yep. Conservatives and their ilk are so thoroughly convinced of her guilt (and
if not this, list off the 100 other witch hunts the republicans in congress
have led against her).

They'd rather flag and stifle discussion than let people know that her actions
didn't rise to the level of criminal charges. It is sad. It's also exactly
what I've come to expect. People scream about the liberal media, and yet here
we are watching a pro-liberal (in theory... i guess... maybe just not anti-
liberal) story get censored as fast as they get posted.

~~~
shitgoose
You are confused.

------
sremani
I am impressed by the Clintons, Obama is the only thing that got in their way,
other than that, They usually got what they wanted.

~~~
shitgoose
"We don't submit to terror. We make the terror."

