Frothers Unite! UK

General Apathy wrote:The fact the DoJ was in the tank and the director of the FBI chose to not prosecute despite their being overwhelming evidence they should does not mean she did not do anything illegal.

It means politics has infected the DoJ.

The problem is, there is no need to demonstrate intent in subpara (f) of the espionage act, which I've previously provided more than once.

AND you are forgetting about her perjury.

AND it appears you STILL don't have links to support your previously shoveled shit.

In the end, Comey, a deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, said Clinton’s careless conduct fell short of a crime because there was no evidence of “clearly intentional and willful mishandling” of classified information and no sign of “disloyalty” or an effort to “obstruct justice.”

“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,” Comey said.

The Espionage Act says it is a crime to improperly share or lose any document, writing or other military information through gross negligence. But prosecutors said they were unaware of any convictions based on gross negligence alone.

# 1 American University Law Professor Stephen Vladeck who also penned an opinion piece in The New York Times which said her conduct might have been careless but was not criminal. He writes:

In Secretary Clinton’s case, then, the fact that some of the emails contained information that might be classified today does nothing to prove that the information was classified (and was known by her to be classified) at the time it was discussed over unsecured networks.

#2 Former federal prosecutor Anne Tompkins (who also prosecuted David Petraeus), she wrote “The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.”

#3 LawNewz.com founder, Dan Abrams, also believes based on what we know today, Clinton did not commit a crime. “The reality as I see it is one that won’t entirely satisfy either side — that based on what we know today, she likely did violate government procedures and rules, but not the law,” Abrams said.

# 4 Loyola Law Professor Laurie L. Levenson who wrote in The National Law Journal that “[p]olitics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures.”

Despite what Mr. Trump reads and sees on television, legal experts are clearly very divided on whether Clinton committed a crime. The FBI investigation is reportedly in its final stage. Agents will likely turn their findings over to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Ultimately, it will be Lynch who decides if charges against Clinton, or any of her aides are, in fact, warranted.

General Apathy wrote:As for Trump, I don't care what other sleaze comes out on him. I haven't defended him, excused him, supported him and won't 'vote for him. If there is bad shit on him, it should come out as well.