[swissoak]

>"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place.

Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal.

Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.

[MaxfordAndSons]

> Go look at the reason.

Okay.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

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."[1]

Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things".

> Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced.

Okay! Lets see, sources in the first two pages of google results for "clinton voting machines": zerohedge, usapoliticstoday, thepoliticalinsider, conservativedailypost, breitbart, inforwars, wnd, libertywritersnews, quora (lol), snopes (for obvious reasons), proudcons, theconomiccollapseblog, counterpunch, thecommonsenseshow, thegatewaypundit, ajc. Not that the "MSM" is completely unbiased, but openly partisan publications don't really constitute news sources to my mind. If there were really such blatant attempts at election rigging going on, I have faith that an impartial journalist with integrity would be looking into it and/or an adjacent party would have sufficient incentive to blow the whistle. It would be huge news.

> My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.

Don't think you'll find too many of those on HN, but good luck fighting the good fight.

[1]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...

[swissoak]

>Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things".

One does not need to intend to do something for it to be highly illegal. There is an absolute boat load of cases where people did 1/10th of what Hillary did, without any proven intent, and went to prison for it. Thousands of people are prosecuted every day by our criminal justice system without any intent.

And in the same quote: "potential violations". He completely dodged having to explicitly say that it was illegal, which anyone with a security clearance can plainly tell you. The only reason he didn't explicitly say she didn't break the law was because it would be a lie that he even couldn't pull off.

It is so blindingly obvious that this is a load of horse shit. He is being vague, misleading, and deliberately obtuse.

[vkou]

Intent is only irrelevant in statutory offenses.