Iâm pretty sure youâre supposed to provide a link, when you cut-and-paste from the Gateway Pundit.
Apologies. Daily Caller.
Same difference, anyway.
The IG basically agreeing with the decision to not prosecute Clinton:
"As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the
prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support
prosecution under any of these statutes for various
reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her
senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified
information on unclassified systems. Critical to their
conclusion was that the emails in question lacked
proper classification markings, that the senders often
refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in
emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to
âtalk aroundâ classified information, that the emails
were sent to other government officials in furtherance
of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton
relied on the judgment of State Department employees
to properly handle classified information, among other
facts.
We further found that the statute that required the
most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section
793(f)(1), the âgross negligenceâ provision that has
been the focus of much of the criticism of the
declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two
and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the
legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case
law, and the Departmentâs prior interpretation of the
statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely
required a state of mind that was âso gross as to almost
suggest deliberate intention,â criminally reckless, or
âsomething that falls just short of being willful,â as well
as evidence that the individuals who sent emails
containing classified information âknowinglyâ included or
transferred such information onto unclassified systems.
The Midyear team concluded that such proof was
lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section
793(f)(1) was consistent with the Departmentâs
historical approach in prior cases under different
leadership, including in the 2008 decision not toprosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for
mishandling classified documents.
We analyzed the Departmentâs declination decision
according to the same analytical standard that we
applied to other decisions made during the
investigation. We did not substitute the OIGâs
judgment for the judgments made by the Department,
but rather sought to determine whether the decision
was based on improper considerations, including
political bias. We found no evidence that the
conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or
other improper considerations; rather, we determined
that they were based on the prosecutorsâ assessment of
the facts, the law, and past Department practice.
We therefore concluded that these were legal and policy
judgments involving core prosecutorial discretion that
were for the Department to make.
âŚexcept Trump
3 Likes
He also said the Clinton/Lynch meeting was Kosher. Since when is it Kosher for the head of the DOJ to meet in private with a spouse of someone under federal investigation? this smells like a month old fish.
In other words, Comey followed the correct precedent in choosing not to prosecute Clinton.
Which is what weâve been â â â â â â â trying to tell you idiots from the beginning.
2 Likes
She destroyed subpoenaed evidence, and now is getting away with it. Can you imagine if Manafort destroyed all his emails and devices and said sorry Mueller I dont have it? Equal justice is dead in this country.
I am thoroughly enjoying Seanâs radio show today.
2 Likes
Then prosecute her for it. You seem to forget that itâs Trumpâs DOJ who is holding all the keys
1 Like
I donât find it professional at all. I have no problem separating the two, I simply donât do one when Iâm being paid to do the other. Nor do I plot and scheme against my bosses.
Im sure you are! The IG report is exactly what I thought it would be, a fluff piece from an Obama appointed DOJ member in Horowitz.
She didnât destroy any evidence.
Aides did. And they werenât shown to be doing it on her orders.
She should be prosecuted for it! If Trump destroyed subpoenaed evidence he should be prosecuted as well! If certain people hold the keys, then they should be fired.
LOL of course it wasnt her orders! Just like the basement of her house being burned down the day the CGI investigation was announced.
Ah, you have evidence of the orders then?
This is where you people always fall flat on your face. You take the leap without the smoking gun.
Itâs Obamaâs fault that Trump is too incompetent to appoint his own IG?
They worked for her, therefor she is responsible for the repercussions, whoever gave the order or whoever did destroy the evidence should be prosecuted. Thats like paying someone to murder someone, and claiming you had nothing to do with it.
1 Like
And Iâm pretty sure youâre correct. Get the mods to fix the edit button. 
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/14/mueller-lawyer-resisted-trump/
This we agree one! Trump was an idiot to appoint a person who directly worked under Sally Yates as Deputy AG.
So, what is stopping the Trump appointment DOJ from prosecuting her? This administration has been in charge for 17 months now, no? Bring it on!
