Popular Posts

Sunday, July 10, 2016

I Asked A Professional Businessman Their Opinion On Yesterday's FBI's Finding Over Hillary Clinton's E-Mail

Here are my thoughts, working deductively from some basic premises (which should be undisputed) to some more opinionated content at the end. Obviously the final thoughts below are only one person’s (my own) opinion. But much like showing my work in a math problem, I wanted to deduct my way to reach my opinionated conclusions.

1) Historically, the F.B.I. is intended to be a politically neutral agency.

2) The original purpose, in this case, was to perform a political neutral review of Ms. Clinton and Staff’s private emails, to determine if there were any known, intentional security breaches.

3) History has revealed, at least throughout the last century, that the F.B.I. has been less than politically neutral—see J. Edgar Hoover, just to get start. It is very difficult to know these motives, if any, contemporaneously. The agency is secretive by design.

4) Regardless, the F.B.I. does not have authority to indict a person, including Ms. Clinton. This authority is held by the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency.

5) The F.B.I. can, however, recommend criminal charges be filed. It cannot independently prosecute, despite its status a federal agency. Much, by analogy, like a local police department can file charges, make arrests, or recommend prosecution, but these must then be prosecuted by the State’s Attorney.

6) The F.B.I., after much deliberation, described Clinton’s handling of emails as “extremely careless.”

7) There is an important legal distinction between “extreme carelessness” and “intentional.” By comparison, think of “extreme carelessness” as manslaughter, whereas “intentional” would be murder. Manslaughter would be like a drunken driver killing an innocent pedestrian. Murder would be like knowingly pulling the trigger and shooting someone, without provocation.

8) The comments made by F.B.I. Director Comey fall just short of the “intentional” standard that most legal experts would be necessary to prove a criminal case. There is no “manslaughter” equivalent in Ms. Clinton’s case—no such charges exist. It would be what is known as a “specific intent” crime, meaning the conduct must have been done intentionally and purposefully, as opposed to carelessly, or even recklessly.

9) We do not know what the F.B.I. may be withholding. Its investigation may have been completely neutral, thorough and forthcoming. It may be withholding certain facts and evidence. This concern is not unique to this case; but any case with any agency. The public may not know the facts, but then again, the F.B.I. may have been completely forthcoming. This question will likely remain unanswered.

10) In my personal opinion, this is a matter that should reach the judge, jury and executor of public opinion, rather than the judicial system. Obviously, this is just one person’s opinion, based on an admittedly limited knowledge of the specifics of the F.B.I.’s findings.

11) There is no reasonable dispute that the F.B.I.’s findings have done damage, and called into question, Ms. Clinton’s credibility. At minimum, the findings are inconsistent with statements she has made publicly and repeatedly about her use or misuse of private emails.

21 comments:

  1. What's a "Professional Businessman"? Unless he's an attorney, his legal opining doesn't really count for much. I just don't understand the purpose of this post. Most Hillary voters are either self-interested or stupid. They only thing they're going to see is that the FBI is letting her off the hook. Now move along. There's nothing to see here.

    Now I suggest everyone go out and plant a bunch of banana trees, because we need banana trees for our banana republic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The IRS is suppose to be politically neutral as well is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tell all this to Generel Petraeus. She is at least as guilty as he was!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Makes me wonder who's life was threatened for the desired outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dave T: Amazingly ridiculous ! Two sets of laws in the world here today - the ones we the working class people must follow, and those the privileged make up along the way to suit their own best interests. I agree with the other commentator here, we don't have a government anymore, we have a banana republic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. noe google this
    md and illinos voting machines rigged for drms.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Her actions did not have to be intentional! Although destroying emails can only be intentional. GROSS NEGLIGENCE was evident. "Extreme Carelessness is gross negligence. A tremendous disservice was given to the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would be held accountable and punished with jail if I did what Clinton did. Common sense and I don't need anyone to tell me different.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I question #8. Intent.
    Everyone has fallen prey to the ruse...

    WHY USE PRIVATELY PURCHASED COMPUTER SERVER EQUIPMENT AT SUBSTANTIAL COST, HIDE IT IN A CLOSET IN A HOUSE YOU BOUGHT TO CIRCUMVENT ELECTION LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE?
    Why not use the fully protected, secure, government funded State dept. email server system like it was intended?

    So you do not have to be accountable. So you can't be caught doing illegal things.
    That in itself is intent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did this person actually watch the press conference or are they working off some transcript/chopped up news reel footage? Why I ask is because, while listing out the findings, Comey seemed to be resolute to the point where I thought he was going to recommend criminal charges. It was not until the end, when he made claim he would not make such a recommendation, his demeanor changed and he became visible upset. It was clear he was not believing what he was saying and realized the conflict with what he had just laid out. This is indicative of someone who doesn't believe their own words and-or knows they don't make any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This post fails in many ways.

    First, the F.B.I. doesn't conduct security reviews, they conduct criminal investigations.

    Second, there doesn't need to be any "Intent" for negligence.

    Third, I would say it was quite "Intentional" to put a mail server in the bathroom closet of you home to thwart FOIA requests and prevent backup copies to be made.

    Fourth: Despite the violation of the law regarding top secret material, the server was set up so the Clintons could run their "influence for sale" scheme known as the Clinton Foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rainbows..people not shut up and go back to sleep.

    "Hidden dangers of the rainbow". Read it and its sources. You will be informed, vigilante and awake!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1:58 Comey & Lynch

    ReplyDelete
  14. Loving all of you true detectives and wooden nickel legal experts commenting here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 522 I'm a lawyer and have made some of the comments here. Are you suggesting I'm only worth a wooden nickel? Can you tell that to loan company I'm paying my student loan repayments to because they're killing me? Thanks for your delightful
    comment full of nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently not a busy one. Ha.

      Delete
  16. If this is your opinion , all that you have done is repeat what the FBI stated.
    This is my opinion : I believe that the FBI's decision was tainted by political people with influence , Obama. Even though there were no evidence that she intended to release information to others who were not secure or top secret cleared , she did jeopardize the national security and release information to non-secure people. The position that she held , in itself shows signs of her inability to work as the head of the state dept. Also she lied under oath when asked about these questions. You can paint any pretty picture you want , it still stinks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Does anyone really want her in our white house and think that she is for the people if so shame on you. Don't come crying when she treats you as an a$$. (map)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you for straightening things out. In the daylight, she's guilty as hell of giving away government secrets and totally unable to keep secrets altogether.

    On the other hand, we have a Candidate who CAN keep a secret whether corporate or National.

    Maybe we vote for the one who won't give away the Country!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yet we will still have morons on the eastern shore who will vote for Hillary. HOGAN may have a fundraiser for Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Two Things Could Be TrueJuly 6, 2016 at 7:35 PM

    People voting for Hillary is like Jews voting for Hitler. Voting for your own demise makes you look ridiculous and grossly uninformed. She's untrustworthy. It's really that simple. There's nothing that can take away the last thirty years of lies, deception, bullying, collusion and coercion. She's unfit to hold the office. If anything we could conclude from yesterday, there is always those facts. She can put on all the flimsy ads on TV but they're pure BS and everyone knows it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.