saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Today, FBI Directer Comey cleared Hillary Clinton of any criminal activity. She did make some clearly stupid mistakes, especially for someone that should have known better. The big question is, is she still a reasonable candidate for the Presidency? Under normal circumstances, I would have some doubts about voting for her. This election can not come under the definition of normal circumstances. There is just too much to consider:
1. How would Trump effect the foreign policy of the US.
2. What would the US Supreme Court look like if the Donald appointed vacant Supreme Court Justices?
3. What would Trump do about the decline of the middle class, while the super wealthy continue to gain wealth and power?
4. What does the record of Trump say about the promises he made to the American people?
Personally I believe that Hillary is a flawed candidate, but Trump has so many negatives, I couldn't vote for him. What do you think?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Salt,

You got it pretty well covered..

Nearly anyone, other that Trump would grab my vote rather then Hillary.. But bad as she is, it is no doubt that she, in office is less of a danger to our well being then Trump would be..

If stupidity rated a prison term, she would have several..

On another vain, Gary sometimes looks good..

But I have been spending large amounts of time gearing up to give my vote to Hillary... I will stick to my duty and accomplish that on the November day..

buffalo Loc: Texas

He would be 1000 times better than the bitch. She was not cleared. She is part of a rigged for the establishment justice system. Comey said there was evidence she violated Federal laws.

Bush lied about Iraq and it was a mistake. Obammy made another foreign policy blunder with Iraq. You like whats happening in Syria, Iran, Ukrania...? You like the way immigration and the influx of mooslimes allowed to infiltrate us? Obammy and bitch clinton are part of the corporate/government collusion that has been fucking the middle class of the US for decades to benefit the rich. Bitch clinton would continue that collusion. Trump is at least not owned by the criminal establishment in DC. That is why both arms (dems and repubs) of the corporate party fear him.

Your an idiot if you think bitch clinton would be good for the average US citizen.

Ricko Loc: Florida

saltwind/permafrost-how can you even consider a lying , incompetent, untrustworthy scum like Hillary ? She is in this for Hillary period. Electing her is a continuation of the Obama regime. With all his faults, Trump is a better choice. He will surround himself with good people who have America's interest at heart. With Hillary, it will be business as usual with the addition of Slick, on salary, to run the economy since she does not have a clue. I can understand two democrats voting the party ticket. Hillary is a consummate liar who will never change. You want her in the Oval Office ? PS. The answers to your questions are evident-what have Obama/
Clinton done that you like ? Trump could not do any worse if he tried. Good Luck America !!!

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Hey there Salty, good to see you, hope you had a great 4th...

Just wanted to take this chance to admit that I was wrong. A little while back I offered to make a wager with you (at least I think it was you lol) on whether or not Hillary would be indicted. I said she would, you disagreed, you were right; thanks for not taking the bet. 😁👍❤️

As this is a crying shame for our justice system, it still remains that she is cleared. But, I'd also like to add she's not out of the woods yet, she still has to get past the investigation of the Clinton foundation.... Sad times when the best candidate the Dems can offer is under several investigations, and the best the Repubs can offer is Trump. I just see Trump as being more concerned with things that will better this country and make it a little safer. Hillary will just perpetuate its decline....

That's my two cents for the day, take it easy Salty. 👍🇺🇸🇺🇸

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

I think that anyone who votes for Hillary is as morally corrupt as Hillary / Bill / Obama .. If the shoe fits ,, well you know ...

Loki Loc: Georgia

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf


Under E.O. 13526, each respective agency is responsible for maintaining control over classified
information it originates and is responsible for establishing uniform procedures to protect
classified information and automated information systems in which classified information is
stored or transmitted. Standards for safeguarding classified information, including the handling,
storage, distribution, transmittal, and destruction of and accounting for classified information, are
developed by the ISOO. Agencies that receive information classified elsewhere are not permitted
to transfer the information further without approval from the classifying agency. Persons
authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch are required to
ensure it receives protection equivalent to those required internally. In the event of a knowing,
willful, or negligent unauthorized disclosure (or any such action that could reasonably be
expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure), the agency head or senior agency official is
required to notify ISOO and to “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.” Officers and
employees of the United States (including contractors, licensees, etc.) who commit a violation are
subject to sanctions that can range from reprimand to termination.43

Then there is the agreement that Hillary the Harridan signed the day after she became Sec/State.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-doesnt-remember-signing-nda-handling-classified-material/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
So, it is your contention that someone who knowingly and carelessly mishandled classified information in clear violation of US Law, and then lied about doing so, whose ineptness and deliberate flouting of regulations that she signed whether she "remembers" or not, is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. I suppose, one more time, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Loki Loc: Georgia

According to 18 USC 798, there are criminal penalties for mishandling classified information, whether you do so knowingly or not. The FBI Director acknowledged that ANY "reasonable person" should have known the material in question was classified, yet when your name is Clinton, you are not bound by the same rules; nor are you held to task when you lie about it and do everything in your power to monkey wrench the investigation.
I didn't really expect anything else, given the unbelievable corruption in Washington DC.

A Democratic Administration, a Democratic FBI Director appointed by a Democrat and confirmed by Democrats and a Democratic AG appointed by and confirmed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans.

I wonder why I don't believe all these protestations of "non-partisanship" by the media? Maybe because it flies in the face of US Law, and other officials have been prosecuted for fewer "indiscretions?"

chuck slusser

as to Hillary I think that her following is 18-30 year olds that might have done better with an education.... I really can not fathom the fact that anyone with enough sense to eat ,can belive the hillery bull shit. to vote for her is a fool, we see all to clearly the huge stupidity of the voters with the currant pres. (not an American,by any standard).....how anyone could have belived him or her now.....THEY ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE ...THE PROOF IS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND COULD NOT BE MORE PLAN.........no one can possibility belive that she is not guilty of numerous crimes against America and it's people........hell she stole the whitehouse dinner ware silverware, paintings, carpets..this is only the little stuff.....who knows what else.....too mention the long list of charges and investigations she is as guilty as hell....if the FBI has caved in she will indeed skate once again.....and the dummy's will vote for her even knowing that it is the wrong thing too do....

Loki Loc: Georgia

Your title said "cleared of any wrongdoing." This is not true. Comey, a supposedly honest Democrat, simply re-wrote the law for Hillary. His repeated statements of "no intent" mean nothing. Federal law does not say you have to do it on purpose. He confirmed that she mishandled classified material, knowingly lied about doing so, was probably hacked, and said that she should not be prosecuted because "she didn't mean any harm." (He left out the part and because her name is Clinton, but everyone other than the most committed Hillary supporters already knew that.

Like I said; If Trump supporters are Trumpets, then Hillary supporters after this should be called Strumpets.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Loki, I am not saying anything of the kind. FBI Directer Comer is. From what I heard, Clinton made a terrible mistake. The FBI said that this does not rise to the definition of criminal. The Justice Department has been pretty fair in this investigation from what I understand. I also believe that the Republicans want to keep this issue in the public eye for obvious reasons.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

She was NOT cleared of wrong doing, she was merely not recommended for prosecution. The FBI director made clear what she did wrong, who was involved and why it was wrong, but explained that it did not meet the threshold for prosecution.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Ricko,

It is sad when we must chose between the 2 worst candidates ever.. You chose one, I think the other is less evil... Sucks. To vote this time around..

But why will I vote for the Hillary? Trump has a bit of the same appeal as Jessie Ventura when he ran for Minnesota Gov., An outsider, not from any solid political background, running against life long pols. Even if they did not care for politics, they had been in the game for a life time.. Jessie won and was not so bad after all..

In Trumps case, any of about a hundred statements he gave would have turned me away. The last, in Scotland to promote his golf course and he had to ask what the Brexit vote was about. Then gave that foolish speech about how it was very good for him. And in Scotland which voted so strongly against leaving the EU.. That would have been the last straw if any conflict remained..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Loki,

You and AuntiE both have posted information which seems to cover the subject. But the one that matters, decided that no law was violated.. And he did not rewrite the law.. If the Pres can not do that, the law man can not either...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

For the record, This is a small part of the information that was used to dump the charges..

Look at the long article if you wish.. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres

uesday morning, FBI Director James Comey announced that his agency’s investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of a private email server while she was Secretary of State has come to a close. He also added that the FBI will recommend against criminal charges for Secretary Clinton, stating that “no reasonable prosecutor” could determine that charges were warranted here. It’s an announcement that will surprise no one who is familiar with the underlying law and ordinary Justice Department practices in a case such as this one.
Nevertheless, in part because calls for a Clinton indictment were amplified by Republicans at the highest levels, and in part because of what Josh Marshall described as the media-industrial complex’s quest for “wingnut page views,” the idea that Clinton may face criminal charges has lingered for months. Here’s what you need to know about why such charges were never a realistic possibility.
Clinton, like her two most recent predecessors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, maintained at least two email accounts: one specifically set up to receive classified information and the other for other communications. Clinton’s non-classified email was hosted on a private server (as opposed to Powell’s non-classified email address, which was an AOL account), while the classified email could only be accessed if Clinton complied with a byzantine array of security rules.
Clinton says that the emails she received at her non-classified address “were not marked classified,” although she acknowledges that “there are disagreements among agencies on what should have been perhaps classified retroactively.” Government officials also confirm that “none of the emails the State Department redacted, or any other emails made public, contained classification markings at the time they were sent.”