Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

A ninth investigation into Benghazi.

 

Yup. There's lots of times where there's enough evidence to believe someone committed a crime, but not enough evidence to charge, let alone convict.

 

"Potential."

Meaning they don't know themselves whether or not what she did was a violation of the law. If they're not sure, how would a jury be able to be sure it's a violation of the law?

 

He didn't say they couldn't prove it, or even that it would be difficult to prove.

 

This is funny.

Dems have said for years that Saddam kept Iran in check, clamped down on terror, protected religious minorities, etc.

They scoffed at Saddam's genocide, biological warfare, and rape rooms. Criticized anyone who mentioned them as a reason to invade.

But now they criticize Trump for making a fraction of this point.

 

He used the exact same language prosecutors use -- "evidence of potential violations." That's boilerplate when declining to bring charges.

 

Uh huh. Did you read the rest of the statement?

They have a clear paper trail of evidence. A prosecutor who wanted to convict would nail her.

This is an FBI Director who didn't want to disrupt the political process. It's just like when John Roberts found a way to justify Obamacare.

Oddly, only Republicans let the other side win to avoid messy political situations. Dems never let a crisis go to waste.

 

Maybe, maybe not. One person's slam-dunk is another's no-win. But to what da man posted, it was no indication at all that they were kicking the case despite its strength.

 

He used lack of intent, to let her off.

Now, she of course meant to set up a personal server. She meant to send the emails that contained classified material. She meant to use multiple, unsecure devices. She meant to use these devices in foreign nations, who would want to access her email.

But, somehow, while the standard was gross negligence, a lack of intent to be grossly negligent excused the criminality.

 

We should really highlight this portion of Comey's statement:

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

So, "hostile actors" gained access to to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. This means they would know her email address and server info, and would obviously try to gain access to it.

She used her personal email while abroad, in the very nations who would most like to gain access to it, and who are the most sophisticated at doing so.

Is there any doubt that China and Russia were reading her emails -- flush with classified information -- in real time?

And, what about @Pastor's reassurances that since the security logs showed no evidence of a successful intrusion, we could confidently conclude that no such intrusion happened?

Well, here's what Comey says:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.

 

OK ... now take that to court. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, while we do not see evidence of a breach, it might have happened and we just don't know!"

Does that sound like a conviction?

 

"We totally could have won, we just chose not to" is a good warm-up for how Trump's going to be treating this election in a couple of months.