More thoughts on the FBI decision not to recommend charging Hillary Clinton

More thoughts on the FBI decision:

The problem is showing intent. That is essential to criminal charges. The FBI could not find proof of intent. Without that they could not charge her. The shrill spokesperson for the RNC kept saying she intentionally set up her server to avoid scrutiny. That is exactly what the FBI could not prove. That she was careless is no doubt, but the strategy of the GOP to get her indicted was a true bust. An indictment would have gotten her out of the race. That she was careless did not rise to the criminal prosecution standard of gross negligence, just extremely careless.That was Comey's call and conclusion. Expect the GOP to question his judgment call. I spent 7 years as a white collar crime DA investigator and another 8 enforcing election contributions fraud...so I understand the differences. I also understand that DA's standard for prosecution is: can we win or at least probably win and they often refuse to file or indict.

How does one prove intent?  Some direct evidence such as statements of record is one way, but Comey did not find that evidence. Another is a pattern of behavior. Yes, some of the classified material was referred to in the chains of  emails, though if you listen carefully, she received those chains sent by others in the State Department to her, but it was not clear how many  marked classified Clinton initiated  herself or were sent to her by staff. The key is that those that were sent through the server were few compared to the whole body of the of the emails.  She may have lied if she had knowledge or memory of that, but that she knowlingly had initiated classified material  marked that way or was it that she had received them : Her intention was that she did not send it. That is difficult to determine intent because it is a very weak set of evidence to prove a pattern of behavior.  Even Rudy Giuliani who was first to criticize the Comey decision admitted, as a former prosecutor himself, intent is difficult to prove.  That gross negligence clause in that statute was a provision that had never been charged before, said others on MSNBC. . The question is why? Is it the fuzzy definition of it?  Last but not least, is there any evidence of the harm it did to national security, or was it just the potential of harm that could have been done, but was not.  That is a question for the CIA and we will never know that answer.

What the fallout is that Hillary Clinton survived to be the Democratic nominee and she received such a black eye, that it will still hurt her ability to gain the trust she seeks.  If she were running against anyone by Donald Trump, who fact checkers have designated the liar of 2015 and who keeps sticking his foot in his mouth with racist and chauvinistic comments, it would be more harmful.   

ps. Trump's response this morning: " Comey was bribed."   

It turns out that only 3 emails with portions marked classified (c) are in question about whether Clinton sent them.  Two were marked classified mistakingly.  That is 3 out of 30 thousand.  Comey once again thinks she did not know the "c" meant those lines in the email were classified. In those cases, the headings should have been marked classified, but the transmission did not have the required heading.  http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/?utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=dc7c61172e-FactCheck_Newsletter_7_9_20167_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3294bba774-dc7c61172e-47897245