"People have been charged for far less than this." I heard Comey say that they could not find another case like this where anyone was charged. So I don't know what Rudy is talking about. Plus, unless Rudy was actively involved in the investigation, I don't know how he can say she broke any law. Did he say she was negligent or careless? I believe he said careless.
Well isn't that the question "extreme carelessness" vs "gross negligence"? For most people there is no difference between the two.
"People have been charged for far less than this." I heard Comey say that they could not find another case like this where anyone was charged. So I don't know what Rudy is talking about. Plus, unless Rudy was actively involved in the investigation, I don't know how he can say she broke any law. Did he say she was negligent or careless? I believe he said careless.
Well isn't that the question "extreme carelessness" vs "gross negligence"? For most people there is no difference between the two.
Actually, for most, theres a huge difference. It's the difference between being charged with a crime and not.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
No. Intent is not relevant. One can be negligent without intent when it comes to the distribution of classified information. She intentionally shared classified information on an unsecure system. She might not have intentionally wanted this information to be hacked but her negligence exposed this information to foreign agencies. That is the crime. It is her position of power that is protecting her from a prosecution that others such as this sailor would clearly be subjected too. You are covering for her and in doing so are jeopardizing the prosecution of the next lower level agent who commits a similar crime.
"People have been charged for far less than this." I heard Comey say that they could not find another case like this where anyone was charged. So I don't know what Rudy is talking about. Plus, unless Rudy was actively involved in the investigation, I don't know how he can say she broke any law. Did he say she was negligent or careless? I believe he said careless.
Well isn't that the question "extreme carelessness" vs "gross negligence"? For most people there is no difference between the two.
Actually, for most, theres a huge difference. It's the difference between being charged with a crime and not.
It's the semantics we tip toe so that the house of cards doesn't fall.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
No. Intent is not relevant. One can be negligent without intent when it comes to the distribution of classified information. She intentionally shared classified information on an unsecure system. She might not have intentionally wanted this information to be hacked but her negligence exposed this information to foreign agencies. That is the crime. It is her position of power that is protecting her from a prosecution that others such as this sailor would clearly be subjected too. You are covering for her and in doing so are jeopardizing the prosecution of the next lower level agent who commits a similar crime.
I'm jeopardizing future prosecutions? Are you stoned? This is the 10C forum.
Intent is relevant. Maybe it's not relevant in Canadian law, but it is here. And if you are accusing of gross negligence, then there will likely have to be damages. That's how federal statutes are typically written. And that's why she wasn't prosecuted.
I don't know how you think you are more equipped to indict her than the FBI who 1. Are law enforcement professionals and 2. Actually understand the laws of the United States.
No. Intent is not relevant. One can be negligent without intent when it comes to the distribution of classified information. She intentionally shared classified information on an unsecure system. She might not have intentionally wanted this information to be hacked but her negligence exposed this information to foreign agencies. That is the crime. It is her position of power that is protecting her from a prosecution that others such as this sailor would clearly be subjected too. You are covering for her and in doing so are jeopardizing the prosecution of the next lower level agent who commits a similar crime.
I'm jeopardizing future prosecutions? Are you stoned? This is the 10C forum.
Intent is relevant. Maybe it's not relevant in Canadian law, but it is here. And if you are accusing of gross negligence, then there will likely have to be damages. That's how federal statutes are typically written. And that's why she wasn't prosecuted.
I don't know how you think you are more equipped to indict her than the FBI who 1. Are law enforcement professionals and 2. Actually understand the laws of the United States.
Sorry but on this point of law you are wrong. Intent is not required when it comes to the improper distribution of classified information. Read the statute. Gross negligence is enough. Second damages following negligence do not need to exist with respect to classified information. This is isn't someone breaking their ankle by falling on someone's property. You are confusing different types of law that are not related to each other. Comey pulled the "intent" issue out of thin air on this point of law. Again read the statute.
Again, the FBI director did not say Clinton was grossly negligent. So as you read that statute posted above, it does not say extreme carelessness. It says grossly negligent.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Did any of that occur?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
No. Intent is not relevant. One can be negligent without intent when it comes to the distribution of classified information. She intentionally shared classified information on an unsecure system. She might not have intentionally wanted this information to be hacked but her negligence exposed this information to foreign agencies. That is the crime. It is her position of power that is protecting her from a prosecution that others such as this sailor would clearly be subjected too. You are covering for her and in doing so are jeopardizing the prosecution of the next lower level agent who commits a similar crime.
I'm jeopardizing future prosecutions? Are you stoned? This is the 10C forum.
Intent is relevant. Maybe it's not relevant in Canadian law, but it is here. And if you are accusing of gross negligence, then there will likely have to be damages. That's how federal statutes are typically written. And that's why she wasn't prosecuted.
I don't know how you think you are more equipped to indict her than the FBI who 1. Are law enforcement professionals and 2. Actually understand the laws of the United States.
Sorry but on this point of law you are wrong. Intent is not required when it comes to the improper distribution of classified information. Read the statute. Gross negligence is enough. Second damages following negligence do not need to exist with respect to classified information. This is isn't someone breaking their ankle by falling on someone's property. You are confusing different types of law that are not related to each other. Comey pulled the "intent" issue out of thin air on this point of law. Again read the statute.
I said Federal statutes generally require damages with negligence. I said that 2x at least. Early in my career I was a regulatory trainer and most absolutely require it. They don't always require intent (UDAAP for example). But I did say GENERALLY as I don't know this statute. I'm trusting the FBI to know the law. But as that Degerate fuck aptly pointed out, Comey did not say grossly negligent. You did.
Again, the FBI director did not say Clinton was grossly negligent. So as you read that statute posted above, it does not say extreme carelessness. It says grossly negligent.
You are correct. This is the fine line that would not protect the average american yet protects the politically connected. Lynch was never going to prosecute and Comey new it. He gave an unprecedented statement outlining the laws which were broken and even stated there was evidence of the such and yet finished with a caveat that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges. Prosecutors bring charges on less all the time as long as the will is there. In this case there was no will. The fix was in.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
At a minimum there should be "Security or administraive sanctions". The average person would lose his/her security clearance and would be barred from serving in goverment. If Hillary was still the Secretary of State she would have to resign. She should not be rewarded with the Presidency.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Did any of that occur?
Point 1 and 2 occured
How? And please, be specific.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
There are conservatives and then there are Canadian conservatives. Did Hillary deny one of your cocaine laden aeroplanes landing rights in Arkansas or something? Isn't Iran up to some nefarious plotting after having seized US Navy personnel? What skin do you have in the game to be so rabid in your attack(s) of this administration and its candidates? Or are you just pointing out the truth as you know it and want it to be? Wouldn't 213,000 members of the coalition of the willing in Iraq stop all the car bombings from occurring? If Obama had only punished Assad after drawing the red line in the sand, ISIS wouldn't exist. President Hillary would ruin the US of A. Sorry, GWB already did that and yet here we are. You seem to forget that our presidents are appointed by the voting public and that she still needs to run. Which she will do and she'll get elected. If only because your fringe right controlled GOP self-destructed. Its what happens when political parties don't run on facts and reasoned debate and resort to gerrymandered districts and the art of personal destruction to win elections. After a while the people see through it. You still have time to make a change.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Did any of that occur?
Point 1 and 2 occured
How? And please, be specific.
1) knowingly set up an unsecured email system (less security then gmail according to Comey) and knowingly sent/received classified information to other through this system. This breaches "the proper place" aspect of the statute. In addition information was transmitted on unsecure mobile devices within foreign countries to individuals who's security had already been compromised by foreign agencies of those countries (again according to Comey). Email correspondence between Clinton staffers and her IT specialist reveal periodic attempted hacking of their server to the point of multiple requires server shutdowns. Even following these shutdowns the unsecured servers continued to be used.
2)There was intent and knowledge to operate a separate server which allowed classified emails to exist outside their "proper place" for the purpose of avoiding transparency system. As per the above hacking incidents there was also knowledge that the system they were using was not secure. They refused and/or failed to change their behaviour even with this knowledge. They also knowingly. allowed for destruction of information not properly catalogued as per Comey's description of Hillary's lawyers deleting messages through the reading of headers only.
There are conservatives and then there are Canadian conservatives. Did Hillary deny one of your cocaine laden aeroplanes landing rights in Arkansas or something? Isn't Iran up to some nefarious plotting after having seized US Navy personnel? What skin do you have in the game to be so rabid in your attack(s) of this administration and its candidates? Or are you just pointing out the truth as you know it and want it to be? Wouldn't 213,000 members of the coalition of the willing in Iraq stop all the car bombings from occurring? If Obama had only punished Assad after drawing the red line in the sand, ISIS wouldn't exist. President Hillary would ruin the US of A. Sorry, GWB already did that and yet here we are. You seem to forget that our presidents are appointed by the voting public and that she still needs to run. Which she will do and she'll get elected. If only because your fringe right controlled GOP self-destructed. Its what happens when political parties don't run on facts and reasoned debate and resort to gerrymandered districts and the art of personal destruction to win elections. After a while the people see through it. You still have time to make a change.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Did any of that occur?
Point 1 and 2 occured
How? And please, be specific.
1) knowingly set up an unsecured email system (less security then gmail according to Comey) and knowingly sent/received classified information to other through this system. This breaches "the proper place" aspect of the statute. In addition information was transmitted on unsecure mobile devices within foreign countries to individuals who's security had already been compromised by foreign agencies of those countries (again according to Comey). Email correspondence between Clinton staffers and her IT specialist reveal periodic attempted hacking of their server to the point of multiple requires server shutdowns. Even following these shutdowns the unsecured servers continued to be used.
2)There was intent and knowledge to operate a separate server which allowed classified emails to exist outside their "proper place" for the purpose of avoiding transparency system. As per the above hacking incidents there was also knowledge that the system they were using was not secure. They refused and/or failed to change their behaviour even with this knowledge. They also knowingly. allowed for destruction of information not properly catalogued as per Comey's description of Hillary's lawyers deleting messages through the reading of headers only.
Haha. I think it's already been suggested but i second the nomination. You should submit your resume for the Director of the FBI. You clearly understand the law and the evidence better than Comey does. I don't know how America would function without all this secondary knowledge floating around the Internet.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Did any of that occur?
Point 1 and 2 occured
How? And please, be specific.
1) knowingly set up an unsecured email system (less security then gmail according to Comey) and knowingly sent/received classified information to other through this system. This breaches "the proper place" aspect of the statute. In addition information was transmitted on unsecure mobile devices within foreign countries to individuals who's security had already been compromised by foreign agencies of those countries (again according to Comey). Email correspondence between Clinton staffers and her IT specialist reveal periodic attempted hacking of their server to the point of multiple requires server shutdowns. Even following these shutdowns the unsecured servers continued to be used.
2)There was intent and knowledge to operate a separate server which allowed classified emails to exist outside their "proper place" for the purpose of avoiding transparency system. As per the above hacking incidents there was also knowledge that the system they were using was not secure. They refused and/or failed to change their behaviour even with this knowledge. They also knowingly. allowed for destruction of information not properly catalogued as per Comey's description of Hillary's lawyers deleting messages through the reading of headers only.
Your bias shines through in the statement. There is no evidence that she knowingly passed classified information. That's one assumption that you could not know. Second, in your second diatribe, you say she did it to avoid transparency. You have no way of knowing that either. Those accusations must be true for your conclusions to be accurate, but alas its only conjecture.
Thanks for your amateur FBI starter kit analysis, but it is unconvincing at many levels.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Did any of that occur?
Point 1 and 2 occured
How? And please, be specific.
1) knowingly set up an unsecured email system (less security then gmail according to Comey) and knowingly sent/received classified information to other through this system. This breaches "the proper place" aspect of the statute. In addition information was transmitted on unsecure mobile devices within foreign countries to individuals who's security had already been compromised by foreign agencies of those countries (again according to Comey). Email correspondence between Clinton staffers and her IT specialist reveal periodic attempted hacking of their server to the point of multiple requires server shutdowns. Even following these shutdowns the unsecured servers continued to be used.
2)There was intent and knowledge to operate a separate server which allowed classified emails to exist outside their "proper place" for the purpose of avoiding transparency system. As per the above hacking incidents there was also knowledge that the system they were using was not secure. They refused and/or failed to change their behaviour even with this knowledge. They also knowingly. allowed for destruction of information not properly catalogued as per Comey's description of Hillary's lawyers deleting messages through the reading of headers only.
First, there was no evidence of her server being hacked. If I'm not mistaken, it was the position of the FBI that her emails could have been hacked.
It's in its proper place. It's coming and going from people with the proper clearance. Had any classified information ever not been in its proper place, im sure Comer would have stated such information.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
He clearly states that there isn't anything to bring her to trial but it does say that she and others should have sanctions.
Read the WHOLE thing.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the F.B.I. found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
Comments
Still would be an easy decision to make between her and Trump.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
that was hillary breaking the internet.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
we will find a way, we will find our place
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Intent is relevant. Maybe it's not relevant in Canadian law, but it is here. And if you are accusing of gross negligence, then there will likely have to be damages. That's how federal statutes are typically written. And that's why she wasn't prosecuted.
I don't know how you think you are more equipped to indict her than the FBI who 1. Are law enforcement professionals and 2. Actually understand the laws of the United States.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
At a minimum there should be "Security or administraive sanctions". The average person would lose his/her security clearance and would be barred from serving in goverment. If Hillary was still the Secretary of State she would have to resign. She should not be rewarded with the Presidency.
You still have time to make a change.
we will find a way, we will find our place
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2)There was intent and knowledge to operate a separate server which allowed classified emails to exist outside their "proper place" for the purpose of avoiding transparency system. As per the above hacking incidents there was also knowledge that the system they were using was not secure. They refused and/or failed to change their behaviour even with this knowledge. They also knowingly. allowed for destruction of information not properly catalogued as per Comey's description of Hillary's lawyers deleting messages through the reading of headers only.
Thanks for your amateur FBI starter kit analysis, but it is unconvincing at many levels.
It's in its proper place. It's coming and going from people with the proper clearance. Had any classified information ever not been in its proper place, im sure Comer would have stated such information.
we will find a way, we will find our place
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
He clearly states that there isn't anything to bring her to trial but it does say that she and others should have sanctions.
Read the WHOLE thing.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the F.B.I. found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.