FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton for personal email server use
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. Based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."
Perhaps we'll see Congress appoint a Special Prosecutor.
This is why the branches of the government are separate, so political parties can't use them as attack dogs to further their own cause when they don't like things.
they've already made up their minds. she's guilty, 100-point-zero percent confidence, and anything that doesn't line up with that narrative is obviously crooked politics or whatever.
congress is the attack dog that the republicans have used for the better part of the last 2 decades to make anything stick to the clintons.
don't believe the lies about "where there's smoke, there's fire" here. they invented all the smoke, hoping you'll believe there's a fire.
I'd look hard at the logs, it certainly feels suspicious to me, although admittedly I haven't seen any commentator action suggesting anything other than a flagging campaign.
I'm literally in disbelief about how people think it's Hillary trying to hide these discussions. Liberal media, indeed...
This case (HRC's emails) is world news and has a strong technical component.
The flagged post links directly to the statement of the FBI. It is a neutral source and a better read than a lot of the news sites.
It is sad that HN in practice censors this stuff just because it is political.
We sometimes turn off user flags in exceptional cases but this doesn't seem like one to me.
Does the number of comments on a post get taken into account along with votes and flags? It seems to me that if a story is polarising people who disagree with it will be much more liberal with their down vote whereas people who may agree with it are taking the time to read and comment instead of immediately voting.
They'd rather flag and stifle discussion than let people know that her actions didn't rise to the level of criminal charges. It is sad. It's also exactly what I've come to expect. People scream about the liberal media, and yet here we are watching a pro-liberal (in theory... i guess... maybe just not anti-liberal) story get censored as fast as they get posted.
Edit: @dang on the off chance you read his, is it worthwhile upvoting an article once it's dead? Or is the flag permanent?(I figure it's pissing against the wind, but I'd like to know either way).