(02-05-2018 03:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 07:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In all the "mays" and "mights" and "ifs" and "maybes," I come down to what I know to be factually correct.
I know that James Comey recited a list of actions by Hillary Clinton that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 40 years had I done them, but he then recommend that she not be prosecuted because of difficulty proving "intent," when 1) intent is not an element of the respective crimes, and 2) two primary indicia of intent were present--repeated acts and destruction of evidence.
That's it. That's all I know as a matter of fact. The rest is he said/she said at this point. And I'm not comfortable with that fact.

Any opinion on the editing of Comey's presentation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?

I would include that as part of my fact.

Other fact: Comey made the reopening of the investigation into the emails on Weiner's computer public before the election and before there was any evidence about them being new or old.

I want to say it was the NYTimes, but regardless, a detailed article was written about Comey. All signs point to Comey being a person who was put between a rock and a hard and place in the situation, and that in the situation he attempted to do what he felt was least partisan and was the most fair - which is why he felt the need to inform the public of those emails. Those actions both helped/hurt Clinton in the election.