By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari said:
Aielyn said:

I'd respond meaningfully to your statement, but I'm not even clear on what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that my direct interpretation of the FBI comments, which clearly state that those who do what Clinton did might be subject to sanctions, but that the FBI weren't tasked with determining sanctions, was "mental gymnastics"? And what "spectrum" are you referring to?

I'm seriously at a loss to understand what you're trying to say.

The original quote is basically saying more in the light of "she should receive sanctions and they decided not to" than "this kind of thing could or could not end in sanction"

So your interpretation is moving from the guilty to not guilty

Erm... did you even READ the quote? "But that is not what we are deciding now". That's literally what they said. They said that someone who did what Clinton and her team did might be subject to administrative or security sanctions, but that's not what the FBI was judging.

Notice that the next step was the State Department reopening their investigation? Because administrative and security sanctions are the jurisdiction of the State Department, not the FBI.

This is literally exactly how this should have gone - she didn't break laws, so the FBI don't recommend the DoJ press charges, but her actions were certainly questionable, so the State Department is going to take the information the FBI gathered.

But hey, you've decided she's guilty of some vague, undefined crime, therefore me pointing out what they literally said must be me "interpreting" it "from guilty to not guilty", right?