Aielyn said:
Actually, the whole point is that they *were* deciding the judicial situation. She didn't break laws - that's what they found, that's what they decided. If their intent was to protect her in any way, or to prevent negative consequences for what she did, then the FBI failed miserably, since they spelt out exactly what she did wrong, and what should be done about it. They were practically instructing the State Department to return to their investigation, although they have no authority over such issues. Or do you believe that they spent the time to detail the big issues in order to attract criticism for the decision they made? Are they trying to sabotage their own announcement? I'm not sure how you read it the way that you did, but the language was quite clear, even out of context. In context, there was no doubt - the "that" refers to "administrative and security sanctions", and such sanctions aren't within the purview of the FBI. Instead, they're in the purview of the department in question - in this case, the State Department. Hence, the State Department reopening the investigation. The FBI's comments were damning; they aren't the words one would use when trying to protect Clinton. |
I didn't said the FBI were protecting Clinton, I'm saying that they decided not go forward with it, and that it might be my poor english interpretation

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







