The FBI Recommends Not To Indict Hillary Clinton For Email Misconduct (theverge.com) 1010
FBI Director James Comey says that his agency isn't recommending that the DOJ pursue charges against Hillary Clinton for setting up a private email server as Secretary of State. At a press conference on Tuesday, Comey added that while there is "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," they think that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." The Verge reports:The recommendation is the result of a painstaking investigation by the bureau, which uncovered a number of new details. The investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain classified information, including 8 chains contained information that was marked as top secret at the time, Director Comey said. Secretary Clinton used several different email servers and numerous mobile devices, and many of those servers were decommissioned and otherwise altered as they were replaced.
Its official, the FBI has become a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
So intent is now needed to be prosecuted for a crime? Good to know. As long as I dont intend to commit that crime, I wont be prosecuted. I have never seen america so corrupt in my life. I am so disappointed in the FBI and ALL OF IT AGENTS that would allow this to happen.
FBI AGENTS: You have officially become a joke to the rest of the world. Dont expect any respect from any of us anymore.
Re:Its official, the FBI has become a joke. (Score:5, Informative)
So intent is now needed to be prosecuted for a crime?
Mens rea [wikipedia.org] is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
Re:Its official, the FBI has become a joke. (Score:5, Informative)
Mens rea [wikipedia.org] is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
Incorrect. There are a number of strict liability crimes that have significant jail sentences. The most common of which is statutory rape. A number of crimes relating to classified documents are strict liability as well.
United States v. Kantor (Score:4, Informative)
There are a number of strict liability crimes that have significant jail sentences. The most common of which is statutory rape.
In United States v. Kantor, an actress deliberately misrepresented her age to appear in an erotic film. The Ninth Circuit used this as grounds to find the film's producer not guilty of child pornography. The result appears consistent with the unclean hands doctrine [wikipedia.org]: someone guilty of forgery [wikipedia.org] is unjustified in pressing charges on grounds of reliance on a forged document. (See "Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes" by Laurie L. Levinson [cornell.edu].) Applying the logic of Kantor to statutory rape would raise the bar on statutory rape to negligence. Or in which post-Kantor cases has such a defense already been unsuccessfully applied?
Re:Its official, the FBI has become a joke. (Score:5, Informative)
Mens rea [wikipedia.org] is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
National security matters, such as those defined by espionage-related statutes, are specific exemptions to that concept. Mere negligence is enough to make you a felon. The FBI describes Clinton's deliberate actions as "extreme carelessness" - which is deliberate hair-splitting designed to avoid the word "negligence" EXACTLY because that would demand criminal prosecution.
Re: (Score:3)
FBI AGENTS: You have officially become a joke to the rest of the world. Dont expect any respect from any of us anymore.
What does that even mean?
Of course not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and if you're wondering about the FBI's sprawling, ongoing corruption investigation of Bill and Hillary's family business as it raked in millions of dollars from foreign government with business before her as Secretary of State, that's still in progress. Under Loretta Lynch's watch, of course.
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Informative)
On July 2 Lynch [nytimes.com] stated that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is recommending no indictment so none will occur.
It's bullshit is what it is (Score:4, Insightful)
The FBI indicated that they DID find classified material, with markings, in the emails that were on the server. But that it was there "without intent" whatever that means.
As someone with a clearance, one thing that gets drilled into your head through constant reminders is that carelessness with classified material is NOT an excuse. That if you accidentally leak classified information through simple negligence, you are as guilty as someone who does it intentionally.
Well, guess what. Clinton accidentally leaked classified information to third party governments through known negligence.
But she won't be charged.
This is just beyond bullshit for the FBI. We can only hope that Wikileaks steps up and really does have the evidence to prove the FBI is refusing to do their damned jobs.
Re:It's bullshit is what it is (Score:4, Informative)
No 'clear evidence' (Score:4, Insightful)
From CNN's site:
No 'clear evidence' Clinton intended to violate laws.
Gee, I guess we could use that same statement on just about every rule we intend not to break. So much for rule of law.
Re:No 'clear evidence' (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is for the statutes she was accused of violating there is no distinction between intent and negligence. Merely being aware of the existence of her server was technically a violation of the statues if not reported let alone being an active participant in their use. Then of course their is the know cases of document destruction which itself violates several statues.
Comey even went so far as to say that anyone else in the same situation as Clinton would most likely face sanctions but that they weren't suggestion any against Clinton simply because "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".
It's good to be king (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's good to be king (Score:5, Informative)
According to the statues there is no difference between negligence and intent so yes, except for volume, Clinton and Snowden were in violation of most of the same statues concerning classified materials. Snowden may have extra charges related to the means he used to extract the data and some actions he took afterward but the underling violations concerning the data itself are the same.
Pretty big difference (Score:4, Insightful)
"except for volume"
That's a pretty big difference. 1.7 Million documents vs 100. And Clinton's intent was, in fact, that the servers be both protected and private (hacking attempts and successes notwithstanding. If her intent wasn't to control the shit out of ever single email she sent or received she'd have put them on a government computer where others outside of her control would have had known access.
The reality is that she mishandled classified information - in exceedingly small amounts for someone in her position who probably touches hundreds of classified pieces of information every day. That mishandling was statutory - it did not follow the letter of the regulations which is intended to prevent accidental dissemination of the information to hostile parties. Instead, she put it on a server which was intentionally under her (nominally) complete control, with the intent of making sure that nobody every saw a single thing that she didn't approve. Given the paranoia of the woman, it was probably safer there than on the official servers.
This is the security equivalent of doing 67 in a 55. Most people are going to get a slap on the wrist, some people are going to get the book thrown at them, and some people who are connected or are good talkers are going to walk away with a warning. Snowden was doing 110 in a school zone, putting kill stickers on his windshield for every kid he hit. Some of those kids, no doubt, had it coming to them; but Snowden still didn't have the right to mow them down.
For the two people still out there (Score:3)
that need any evidence to show laws are only in place for the masses and not the rulers, this should fit the bill quite nicely.
The corruption of our government is so engrained now it will be impossible to remove without destroying its host.
It's become a cancer you no longer wish to fight because you've realized you're only prolonging the inevitable.
Hopefully, the end comes quickly.
At what point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Happens all the time in the private sector (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like the FBI said, she was grossly negligent especially considering the rules about archiving and secrecy...but it happens way too frequently in the "real world" of business for me to be surprised. No executive I have ever seen has had to follow any sort of IT rules. Anything that gets in their way is magically removed.
I did a lot of desktop support in my early career, and am still connected to that world because my specialty is end user computing and end user systems management. The facts are as follows -- every executive, senior VP or above in large companies, has a different set of IT rules than the rest of us:
- Almost every executive I've encountered has no password, no drive encryption or other protection on their machines. Either that, or they have Zuckerberg style "dadada" passwords and need special exemptions carved out of the corporate password policies to deal with it.
- Almost all of them forward their emails to personal accounts so they can get their emails on whatever flavor-of-the-week consumer device comes out.
- 99.9% of them let their secretaries send and receive their email by giving them their password. Same goes for executing transactions.
- Before iOS and Android got good Exchange integration and full MDM, it was extremely common to have "basement email servers" -- sometimes they were in the data center, and sometimes they really were in the exec's basement. We don't need that anymore, but I can imagine the State Department's IT people aren't exactly early adopters especially concerning communications.
- Tons of support time is spent getting whatever crazy computer, tablet, smartphone, Amazon Echo, game system, etc. connected to the company network and functioning -- stuff that the "little people" would never be allowed to use.
The point is that all executives bend the rules, and the IT staff allow them to because they like being paid. In my mind this is no different...Clinton was essentially the CEO of the State Department. Would you tell your CEO that he wasn't able to access his email from some unsecure consumer laptop on his private jet?
Re: (Score:3)
The government by definition has no competition. So there are no disincentives for flaunting security rules since the government can't cease to exist (well I suppose there's popular revolution, but those are few and far betwee
Re:Happens all the time in the private sector (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you tell your CEO that he wasn't able to access his email from some unsecure consumer laptop on his private jet?
Yes, because there are laws regarding what you can and more importantly CANNOT do in government that don't apply to the private sector. Besides being potentiality classified, official government emails are official records and have to be treated as such so that us lowly citizens can use the freedom of information requests to see them. Now that she got away with this, what is to stop the head of every government organization from breaking the law and keeping their email on their own servers? Servers they control and can wipe before evidence of other crimes can come to light.
Re: (Score:3)
The SoS can only declassify materials originating withing the State Department itself. They have no authority to declassify any material originating within any other government agency or foreign source which was why when this first started up there was a parade of State Dept. personnel going to each other federal agency pleading for them to declassify their data to cover for Hillary. As far as I know, none of the other agencies complied.
What else did you expect? (Score:3)
Prison for this not likely for anyone (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/re... [prisonpolicy.org]
There isn't even an entry for people who were sent to prison for being careless about top secret security clearance.
The most likely occurrence for being sloppy would be a reprimand and extra training classes.
People are prosecuted for intentionally releasing top secret material to enemies or to the public.
People are not prosecuted for being careless or incorrectly configured servers.
It is not true that "anyone but hillary" would do prison time for what happened here. They would get butt hurt and it might even hurt their career (and might get them fired and their clearance withdrawn) but federal prosecution for all practical purposes does not occur in this kind of situation.
sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
"...The investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain classified information, including 8 chains contained information that was marked as top secret at the time, ..." ....in the emails that had ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY SCRUBBED before 'handing them over' to the FBI.
Sic Transit Gloria Republica, 2016 Anno Domini..
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bernie has not technically withdrawn yet. So seeing the last of Hillary would mean it would be Bernie vs Trump.
Incredibly Frustrating (Score:5, Interesting)
I have mod points, and I'm tempted to use them on this thread, but I think it's more important to comment. I must begin by saying I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy and do not plan to vote for him.
That said, I am flabbergasted that the FBI basically said that Clinton broke laws, but because it wasn't intentional, they don't recommend charges. If you or I did that, we'd be in Federal PMITA Prison faster than you can say, "I'd like to speak to my lawyer." How many people have been found guilty in court with a reminder from the judge that "ignorance is no excuse."
It is now crystal clear that there are two sets of laws in this country: one set that applies to us regular folk and another that applies (or doesn't, rather) to the elite.
My guess is that, in the end, Joe Biden decided he didn't actually want to run for president this time around, or you can bet that the FBI and DoJ would come down hard on Clinton.
"No reasonable prosecutor" (Score:5, Insightful)
If DoJ prosecutors were reasonable, Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. Fuck this double standard.
How to weaken an entire Nation. (Score:4, Insightful)
This ruling was rather obvious to not indict a Clinton, which we knew was going to happen, based on the mafia strongarm tactics of BOTH Clintons "volunteering" to meet with Lynch within the last week (yeeeeah, not suspicious at all). More importantly, this ruling also weakens an entire Nation since it now helps set a precedent for anyone accused of mishandling data classified at the highest levels.
Why punish anyone for mishandling classified data? If I were being accused, I would merely point to this entire Clinton case as my defense and wait for my slap on the wrist. Given the gravity of the violations the punishment should be devoid of any exceptions, and respectful of the black-and-white way that the government data handling policies are structured and written, which are applicable to anyone and everyone handling classified data. Her violations are black-and-white. The punishment should be too.
And we have the unmitigated gall to sit back and point at other governments and call them corrupt? That's a laugh.
Re:How to weaken an entire Nation. (Score:5, Interesting)
It does not financially ruin people when they are armed with legal precedent
Uh, huh. Except that hardly ever happens: In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial.
For the overwhelming majority of people who come into contact with the "justice" system, to be accused is to be guilty.
Translation: Guilty As !@#$% (Score:3)
Translation, Hillary Clinton was guilty as !@#$, and incurred numerous negligent violations. However, seeing as she is likely to be our boss next year, and the fact we value having our jobs, we have decided to recommend that charges not be pursued.
The joys of absolute power (Score:3)
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Especially when there's a 50:50 chance that she'd be in a position to rain down bucketloads of the brown stuff on any and every-one dumb enough to try it or who had any association (however remote) with the action.
Laws are for little people (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI, Comey elaborated, had found no example of a prior prosecution ever having been brought in a classified-information case that did not involve intentional mishandling of material, “vast quantities” of mishandled information, evidence of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice." ... Comey also said that investigators had used forensic analysis to uncover “thousands” of work-related emails that were not among the group Clinton turned over to the State Department
Deliberately setting up your own personal server is not “intentional”, more than 100 emails is not “vast quantities”, and thousands of emails that were required to be turned over, but were not, is not “obstruction of justice”. Nope, no sign of any crime, nothing to see here, move along...
Under Barack Obama, a very brief search for people prosecuted for mishandling classified information brings up James Hitselberger, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Kiriakou, Shamai Leibowitz, Bradley Manning, Jeffrey Sterling - and, of course, Edward Snowden, if only they could get their hands on him. Most view themselves as whistleblowers. Hillary, on the other hand, is just corrupt. So that's different, I suppose.
'Unintentionally' (Score:3, Informative)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was obvious that they would never indict her. She's too big to jail.
Hopefully what the public remembers about this is that if an enlisted man did exactly what she did, he'd be in Leavenworth.
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was obvious that they would never indict her. She's too big to jail.
- true that. Maybe she needs to be broken up into a number of smaller Hillaries, each one just small enough that it can be jailed.
Comey added that while there is "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," they think that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." The Verge reports:
- so while a crime was committed, no reasonable prosecutor would bring up such a case.
What Comey means by this is that no prosecutor in his right mind would attack Hillary regardless of what she does. She could kill a man on camera and no reasonable prosecutor would attack her, they would probably declare it a "victory for the women's movement".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe she needs to be broken up into a number of smaller Hillaries, each one just small enough that it can be jailed.
There used to be a judicial process for that. Oh yeah [wikipedia.org].
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well at least with an empty chair, there would be far less legislation enacted which almost always means a reduction in our rights and growth in the government.
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the FBI director basically said, "She probably broke laws, was definitely extremely careless, but no one in their right mind is going to want to prosecute *her*.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I didn't know to what extent that they'd prosecute anyone else who wasn't someone in her lofty position, I might think they were trying to throw her in jail for jaywalking too.
I don't want to have a presidential candidate nixed for something relatively minor, but at the same time, I don't want them getting off scot free for something that would cause anyone else to be in fairly major trouble.
Unfortunately, this campaign comes down to either electing someone who represents everything wrong with the status quo, or the guy who represents everything that could go wrong with trying to change the status quo. I am thoroughly not looking forward to the next four plus years.
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then vote for Gary Johnson. I know he's a (*gasp*) Libertarian. But, hell, it's time to overlook any of the relatively small issues that you may have with (*gasp*) Libertarians and start promoting someone who is not Hillary or Trump. He's the only candidate with even a small chance to save this election for everybody.
Please, don't lecture me on the nearly non-existent chance for a third-party candidacy. There has never been a presidential election like this, so you can't go by historical precedent.
I believe that Johnson will be on the ballot on all 50 states. If he can get just a bit of momentum, then he can get into the debates. If that happens, then who knows?
Talk about Johnson - push for articles about Johnson - do something!
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you aware that the only reason you gave to vote for Gary Johnson is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Despite their respective flaws, there are actually a lot of people who are worse than both of them.
Yes, I am acutely aware of that. If I suspected that Gary Johnson was worse than either Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't be making my suggestion.
Make that the next eight years (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this campaign comes down to either electing someone who represents everything wrong with the status quo, or the guy who represents everything that could go wrong with trying to change the status quo. I am thoroughly not looking forward to the next four plus years.
I hate to break this to you, but whoever becomes president is almost certainly going to be re-elected in 2020. Don't think so? You're likely wrong about this. Consider the following list of presidents since 1900 who lost a re-election bid and why they lost.
William H Taft - Intensely disliked even by his own party to the point that over half of them backed a third party candidate instead (Teddy Roosevelt).
Herbert Hoover - Punished for being president during the Great Depression and having no solution for it.
Gerald Ford - Tarnished by the Nixon pardon and economic malaise.
Jimmy Carter - Intensely disliked by his own party and economic malaise.
George H.W. Bush - Economic malaise.
Note that George H. Bush and Barrack Obama easily won re-election despite being hated intensely by almost half the voters. So the only way that sitting presidents lose re-election bids is if they are intensely disliked by their own party (Won't happen with Clinton and Republicans are unlikely to turn on Trump if he wins a first term) or are presidents under economic downturns (Obama survived this one though). So like it or not, I'd suggest planning for the 2016 winner to be re-elected in 2020. The odds are really good on that.
Re:FBI Director [Re:And she gets away with it...] (Score:5, Insightful)
For some things yes, however for plenty of others, only 'gross negligence' is required to convict her for multiple offenses under 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) [cornell.edu] based on what is publicly available months ago would have been easy even for a country prosecutor.
Re:FBI Director [Re:And she gets away with it...] (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mmm hmmm. And as soon as he had that immunity and told them everything he knew, they realized he had nothing to offer.
Smart people demand immunity no matter what. Everyone here on Slashdot would do that. It doesn't mean you're corrupt, it means you are following competent legal advice.
Re: (Score:3)
Please be just as generous in your portrayal of Clinton's Ethics / Lying when you decide to vote for her. MKAY?
Or Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Voting for someone because they might be able to win is a sensible act - if what you're ultimately concerned with is the makeup of the Supreme Court. I assume, as a Johnson supporter, you're fine with a 'business-friendly' court - even if it's also seriously corruption-friendly too, and throws stuff like Net Neutrality out the window.
But honesty in some absolute sense is, in fact, not the most important factor in a President. What they will actually do and the policies they will support is way more import
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:4, Informative)
Not me, I'm doing a Bernie Sanders write-in. If enough people join me we won't have to deal with Trump or Clinton. With the two of them it's not even a case of the lesser of two evils.
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Insightful)
My poor American friends. Your choice of candidates comes down to one that is criminally negligent and the other who is a narcissistic psychopath. Good luck.
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And she gets away with it... (Score:4, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Politicians can do whatever they want unless we hold them to the laws governing them. Doesn't matter which party they are in.
Re: (Score:3)
While you COULD put a domain filter on an email server, why would you want to ?
And it still doesn't explain how classified emails jumped the air-gap between the classified networks and the unclass network.
Well, other than it being a rather nasty PEBKAC problem . . .
Re:that's because clinton will outlawyer them (Score:5, Insightful)
with her money she'll hire the best legal team out there and litigate the case until she dies of old age
Fine. I'd rather the corrupt bitch sit in a courtroom rather than the White House.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't support Trump. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I think this means Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
the only people who seem to care about this case are trump supporters. his poll numbers are down which is why i'm seeing the memes on my facebook feed from trump supporters
I care about this because I used to be a DoD contractor and know that I would be in Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison already if I did the exact same thing.
Re:I think this means Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, the old 'but the other guys did it too' trope. Because that somehow excuses this current wrongdoing.
Besides, you'll recall that Libby still has a felony conviction, the $250k fine over that mess, even with the commutation of jail time, which is nothing but political patronage. What punishment is Clinton going to get for knowingly and deliberately circumventing security on TOP SECRET information, with multiple counts. And no, there's an actual declassification process for information that doesn't sta
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're not electing a fund raiser. Campaign donations to me are a negative anyway. Those are lot of connected individuals that expect to get something back in exchange.
Suicide by politician (Score:5, Insightful)
Defying Clinton is probably as lethal as defying the mob. I know I'd be in Leavenworth if I did what she did. In fact, we were specifically directed to not send any confidential messages to private email servers; doing so with secret or top secret is asking for a trip to leavenworth ... if you're not above the law.
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. See other examples like this navy reservist. [navytimes.com]
Key points: FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them. He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.
Or Petraeus who got 2 years probation along with a $100k fine. And that's just the tip of the iceburg for people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did.
But you're right, defying Clinton is like defying the mob. Ask this guy who just happened to "crush his own throat" [zerohedge.com] right before testifying. Then there are all those other mysterious deaths, and so many of those.
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Insightful)
How about Kristian Saucier? http://www.navytimes.com/story... [navytimes.com]
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:4, Interesting)
Like I said, one of many. That she got off without even a slap on the wrist tells me that there is far more going on behind the scenes, and likely huge piles of dirt on those who would have prosecuted her.
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't all of those articles support the Clinton decision? The lawyers in each of the cases basically say, the normal punishment: "almost always dealt with through what the military calls "nonjudicial punishment" or Captain's Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn't face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said."
Petraeus was trading confidential information for considerations, nothing of the same was shown for Hillary. In both of the military examples the people were shown to have lost control of the information because those who shouldn't have had access, did access the information, that couldn't be shown for Clinton. For her another had access, but found no evidence anyone accessed any information they weren't allowed.
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm assuming you have some evidence that "something bad did not happen"? So, what else have the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans let you in on? I mean, if they'd been reading her emails, that would qualify as "something bad", right?
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Politicians shouldn't be held to the same or higher standards then those who've done the same thing right? I realize that this is difficult for ideologues to grasp, but she screwed up in an amazing way and didn't even get a slap on the wrist for it. Where others have done less then her, and are spending time in jail or long probation periods+fines.
P.S. If you know so much and what actually went on, you should be contacting the FBI.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Informative)
No question, Hillary Clinton should not have operated a private email server as Secretary of Sate, but "people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did" is factually incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
They weren't "crimes" when Rice and Powell were in office. Furthermore, Powell (not sure about Rice) used his state email account. The reason he *had* a personal account was because at the time, state email couldn't be sent to non-state addresses. Hillary Clinton had the ability to exclusively use her state email account for everything she did, but chose to have a separate email server instead. This means that ALL her emails (even internal ones) wouldn't be accessible by FOIA requests.
Saying that Colin P
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It was with great reluctance that I spoke up on a topic like this, but if we are going to accuse somebody of something let's get the facts. I think the FBI is better qualified to get the facts than I am. For all I know, this could be an elaborate disinformation campaign with a honey
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Informative)
Except that none of that is true [snopes.com]. His trial wasn't starting in 5 days and he wasn't scheduled to testify against Clinton at all.
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:4, Insightful)
Snopes quotes sources and gives reasons for the conclusions that are drawn. While that may not be a terribly high bar, it's usually more than those who "bring[s] up any of the 'holes in the matrix'".
I love how people quote that bullshit site like it's the fucking Encyclopedia Britannica
It's a starting point. Usually conversations run something like "Outrageous Claim!", "Counterpoint - link to Snopes" ... followed by silence or claims that Snopes lacks rigor, lacks authority, is itself part of the conspiracy etc. If Snopes is such "garbage" it should be reasonably simple to refute but I rarely see challenges to the conclusions Snopes draws based on evidence or analysis. Just breathless accusations.
You seem to be claiming that people use Snopes as an appeal to authority, and then attack Snopes 'authority'. Which is kind of an ad hominem. I read the Zero Hedge link and then the Snopes link. One quotes similar sites, the other references court documents, interviews officials and attempts to show why and how misinformation was used to create the 'story'. Clear 'win' to Snopes. Burden of proof back to original claim.
it's a webpage run by some guy
Yup. It's credibility would ... double! if only more than one person was involved in writing the articles.
Now, would you mind telling me why I should believe the claims of Zero Hedge (that Ashe was killed as part of a Clinton coverup) when Snopes pretty clearly (to me) explains how the cause of death was misreported and how that was used to create the accusation the Zero Hedge promotes? If you could also address the discrepancy between the claims Zero Hedge makes (that Ashe was due to testify in a case against Clinton) and the court documents and clarification from the US District Attorney's office, with a similar (or better) standard of evidence, then I'll happily concede the point. Until then, your assertion that Snopes is garbage seems unfounded.
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:4, Funny)
We're sorry.
While we would like to go off on this tangent, we're not able to participate because we are still investigating Obama's birth status and stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
There is definitely something there to prosecute on if they wanted to. They are allowed to use discretion and have recommended against prosecution (to the DoJ).
When you agree to the rules associated with security clearances, you are told all the things you *may* be punished for, and what those punishment's *may* be (e.g. fines, prison time, etc). They don't say that you *will* be punished for breaking the rules. You might be someone that the government doesn't really want to punish for whatever reason.
Th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Police in general are tasked with protecting society and they leverage laws to their advantage to do this task. Enabling Trump is hardly what I would call "protected society".
Laws don't matter and neither does your vote. That's basically what you're suggesting, right?
Re:Suicide by politician (Score:5, Interesting)
On the contrary; it would clear a path for Sanders to become the Democratic nominee, and in a Sanders vs. Trump election, Sanders would win.
Re:So find an unreasonable one (Score:5, Insightful)
So what did they find?
1. She and her aids were careless in handling classified information.
2. There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes.
3.110 emails in 52 separate chains had been determined to contain classified information “at the time they were sent or received.” Of those, he continued, eight included “Top Secret” information, while 36 chains had “Secret” information at the time it was received, while eight contained “Confidential” information, the lowest level of classification.
4. Participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
5. You or I would be in big trouble -"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"
So Questions:
1. Will she face ANY sanctions of any kind?
2. If WE would lose security clearance, will she?
3. Can someone be President if they are not cleared to see 90% of what crosses their desk?
Re:So find an unreasonable one (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot one:
6: Evidence was found that several statutes were violated.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Will she face ANY sanctions of any kind?
She will be placed on double secret probation
2. If WE would lose security clearance, will she?
Elected officials are granted access to classified information even if their history would exclude an ordinary person. This happens with many members of congress with questionable pasts. I remember reading that Obama would not have been granted a TS clearance, due to his many associations with foreign nationals, drug use, and associations with domestic terrorists, had he been a regular person.
Re:So find an unreasonable one (Score:5, Informative)
A friend of a friend works in a rather sensitive area in Washington, I asked him once his opinion of this whole thing and his answer was rather telling: "If I ever brought my work home... I'd be in prison"
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt he was the head of his department. C'mon folks. Of course there are different rules for the Secretary of State vs. some functionary somewhere. No, she shouldn't have used a private server for a variety of reasons - but no, she didn't break the law and shouldn't be prosecuted. The standard in question was intention to disseminate classified material, and that wasn't proven. In fact that wasn't even hinted at - except by conspiracy theorists and outright Clinton haters. And, sadly, by a portion
The standard in question (Score:3)
Full context:
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
Money quote:
"a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or i
Re: (Score:3)
Same punishment as GWBush (Score:3, Informative)
I would agree to HRC getting whatever punishment GW got for doing the same thing. What was that again?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So find an unreasonable one (Score:4, Informative)
If they charge her and rule that she can't have a security clearance, but she gets elected anyway or is already elected then they are going to be in a hell of a bind.
It doesn't work that way. The executive branch ultimately decides who does and doesn't get a clearance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So find an unreasonable one (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous "they did it too!" excuse making on the Internet.
If they did, where's the FBI investigation? Where's the proof?
"They did it too" is not sufficient reason to exonerate anyone, but given evidence, enough reason to expand the scope of the probe. If you have any proof that "literally dozens of Republican senators and congressmen" have been playing fast and loose with classified secrets, name them and show that proof.
Otherwise, you're just a standard full-of-shit AC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All hail her Grace, Queen Hillary of House Clinton, President of the US and of the Congress, Chosen of the Street, and Detested by the Realm.
Re:LOL... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never had a clearance, so this is interesting to me. What could they possibly do to someone who accidentally takes papers home, transfers files somewhere, etc.? It seems to me like prisons would be full of "data leakers" if this were the case. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, so I assume those rules don't apply to contractors the same way they do actual federal employees.
I have heard that truly top secret life-or-death material (weapons designs, espionage info, etc.) is way more tightly controlled than someone's email...as in you can only access it from within a Faraday cage on a disconnected computer with a guard watching over the entrance. But it would be interesting to hear how someone with a TS clearance deals with daily work life. Are things just stamped "top secret" as a routine, kind of like how every corporate email, presentation, document, etc. is "company confidential" whether it's the lunch menu or product source code?
Re: (Score:3)
I've held both military and contractor TS clearances. Handling rules are consistent between the two, with more dire warnings on the contractor side.
Also, there is really close care taken with marking a classification, at least for a working-level stiff like me. Increased handling costs, delays and confusion make over-classifying anything unlikely. At higher levels, on the other hand, it is used to hide information internally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't fathom why you're so overjoyed that the choice for our next President is still between a narcissistic race-baiting Dorito-tinted proto-facist and a vote-for-me-because-vagina self-enriching-at-the-publics-expense focus-polling-before-standing-for-anything unindicted felon.
Myself, I was hoping for a Democratic disqualification due to pending indictment, so we could get a reasonable third option.