Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The FBI Recommends Not To Indict Hillary Clinton For Email Misconduct

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:05PM (#52448647)

    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.

  • Of course not. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:06PM (#52448663)
    The FBI was careful to point out that Hillary was "grossly negligent," and exposed classified and top-secret documents to hostile foreign powers, and mentions that people who do such things face punishment (as long as they're not Hillary Clinton). But he's leaving it up to Loretta Lynch to determine which punishment is appropriate. That's Loretta Lynch, fresh from her half hour "bumping into" Hillary's husband in her private plane the other day. Nothing to see here, just move along.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:06PM (#52448669)

    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.

  • by rockabilly ( 468561 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:06PM (#52448671)

    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.

  • by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:11PM (#52448725)
    or in her case Queen. We are not a nation of laws applied equally, clearly some animals are more equal than others. While this may have been true in practice for some time, it's now being brazenly displayed.
  • by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:17PM (#52448767)

    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)

    by Last_Available_Usern ( 756093 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:19PM (#52448783)
    Seriously, at what point does gross negligence become criminal? That's the real question. Even if it doesn't, as someone who works in a classified environment I can tell you that if I did this, I would be fired, lose my clearance, and most certainly never be granted another. I find this whole charade pretty upsetting.
  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:20PM (#52448807)

    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?

    • Private sector companies have competition (or at least the government tries to keep it that way). If they do something stupid, it gives their customers a reason to flee to the competition. Your company's very survival is at stake when an owner or executive flaunts security rules.

      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
    • by Chris453 ( 1092253 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:36PM (#52448993)

      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.

  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:26PM (#52448877)
    Nothing to see here, move along.
  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:26PM (#52448879)

    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)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:27PM (#52448887) Journal

    "...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)

    by bobmajdakjr ( 2484288 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:28PM (#52448901)
    The DOJ is not recommending you do anything that could possibly leave Trump running unopposed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Bernie has not technically withdrawn yet. So seeing the last of Hillary would mean it would be Bernie vs Trump.

  • by 31415926535897 ( 702314 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:29PM (#52448913) Journal

    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.

  • by MalleusEBHC ( 597600 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:30PM (#52448925)

    If DoJ prosecutors were reasonable, Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. Fuck this double standard.

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:31PM (#52448931)

    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.

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:31PM (#52448937) Homepage

    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.

  • by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:39PM (#52449017)

    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.

  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:40PM (#52449039) Homepage

    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)

    by Ken Hansen ( 3612047 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @01:15PM (#52449467)
    So Hillary: Unintentionally hired a consultant Unintentionally bought a server Unintentionally paid the consultant monthly to manage the server Unintentionally secured a political appointment job in State Dept IT group (the first-ever political IT appointment) Unintentionally used her private server exclusively for all work emails Unintentionally retained 30,000 emails for two years after she left office That's a little hard to swallow, don't you think?
  • In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @03:11PM (#52450747)
    ...the FBI has also determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was "extremely careless" with his rifle.

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.

Working...