Slashdot Mirror
Criminal Inquiry Sought Over Hillary Clinton's Personal Email Server
cold fjord writes: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Inspectors General from the State Department and intelligence agencies have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server while she was U.S. Secretary of State. At issue is the possible mishandling of sensitive government information. Dozens of the emails provided by Hillary Clinton have been retroactively classified as part of the review of her emails as they are screened for public release. So far 3,000 of 55,000 emails have been released. The inspectors general found hundreds of potentially classified emails. "The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said. ... The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations."
I personally process and load emails for law firms to review.
I can tell you the following:
Hillary's actions were legal at the time and followed all the rules.
They were also unethical.
The rules have now been changed, so that what she did would now be against the rules.
Her emails almost certainly contain nothing incriminating. She is a smart women that has a lot of experience dealing with scandals and knows exactly what not to do.
They probably contain something personally embarrassing - at least a little bit. Anyone that's ever looked over people's emails know you see stuff - dirty jokes, inappropriate websites, angry emails with profanity, etc. Remember it's not just what she wrote but what other people's wrote to her.
It's obvious why she did what she did. But it's also obvious that if she were of stronger moral character, she would not have done it. She would have taken the slight chance that someone would find something embarrassing and accepted it as part of being a political figure. Because the coverup is always worse than the crime - even when no crime was committed. By giving her enemies this opportunity - where she ACTUALLY did something unethical - she has taken more damage than anything they were likely to have done by uncovering whatever they could find.
I enjoy the irony of your statement. You realize the birth certificate controversy was started by Hillary supporters during the 2008 presidential primaries, right? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, Richard Armitage outed Plame.
"Late Thursday night, the Times published a story claiming that the Justice Department had been asked "to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account," only to quietly change the story to say that the Justice Department had been asked "to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used." As in, the story changed from being about a potential criminal investigation into Clinton's conduct to being about a potential criminal investigation into the mishandling of sensitive information by ... someone not named. "
So, haven't you guys learned yet to ignore mass media reporting when it involves a Clinton? It's almost like someone with billions of dollars has been trying to smear the leading Democratic candidate for a few years now.
The Internet has no garbage collection
Since no one was allowed to audit the email server, we will never know if it was in fact hacked as Hillary is hardly an IT expert.
http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
Also, the server apparently was horribly misconfigured.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Correct, but there are other prohibitions against holding such an office depending on the crime. Most people have forgotten about USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:
In theory, Hillary has already committed an act which if convicted for would disqualify her for any future public office... now actually prosecuting her for that is a separate and rather unlikely matter.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
He didn't break the law or out anybody.
LOL.
May 2007: Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena's AG Gonzales to produce all Rove email about the dismissal of US Attorneys for all Rove email accounts. Also for all email related to Valarie Plame and the CIA leak. Rove' political aide was placed into a US attorney position by Rove's direction and through Rove's orders to fire 8 US attorney's that didn't aggressively prosecute some cases that were political in nature or because they started investigations into Republican officials.
Aug 2007: Karl Rove resigns... 'I think it's time to leave"
Sep 2007: AG Gonzales resigns...
May 2008: Rove subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify about various things.
July 2008: Rove refuses, cites executive privilege.
Feb 2009: Rove was supposed to testify about the attorney controversy but fails to show.
July 2009: Rove finally testifies. Committee concludes Rove played a significant role in firing the attorney's, but did not press criminal charges in a move widely seen as the Obama DOJ being lenient with Bush-era officials and not wanting to establish a precedent of pursuing previous administration officials.