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."
Felons are barred from running for the office of President, correct?
You can be a lawyer who has been disbarred, though.
We can expect a zealous investigation of these allegations against Hillary by the Obama Justice Department. Not.
This one is going to generate a thoughtful, nuanced discussion.
is she was ordered to give up her email to investigators. She gave them some of the mail and deleted the rest.
Whether we'd actually done anything wrong or not, if one of us little people had pulled such a stunt we'd be rotting in jail awaiting trial for destroying evidence, not running for president.
Ask yourself: "What would happen if I were employed in the federal government and mishandled government data in this same manner?"
I have a feeling the answer would be much harsher than what Hillary will get.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
Uh-huh. And - you don't understand the difference? See - Hillary is covering up her own crimes. Snowden was exposing other people's crimes. Do you see even the slightest difference between the two circumstances?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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/...
I'm pretty sure that destroying data that has been subpoenaed by Congress is not a misdemeanor.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Snowden definitely deserves jail time.
Well, he's guilty of crimes that are usually punished by jail time. In this case I think what he deserves is a pardon and a presidential medal of freedom.
Actually, Richard Armitage outed Plame.
Wrongs have been done before no doubt but the scale of this one was much larger than anything previously done that I've heard about. Rather than justifying the present with the past how about we tighten the rules, not loosen then. I'm 100% sure if any of us had done this we would be in jail forever. When a political elite does it it's fine. This shouldn't be a D vs R type debate where my guy is bad but not as bad as your guy (or gal in this case). How about we make this about anyone breaking rules, D or R, gets punished.
Anything she gets will likely be harsher than Karl Rove managed to get for outing Valerie Plame.
All of this has been done before. Complete BS if she gets harsher treatment than the previous administration. I agree that we need to clamp down on the problem, but some retro activity would be nice as well.
So basically what you're saying is that you'd like to see the Obama Administration sink the same level as the Bush Administration when administering justice? Wouldn't it be better if Obama's Justice Department did the right thing and set the bar high for future administrations? Or is this just a case of "Their team got the kid gloves treatment, so mine should get it as well?"
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
"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
One problem is that for any information that was classified at the time (I"m not sure how this whole retroactive classification things works) it was and is a federal offense to even have that information on a private email server.
Your personal level of access does not give you permission to store classified information wherever you want to.
I still haven't seen anything confirming that she in fact did have classified information on her server (at least not classified at the time) but as has been mentioned above, there has already been proven verified instances of emails to and from other people about State related work that was not handed over by Clinton but found through subpenas of the other persons email.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Similar to sibling, I have previously worked for a defense contractor, subject to similar regulations... and among my duties, I was the primary sysadmin on the email MTAs (both the company and the DoD/DLA-owned ones).
If I would have merely seen someone in the company do what the Clintons did, and had not reported it? I would have immediately lost my IT-1 clearance, gotten fired on the spot, my employer would have probably been kicked off the contract, then we'd both be blacklisted from any further DoD consideration.
If I had done it myself? Getting fired would have been the least of my worries.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Nor is blatantly ignoring records retention laws.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Since we know that none of the Clintons have the skills to run their own email server, we need to get the administrator of the email server in to testify. He needs to publicly admit before the world that he was so incredibly incompetent that there are no backups of the server.
Congresscritter: Just to clarify, you're the person who managed the Clinton's email server?
Admin: Yes.
Congresscritter: Could you please supply the committee with backups of the email server?
Admin: There aren't any.
Congresscritter: Again, just to clarify... You're actually an IT professional?
Admin: Yes
Congresscritter: And you're going to go on record, to say that this email server was not backed up?
Admin: Yes.
Congresscritter: You realize Mrs. Clinton was a senior administration official whose duties involve, among other things, negotiations with foreign governments?
Admin: uh....yes
Congresscritter: And what would you have done if, during negotiations, the hard disk on this computer had crashed, completely wiping out her email?
Admin: uh....
Congresscritter: So you're going to state, for the record before the world that as an IT professional, you're completely and utterly incompetent?
Admin: I'm not incompetent
Congresscritter: Then provide us with the backups.
This is an ex-parrot!
Scooter Libby got 30 months in federal prison, a fine of $250,000, and two years of supervised release, including 400 hours of community service.
Fair? Will Hillary face the statutory minimums for her transgressions?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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?
That we have a choice of either Hillary Clinton OR a rag-tag group of nincompoop Republicans for president?
What a joke.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range