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."
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/...
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.
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?
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.