Slashdot Mirror


Justice Dept. Grants Immunity To Staffer Who Set Up Clinton Email Server (washingtonpost.com)

schwit1 writes with this news from the Washington Post: The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email server, a sign the FBI investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is progressing. A senior U.S. law enforcement official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009. As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said. The inquiry comes against a sensitive political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

592 comments

  1. Will she pardon here self and him once she gets in by mmiscool · · Score: 2

    This will be interesting.

  2. How much do you bet he dies some times befor trial by mmiscool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its not like the Clintons have not made people disappear when they testify against them.

  3. This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Clinton is not a technical person and probably didn't have any idea that this setup was not secure. She is not completely without blame because she should have just used State's system from the start, but it wasn't intentional and it really wasn't her wrongdoing.

    This staffer, on the other hand, who set this system up for her knew exactly what he was doing and by his actions placed government secrets into easy access to foreign players, hackers, etc. As far as I'm concerned he should be charged with treason and not given immunity. Throw him into Leavenworth and don't ever let the sun shine on his pale clammy skin ever again.

    1. Re:This is backwards. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      She is [completely at fault] because she should have just used State's system from the start...

      As far as I'm concerned [she] should be charged with treason and not given immunity.

      FTFY!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:This is backwards. by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Treason? Really? I can get charging her with some sort of offense, but treason?

      What is it about partisans having to spend part of their time being simpering fucking retards?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:This is backwards. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      This staffer, on the other hand, who set this system up for her knew exactly what he was doing and by his actions placed government secrets into easy access to foreign players, hackers, etc. As far as I'm concerned he should be charged with treason and not given immunity. Throw him into Leavenworth and don't ever let the sun shine on his pale clammy skin ever again.

      If the staffer committed treason on request of Clinton then she committed treason as well, or at least is guilty of conspiracy to commit treason. But really, she didn't commit treason. But there is significant evidence that she broke a lot of rules and regulations around the handling and storage of classified information.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the oldest trick in the book... "I didn't know" which equates to faking stupidity to get away with it.

    5. Re:This is backwards. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Clinton is not a technical person and probably didn't have any idea that this setup was not secure.

      Try again.

      She's a lawyer, and she knew full well that she was breaking the law.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:This is backwards. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is it about partisans

      I usually vote Democrat, you asshole!

      Only "simpering fucking retards" think people can't recognize a lying, sociopathic criminal for what she is just because she claims to share some ideology.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:This is backwards. by jcr · · Score: 2

      Treason has a very specific legal definition in the constitution. If the FBI and the DoJ do their job, she'll be charged with espionage, not treason.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when she sent that info to banker friends so they could bank on the insider information, violating several laws and betraying our nation in the process.Doesn't matter how secure the network is if you are sending it illegally.

    9. Re:This is backwards. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      She'll get a presidential pardon, and then we will see how low people will go just to keep Trump out of office. "Lesser Evil", right?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newsflash: If she didn't have the appropriate certification that it was secure, it's not. Kind of like a gun- you *always* treat it as if it's loaded.

      When you have a security clearance, *YOU* are responsible for everything you possess, write, or handle.

      Security clearance training 101:
      Q: "How do you know if this document is classified?"
      A: "I have inspected/reviewed that document and determined that it is not."

      Notice- nowhere does it say "It's not stamped classified". Stamping is nice, but *YOU* are responsible for inspecting things.

      And if you create something, it's easy to write something that seems innocent but is classified. For example if you reference Company X, program ABC, and program WSQ in the same document it can be classified. The fact that the document isn't stamped/labeled classified is irrelevant- it's *YOUR* responsibility to ensure it's either not classified or handled securely.

      So when she was sending around SAP info, she failed to uphold her responsibility to secure that info. And failing to do that is a criminal act for someone in her position.

    11. Re:This is backwards. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      She might be knowledgeable about the law, which would only require something like "correspondence must be handled in a secure manner". Not being a sysadmin, she would not reasonably be expected to know (without further consultation) that her server was not secure.

      Similarly, Pagliano may have known that the server setup was not secure, but may reasonably have been ignorant of the security needs the law requires. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, anything he said about the lax security of the server would be self-incrimination, and therefore protected under the Fifth Amendment. Granting him immunity removes the risk of self-incrimination, and allows him to present his evidence.

      That evidence may include such things as "we never thought the server would be used this way" or perhaps "Mrs. Clinton ignored my warnings about security, and insisted on doing it this way". We'll find out soon enough.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    12. Re:This is backwards. by sycodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I work in aerospace. EVERY email we send has to be marked as Classified, Company Secret, or Unclassified. Even if you are asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    13. Re:This is backwards. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "but it wasn't intentional and it really wasn't her wrongdoing. "

      Wasn't intentional? Surely you jest.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    14. Re:This is backwards. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that is not a defense against several of the statutes she could be indicted under. It may change the sentence, but the conviction would be the very same.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    15. Re: This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Information Age you want to defend someone who said she doesn't understand what "wiping" is. To the point that she is running for an even higher office!

      Let's also not forget that the staffer wouldn't have done this without being instructed. When's the last time you failed to undertake a direct order from the Secretary of State?

    16. Re:This is backwards. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She might be knowledgeable about the law, which would only require something like "correspondence must be handled in a secure manner". Not being a sysadmin, she would not reasonably be expected to know (without further consultation) that her server was not secure.

      So what? Even if she was ignorant about security, she damn well knew that non-State Department-controlled servers were categorically disallowed because they could be used to circumvent FOIA requests.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:This is backwards. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That evidence may include such things as "we never thought the server would be used this way" or perhaps "Mrs. Clinton ignored my warnings about security, and insisted on doing it this way"."

      Still, you left out the most obvious: this server is not on a protected network and shouldn't be used for anything security sensible, mmmok? Ok.

      E-Mail, is e-mail and an SMTP server will as gladly manage your market list as your uber-plans to conquer the world. It's up to the sender to choose the channel, not the other way around.

    18. Re:This is backwards. by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      Clinton is not a technical person and probably didn't have any idea that this setup was not secure.

      Try again.

      She's a lawyer, and she knew full well that she was breaking the law.

      -jcr

      IT was not against the law at the time to use a personal email server. She knows the law better than you do.

    19. Re:This is backwards. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      From the looks of things it takes a lying sociopathic criminal to win an election. Nobody else seems to be able to pull it off.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:This is backwards. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Even espionage would be a reach without evidence that she divulged it to non-US actors. I could see a bunch of counts of mishandling of classified information but not much more than that.

    21. Re:This is backwards. by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      IT was not against the law at the time to use a personal email server. She knows the law better than you do.

      It was against the law at the time to store classified data in an unsecure manner. The statute in question is written very specifically:

      -Whether the document is marked classified is irrelevant. Satellite imagery is automatically classified, regardless of whether it is specifically marked as such.
      -Intent is irrelevant. If you allow classified data in an insecure manner, it doesn't matter if you did so intentionally or through negligence, you have still broken the law.

      She probably does know the law better the the average /. reader, she just doesn't care.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    22. Re:This is backwards. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Which she may very well be. But throwing around the word "traitor" is fucking absurd.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Espionage also has a very specific legal definition. You have to actually intend to damage the United States. If the FBI and DoJ do their job, they'll try to educate crackpots like you that they have better things to do than chase down a potential misdemeanor charge on a presidential candidate.

    24. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in aerospace. EVERY email we send has to be marked as Classified, Company Secret, or Unclassified. Even if you are asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home.

      So let me get this straight. if your have your wife picking up the milk and you don't want your girlfriend to know, that email should be Classified? Similarly if you want to ask your girlfriend to meet you later it's also Classified? How does that help if they are both Classified? On the other hand, if your girlfriend is your co-worker, maybe that email is Company Secret?...

      I'm so confused, does that mean if you are in aerospace and married you can only date your co-workers? ;^)

    25. Re:This is backwards. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      I work in aerospace. EVERY email we send has to be marked as Classified, Company Secret, or Unclassified. Even if you are asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home.

      Classified emails and secret emails are oxymorons.

    26. Re:This is backwards. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Clinton is not a technical person and probably didn't have any idea that this setup was not secure.

      Try again.

      She's a lawyer, and she knew full well that she was breaking the law.

      -jcr

      IT was not against the law at the time to use a personal email server. She knows the law better than you do.

      Liar.

    27. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just no. It's obvious you've never worked with classified material before. You are trained how to handle them before you get any access. There are only three legal ways to take information out of secured areas. Through a secured transportation system where every hand-off is signed for and verified and the destination is another secured area, or through your brain. However if you copy that information out of your brain when not in a secured area, you're breaking federal laws. The simple fact that the information exists outside of a secured area at all means someone illegally leaked it. By secured area, we mean specific rooms were no personal electronics are allowed, heavy locks on the door, no windows, etc... It is clear when you're in a secured area or not. You are trained and required to know and sign off that you understand everything.

      She had SAP access. She was specifically taught and trained to never let that info leave SAP areas. Everything about SAP programs is always classified unless a 3rd party decides to unclassify it. You can't choose to unclassify it yourself. If you discover any SAP info outside of its secured area you are required to report it. Not reporting it is generally a crime. Giving that info to someone else is always a crime. We can assume she read her emails because she replied to her messages. So she knew she had emails with SAP content and she gave them to her lawyer. That he's a lawyer doesn't matter. She knowingly handed SAP info to someone without SAP access and outside of all of SAP's access controls. Both things are federal crimes. She was specifically trained to identify the material and how to handle it. It's not possible to twist the situation in anyway that makes what she did with her server legal. If she thought the content was deleted, then there was no reason to hand her lawyer an empty drive.

    28. Re:This is backwards. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It WAS against the law to use a personal email server for government business because it thwarts the Freedom of Information Act.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    29. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

      How far up HIllary's ass does your head have to be to actually make this argument? Seriously, are you sitting beside her while you type?

      As a lawyer AND the Secretary of State she HAD to know that her request MUST be 'assumed to be insecure on its face'...it doesn't matter if she hired Aaron fucking Schwartz to set it up for her. IF the e-mails were not be handling by the government such that she herself could manipulate the information 'at will' (e.g. SHE can delete messages or even order someone else to do so that would not report back through proper channels) than its 'insecure'.

      As a lawyer she knows with 100% certainty that it isn't the 'technology used' that makes something secure or not it is entirely the 'chain of custody' and who EXACTLY is responsible for maintaining it...since her or her staff she ordered could modify the system without any records being kept of what was or was not on the server she absolutely knows the system was 'secure'.

      As for Pagliano, the ONLY defence he has is if Hillary said something like 'hey, I don't like using gmail etc. for personal stuff could you set up an e-mail server some weekend for my personal use?'...and if that statement (or something very similar) is true Pagliano has 0 need for immunity, its not a question of 'not knowing the security needs of the law'...so the ONLY reason he could need the immunity is because he was asked to set up a private e-mail sever that he KNEW Hillary would be using for 'government business' and at THAT point Pagliano should have declined or otherwise sought approval from his boss because it is no longer 'a friend doing a friend a solid' but an 'underlying doing government work'.

    30. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, for some of us, we just look at the other fucking options, the opposing ideologies, and we'd still pick her if we had to, you asshole.

      Sometimes the other ideologies, the other candidates, their history/background, or their alignment (given the layout of the current Congress and absent SCOTUS seat) is that bad. I may have complete disdain for what she did and the repercussions of her actions, but I also may still perceive her as less of a danger to me versus what will become of a Republican candidate winning, the resulting sweep of the three branches of government, and their continued gerrymandering which will ensure a hold for an additional 10 years besides the next 4 to 2030. That's what makes us simper.

      That's politics. People have all sorts of reasons and standards for voting the way they do. For me, she may have committed crimes, weakened security, gotten people killed, but I may see that and still judge it less than the programs or foreign policies the others would enforce that would waste more money, weaken us more, and kill more people here and elsewhere.

    31. Re:This is backwards. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      OK...Girlfriend is Company Secret since she works downstairs.

      Mistress is classified.

      Fuck buddy, is unclassified since she joins in with the Mrs. ...and then I work up.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    32. Re:This is backwards. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      About 90% of your statements are outright factually incorrect. Yes, I've worked for the government before, and different programs have different rules, depending on exactly what information is protected and the operational requirements of the program. The most glaring omission from your rant is the existence of composite information, where multiple pieces of information are unclassified individually, but when present in the same container (like a document or a server's hard disk) become classified. Two separate emails could have been unclassified when sent, but their presence on the same system makes them classified upon receipt.

      It's not possible to twist the situation in anyway that makes what she did with her server legal.

      I've never suggested that what she did was legal or not. I'm suggesting the apparently-preposterous idea that the FBI's investigation is actually following procedures established by the Constitution and legal precedent. This grant of immunity doesn't actually mean anything at all as far as Clinton's guilt or innocence is concerned. It just means the government isn't going to use Pagliano's testimony against him.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    33. Re:This is backwards. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      That would be a different crime. The FBI's investigation is still just an investigation. They've removed the option of using Pagliano's testimony against him, but they haven't formally charged Clinton with anything yet. I'd be surprised if they didn't ultimately find something worth prosecuting, but at this point, she's still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    34. Re:This is backwards. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      ...the ONLY reason he could need the immunity is because he was asked to set up a private e-mail sever that he KNEW Hillary would be using for 'government business' and at THAT point Pagliano should have declined or otherwise sought approval from his boss because it is no longer 'a friend doing a friend a solid' but an 'underlying doing government work'.

      That's precisely why the immunity is granted. In the situation you describe, any testimony from Pagliano would be self-incriminating, and Pagliano could simply enact his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify. Now that his testimony cannot be used against him, he can be compelled to testify if needed.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    35. Re:This is backwards. by jcr · · Score: 1

      You have to actually intend to damage the United States.

      Nope. You can be charged with espionage even if your actions were merely negligent.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    36. Re:This is backwards. by jcr · · Score: 1

      crackpots like you

      Fuck you, snowflake. You're the one who's trying to argue away thousands of felonies with nothing more than an emphatic "nu-uh!"

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    37. Re:This is backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't those rules made after she left office?

    38. Re:This is backwards. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If the Rs got all 3 it would be just like Obama's first 2 years.

      They would go nuts and lose control of a branch at the next election.

      So the choice is lose precious gridlock for 2 years or let Hillary get away with it. Very tough choice.

      I'm in CA so my vote doesn't matter, Vermin Supreme it is.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Remember how "Top Secret" works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified. Removing markings, headers, footers etc. doesn't change the classified nature of it. If you measure what was done with her server (leaving it in her hands to sift through at her leisure, turning over only that which she felt like doing and then wiping the rest) with what happens to ANYONE else when they are even suspected of breaking clearance rules ...

    Good to see that Hillary as President will be more of the same, there are rules for them and rules for us.

    1. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      And, interestingly, "public" information can deemed classified if an analysis of the information and any related resources deem it so. And, such classification can occur at anytime. Does that mean everyone in possession of that information prior to classification should be held accountable for possessing it? No.

      However, as you noted, removal of classification markings from a document does not make it any less so until the appropriate classification authority lowers or removes the classification.

    2. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified. Removing markings, headers, footers etc. doesn't change the classified nature of it. If you measure what was done with her server (leaving it in her hands to sift through at her leisure, turning over only that which she felt like doing and then wiping the rest) with what happens to ANYONE else when they are even suspected of breaking clearance rules ...

      Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.

      I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm finding your first statement to be a bit of a red herring. Can you point to any example where Top Secret information started as public knowledge? Ahead of such an example, my expectation is that in those circumstances the Government would only prosecute someone security clearance who disseminated such information, especially if that distribution was what resulted in it being public information in the first place.

    4. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You're repeating what is now known to be completely irrelevant talkingpoint, as some of the revealed documents show that it exposed agents in the field, which is classified even if it was also known publicly. Do you remember Scooter Libby ? He was prosecuted for less.

      There is a long list of people who have done less, that are in jail or otherwise prosecuted. If she avoids prosecution, it is an insult to all those people.

      But she is a (D) so, that makes it okay!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Actually, a defense of 'I didn't know' is, in that case, her best bet. But even I could run against her waving such a statement around and asking how she could be considered competent to be President not knowing that such information ought to be classified, and even asking a staffer about it.

      But that is a nuanced claim that most voters would never even slow down to glance at.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      And yet there were emails that were BORN classified that were on her private email server. http://www.reuters.com/article...

    7. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Some of the classified materials on Clinton’s server originated in intelligence agencies outside the State Department and came into the department on a secure, classified network. They were marked as such. They could only be transferred to Clinton’s unsecured network by hand. Each occurrence was a felony. Since the server has now been recovered, the FBI and intelligence agencies know who sent those messages and who received them at the State Department." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

    8. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, regardless of crimes at this point, I don't know how anyone can support Hillary. Either A) she intentionally was mishandling classified information or B) she was completely ignorant of the security sensitive aspects of holding a public office after being in that position for 4 years.

      Are either of these possibilities really someone a rational being can support? A criminal or a buffoon?

      Well I guess if Donald Trump is the alternative... Then fucking vote for a 3rd party candidate! Batshit insane is better than criminal or incompetent!

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    9. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by sideslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified.

      Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.

      I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.

      And the Special Access Program (SAP) information? The emails that everybody involved, including the recipient Clinton, certainly knew was always and permanently classified? Clinton committed a crime in multiple ways in the handling of that info. Here's an example -- simply leaving the received email on her server in any format that could be read by her own IT staff was a crime. Deleting it and knowing that the bytes might still be on the HDD would also be a crime. Ignoring the situation was a crime.

      Of course, somebody went to great lengths to somehow hop the airgap between the SAP network and the public internet. But even as the recipient, Clinton committed a crime in allowing that email to continue to exist on her server.

      Stop trying to paint her as anything other than a willing lawbreaker on this. Lesser analysts of the State Dept or the TLA intelligence agencies would go to jail right away. It's only the Democratic party's M.O. of corruption while they hold the reins of power that keeps Obama's DOJ from arresting her.

    10. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by will_die · · Score: 1

      That is not the case, the whole retroactive thing was a story invented by her. There is email of her instructing staffers to remove the classification labeling and then email it to her personal server.

    11. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They could only be transferred to Clinton’s unsecured network by hand.

      If the markings were removed before they were copied, then there was no crime in copying them to her server. The crime was removing the markings. That confirms what she said long ago about how no mail marked as classified was sent from her server. The facts confirm her statements.

    12. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Straif · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Markings are irrelevant. Classified materials are classified regardless of markings and are generally easily identifiable as such (by subject matter or sources) and it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the receiver to identify possibly classified materials and contact the required authorities if (s)he receives them on an unsecured service.

      That's besides the fact that in at least a few of the pieces of correspondence that have been reported on Hillary herself instructed underlings to remove the classification to make it easier to get the info she wanted sent to her.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    13. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Wow really? The crime is having classified email on the server. Removing the markings does not mean the content is no longer classified. Fucking moron.

    14. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That bullshit argument has been long debunked. They found information on drone strikes, locations of CIA assets, active ongoing secret operations, etc. very obvious secret stuff that should not go off of an official server.

      The fact that she setup a server where this type of information could be received is at a minimum criminal negligence . However she signed a document stating that identifying state secrets and protecting them was her responsibility and that ignorance is no defense, and failing to do so is espionage.

      And note the careful word play on her part. She says she "never received anything marked classified" which is true. Documents are marked confidential, secret, top-secret etc. not "classified" This allows her to lie to the public without making legally false statements. You know kind of like "depends on what your definition of is is"

      She is either going to go to jail where she belongs, or will get special treatment and get off. If the latter the republicans will nail her with ads where she is the political elite that is above the law.

    15. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence reports from the CIA, NSA, and NRO have all been found on her email server. These documents are ALWAYS classified. Period. Even at the most minor level, the classification is U//FOUO - For Official Use Only. This means it CANNOT be stored or transmitted over an unsecure network.

      Satellite images and HUMINT (reports from foreign sources) are always classified as well, and usually compartmentalized as well. HUMINT, especially, is *very* restrictive. The presence of those reports on her server means there was major, deliberate, violation of the classification guidelines. The presence or absence of classification markings is irrelevant.

      Curiously enough, the Secretary of State is one of the appointed Classification Authorities in the Federal Government. Meaning that, at least once a year, Secretary Clinton signed off on a document that published the rules about what was classified, and at what levels, and what the criminal penalties would be for violators.

      Those claims of "retroactive classification" are from people that don't understand how classification works. Information is classified, not documents. Sometimes documents are written, and then in a later review someone realizes that the document contains information that, under the classification guidelines (published by Sec. Clinton!), should have been marked as classified. This mistake is then corrected. But the error was in the marking - the information was actually classified all along. It doesn't matter if someone else sent it to her - the fact the she received it, stored it, and DID NOT REPORT IT means she is criminally complicit in the mishandling.

    16. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Classified materials are classified regardless of markings and are generally easily identifiable as such (by subject matter or sources)...

      That's not even remotely true. It is often fantastically difficult to identify classified material unless you have been read into the program that classified said material.

      I've been sitting in a briefing and watched the group's security guy walk around the table, tearing a page out of each briefing book, and telling the two people in the room who didn't have clearances, "You didn't see that." The person who prepared the briefing books and the presentation slides had been given the list on that page without any markings on it and incorporated it. I had the requisite clearance and knew a thing or two about the program, and that list seemed perfectly innocuous to me. I had no idea that it was classified until the security guy popped out of his chair. I didn't expect to see anything classified. It was an unclassified briefing. The presentation slides had boilerplate UNCLASSIFIED markings on every corner. The information had incorrect labeling at that point, but at the time the presentation books and slides had been created (two years prior), the information in that list was not classified. It was retroactively classified, and unless you knew that, it was not identifiable as classified information.

      And it gets worse. I can hand you two sheets of paper with no classification markings containing a handful of words and numbers and challenge you to identify the classification level of each. Let's say I do this in a secure facility but we're not in a SCIF. From context, you might assume SECRET. But maybe you think I'm mishandling, and so you would assume TOP SECRET. If you look closely, you'll see that all the words are identical and all the digits that are on both sheets are identical. One number on one of the sheets has two more significant digits than the number on the other sheet. That sheet is TOP SECRET. The other is SECRET. (And you might have been right if you had guessed I was mishandling.) Unless you knew a large number of details you would guess wrong about one or both sheets, and you'd need to know even more details to know the TS compartments involved, so even your guess of TS could be incomplete without detailed knowledge. Knowledge you shouldn't have unless you hold that clearance. Remove a few of the words and that highly specific number and now both sheets are UNCLASSIFIED. The differences look trivial, and if you were not in possession of all three versions, and able to compare the differences, odds are you would be unable to guess correctly at all.

      No, it's not even remotely easy to identify unmarked classified material. That's why we mark classified material.

    17. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Straif · · Score: 1

      I deal with classified and top secret information everyday at my office. The first rule is even if it's not marked classified but contains information on certain subjects assume it's classified and treat it as such. The number of encrypted emails my group gets because someone just wasn't sure is probably doubling the demands on our email server.

      Emails containing troop movements, high level inter governmental communications as well as naming specific foreign intelligence sources (all of which were present in Hilary's email cache) don't require any marking for even the newest intern to know they are to be treated with kid gloves and reported if not handled properly.

      We're not talking about simple slips of the keyboard where a line or two should have been deleted, were talking about actual names of CIA assets.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  5. not good for Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That usually means that there is wrong doing that the witness wants no culpability for.

    It will be fun to watch Clinton burn like the witch that she is.

    1. Re:not good for Clinton by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      It means there are questions that Pagliano won't answer because he thinks there was wrongdoing.

      That does not imply that wrongdoing actually occurred, or that a court of law will find Clinton responsible for it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:not good for Clinton by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      It also usually means the interrogators and prosecutors already know what will be said.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have emails from her telling people to take classification markings off. They have found CIA human intelligence on her private server. They have Special Access Program data which everyone with an IQ above 80 outside of the federal government knows is presumed classified. What she did makes Bradley Manning look like a prankster, since she was a cabinet level appointee responsible for overseeing the protection of classified data.

    1. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:FFS, just indict her by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Stop being disingenuous, you know the GP obviously meant Fish Finger Sandwich.

    3. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For Fuck's Sake, you must be new here. FFS means "fee for service."

    4. Re:FFS, just indict her by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      everyone with an IQ above 80 outside of the federal government.

      You phrase that as if the former doesn't already imply the latter.

    5. Re:FFS, just indict her by Holi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you have an actual reliable source. I am sorry but Breitbart has been known to both exaggerate and make entirely false claims many times before.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re:FFS, just indict her by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      They have emails from her telling people to take classification markings off. They have found CIA human intelligence on her private server. They have Special Access Program data which everyone with an IQ above 80 outside of the federal government knows is presumed classified. What she did makes Bradley Manning look like a prankster, since she was a cabinet level appointee responsible for overseeing the protection of classified data.

      All I see is speculation. Where is the actual proof of her doing these things? That website is the same as a anti-vax website imho.

    7. Re:FFS, just indict her by sideslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you follow the link, the Breitbart piece quotes from and summarizes a linked Yahoo News piece by Michael Isikoff. The Isikoff article in turn quotes Congressman Trey Gowdy talked about specific published emails from Hillary's illegal server. Seems adequately substantiated to me. And I disagree with your dismissal of Breitbart, I suspect that claim originates from those who simply don't like their conservative focus. The Brietbart editors certainly make mistakes, but probably no more than some of the larger news gateways and punditry outlets.

    8. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually what she did _to_ Manning and Assange makes her look like a Hitlery (the wapost called Trump hitler on the eve of super tuesday, don't go bringing up Godloss to me)

    9. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in fact the Breitbart source makes no legally cognizant claim against her. She apparently privately recieved an email message containing information, then forwarded that. This is a far cry from "an officer... of the United States... by virtue of his office... becom(ing) possessed of... classified information... knowingly remov(ing) such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location" which is what the statute requires.

    10. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a lawyer. Her husband is a lawyer. They run in the major lawyer circles. They're the establishment of the Democrat Party, and even the liberal challenger wing of the Democrat party led by Obama and his folks are careful about pushing too hard, because this happened when she was an Obama appointee. The FBI has to move very carefully with this, and have totally damning evidence and a concrete case before they make a move. Even what you list, a good lawyer will work their way around it.

    11. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The source is only material in regards to the 'flavour' or 'colour' under which they present their story. The facts are detailed in the link...A former CIA official (Tyler last name unimportant here) received the name of a human intelligence resource from a 'than current but unnamed CIA employee'. So 'current CIA Official->leaks top secret info->Tyler further leaks to Blumenthal->Blumenthal sends to Clinton->Clinton forwards to others'. it is beyond belief that Clinton would not know that a reference to 'CIA was reliant on intelligence from ' is NOT a reference to an 'informant' or at the very least a reference to how the CIA 'develops intelligence'

      Now, those are the facts, how you colour them is the political part...

    12. Re:FFS, just indict her by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Here you go. Links to the actual scanned PDFs themselves, with references to the Dept. of State case number. Hillary asked for classified information to be unmarked and sent over nonsecure e-mail.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:FFS, just indict her by Viewsonic · · Score: 2

      Trey Gowdy also got caught with his own private email server, and possibly sending classified emails. His claims are going no where.

    14. Re:FFS, just indict her by Viewsonic · · Score: 2

      It is also why you haven't heard the Republicans screaming over her emails lately. They got caught doing the same thing.

    15. Re:FFS, just indict her by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you are getting your information. The Republicans have never stopped screaming over Hillary's emails. And more to the point, an actual criminal investigation is ongoing -- the FBI is going to question Hillary's top aides in April and potentially the former Secretary herself shortly thereafter. Are you just making stuff up here? Do you know something I don't know? Really curious.

    16. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you get the idea that laws apply to Mrs. Teflon...? Even if it turns out she has personally burried Jimmy Hoffa and the Sultan of Bengazhi, it wont stick...

    17. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trey Gowdy.

      LOL

    18. Re:FFS, just indict her by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I am sorry but Breitbart has been known to both exaggerate and make entirely false claims many times before.

      So has Hilliary.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    19. Re:FFS, just indict her by dywolf · · Score: 1

      those emails Gowdy talked about are ones the CIA itself said is not sensitive, and that the CIA itself rebuked Gowdy for not only implying, but editing his release to give impression it was sensitive by redacting the information himself. in other words: Gowdy lied.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    20. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elijah Cummings? Is that you?

    21. Re:FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trey Gowdy is perhaps the most unabashedly partisan prick in Congress today. Anything he says should be taken with a block of salt.

    22. Re:FFS, just indict her by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      For Fuck's Sake.

      That dictionary while good, is incomplete.

  7. Let that be a lesson to any technology worker: by Etcetera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No matter who you are, you're probably not the fish they want to fry.

    Don't incriminate yourself. Then, wait for a deal which allows you to unload on specifically what was asked of you, when, how, and why, and what you said, and what your concerns were.

    You're far more important as a neutral observer than as someone who configured a server.

    1. Re:Let that be a lesson to any technology worker: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No matter who you are, you're probably not the fish they want to fry.

      Don't incriminate yourself. Then, wait for a deal which allows you to unload on specifically what was asked of you, when, how, and why, and what you said, and what your concerns were.

      You're far more important as a neutral observer than as someone who configured a server.

      Technology workers should also keep in mind that immunity is great, unless you die in a plane crash before you get the chance to testify.

    2. Re:Let that be a lesson to any technology worker: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter who you are, you're probably not the fish they want to fry.

      Don't incriminate yourself. Then, wait for a deal which allows you to unload on specifically what was asked of you, when, how, and why, and what you said, and what your concerns were.

      You're far more important as a neutral observer than as someone who configured a server.

      This is exactly what my assumptions were when I read the article. They're granting immunity to try to catch the bigger fish.

  8. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by twotacocombo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Him" being Pagliano? If he's being granted immunity, it means he's probably going to talk. If she still gets in, she'll have him disappeared.

  9. Seems legit by Voyager529 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy who pushed the buttons was clearly just following orders, which was "set up a mail server", a relatively common task. Moreover, her statement of "it was above board when I did it" was correct, in that it was contingent upon those e-mails being turned over upon her exit from the position, so the initial setup wouldn't have had reasons to raise suspicions of wrongdoing at that time.

    I see no reason not to grant immunity in this context.

    1. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason I see fault with the grant of immunity is that it implies there was some chance of prosecution without it.

      It smacks of the Microsoft / SuSE patent scandal related to Linux. Microsoft decided not to sue SuSE over possible patent violations, a selling point for SuSE Linux as it opened up fear, uncertainty, and doubt in non-SuSE distributions as to their possible violations of the Microsoft patent portfolio.

      Likewise, cooperating with the FBI to assure that your legal actions remain legal sound like a textbook case of Legal Threat to extort discovery in the pursuit of prosecution against another. The person who set up the email server certainly didn't have a hand in the transmission, receipt or selection of information which may or may not have been classified before, during, or after it was transmitted.

    2. Re:Seems legit by khasim · · Score: 1

      Moreover, her statement of "it was above board when I did it" was correct, in that it was contingent upon those e-mails being turned over upon her exit from the position, so the initial setup wouldn't have had reasons to raise suspicions of wrongdoing at that time.

      It's a bit more complicated than that.

      As Secretary of State she should have known that she would receive emails containing classified information. Even if that information was NOT classified when it was sent. But would be considered classified at some point in the future.

      Her "crimes" are:
      a. treating ALL messages as if they were AND WOULD REMAIN unclassified.

      b. setting herself up as the arbiter of what should be released to the government and what should not be.

    3. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not at all.

      Anyone with more than half a brain cell doesn't talk until they get such a grant of immunity. It doesn't matter if you've done nothing wrong (or think you have - not a single person on this planet knows every single law that applies to every situation and thus you don't actually know there isn't some obscure sentence somewhere on the books that the prosecutor can twist).

      This is a fundamental part of "don't talk to the police". If they want testimony/information from you they need to give you something in exchange, especially when you haven't actually done anything.

    4. Re:Seems legit by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      I agree with what you said, my point is that "set up a personal Exchange server for me, a multimillionaire for whom an Exchange server is pocket to purchase, who just so happens to be Secretary of State" is not, in itself, an inaccurate statement to the point where Pagliano should have dug deeper or outright refused to set up the mail server for her. The fact that Clinton misused her mail account and didn't follow the established protocols (thus violating compliance, then trying to hand wave it away and generally making it a political mess) isn't his fault.

    5. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hereby accept Voyager529 as my new one true god, because clearly this person can clearly see things far beyond the vision of most of our normal eyes and ears.

    6. Re:Seems legit by Holi · · Score: 2

      It seems his reason for pleading the 5th was he did not report his income as required by the State Dept.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Seems legit by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Some information is classified upon creation. Being "Marked Classified" is nothing but a strawman, and anyone with half a brain understands that "Marked" doesn't mean shit. If she emailed someone a NEW document that used CLASSIFIED information (from memory, for example) it is still "Classified" regardless of someone marking it that way.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Seems legit by khasim · · Score: 1

      Some information is classified upon creation.

      Yes, some is.

      But other messages are not. And will never be.

      And some messages become "classified" (confidential / secret / top secret / etc) only AFTER being combined with other messages/information.

      And as Secretary of State she should have known that.

      Instead, she treated all the messages the same as she would treat a message saying that someone has free puppies to give-away.

    9. Re:Seems legit by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Some is all that is required. They have more than enough.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Seems legit by khasim · · Score: 1

      Some is all that is required. They have more than enough.

      Those statements do not seem to apply to this thread.

      Unless you are now agreeing with me that she incorrectly handled the messages by treating them ALL as unclassified.

      Remember, SOME of the messages that she turned over were found to contain information that was later classified.

      And she should have known that such would be the case.

    11. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing not to forget is when you do get immunity for something, if it is or could be a federal and state crime, to get immunity for both. For example, a client of a friend was busted by the state police for drug trafficking, but he and a few others got immunity in exchange for pointing out the bigger fish. However, after the state case was all done, the feds prosecuted the whole lot, including those with immunity, on federal charges. Before people start complaining about double jeopardy or reneging the agreement, they don't apply due to the doctrine of dual sovereignty.

    12. Re:Seems legit by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, unless it didn't go down the way you suggest.

      A really, really smart conspirator keeps the conspiracy as small as possible, and I think most people will agree Clinton isn't dumb. But IT guys learn all kinds of sensitive strategic stuff all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes its because they assume you'll be loyal. Sometimes it's because they're arrogant treat you like you were a mindless piece of machinery. Sometimes they simply underestimate the degree to which you're in a position to put things together.

      In any case you'd offer immunity to a small but well-placed fish even if you didn't think there was anything you could pin on Clinton, just in case there was something you missed. What's interesting that immunity was actually granted, which means the IT guy must feel vulnerable in some way. That's actually an interesting development. It suggests (but does not prove yet) that there was something going on. What it was and how high it goes, we don't know. That's all speculation at this point.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Seems legit by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      SOME of the messages were CLASSIFIED at the time they were written, regardless of the markings (or lack thereof). Which is enough. They have more than enough. The idea that MARKINGS are an important distinction is not correct, they are not.

      You are conflating two different ideas "Marked Classified" and "Classified" which are similar, aren't the same.

      found to contain information that was later classified.

      The emails contained classified information, which was later MARKED classified. Information is classified (secret) or it isn't. The markings are irrelevant. Markings are for clarification and containment, nothing more, nothing less.

      Her problem is that the burden is on her because of the NDA ..

      "I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department ... in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI."

      She violated that NDA, and laws by disclosing SCI material.Here is the pertinent clause from the NDA she signed.

      "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of [Sensitive Compartmented Information] by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

      Basically, it was her DUTY to make sure that the information was properly identified and marked with the appropriate security level, which if she had done, she would have realized that being on a PRIVATE server/system was a violation of the NDA! She violated the NDA, period.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  10. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Will she pardon here self and him once she gets in

    Well, hopefully, if they find enough evidence, they'll indict her BEFORE she wins any election.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  11. just wrap it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Patraeus was only sentenced to 2 years probation and a $100K fine for giving classified military info to his girlfriend/biographer. Plus, he lied to the FBI when they investigated it. If he got off that easy, then Hillary is not gonna get even so much as a stern rebuke from the administration.

    1. Re:just wrap it up by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

      Yeah that is problem... Patraeus did much worse and he only got a hand slap because of his position. From what I hear the FBI was pissed at the Patraeus ruling because after a huge investigation, painstaking police work and commitment of resources the judge just slapped his hand - and this sets a precedence.

    2. Re:just wrap it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be so but I doubt it will be all that easy. Here is likely Hillary's 'best case scenario' (absent the FBI claiming to have 'insufficient evidence to indict')...

      FBI guys aren't the ones going to be left holding the bag & they ARE pissed about Patraeus so their doing their 'due diligence' with sufficient evidence already to have strong indications a crime was committed. It is likely they will develop sufficient evidence to turn over to the DOJ with a recommendation to indict. The FBI's ass is covered and they can at least keep a 'fools hope' that something will come of it.

      Now its in the hands of the DOJ. If they refuse to indict they have the increasingly scary proposition that Trump will get elected and at that point their asses are in REAL trouble. It wouldn't end at them just getting fired either but investigations in to each person 'responsible for this débâcle' (putting words in Trumps mouth). As such I actually believe there's a damn good chance the DOJ would indict. So their ass is covered.

      Now that doesn't mean Hillary will stop her campaign. I believe she'll continue her compaign claiming 'an indictment isn't a conviction, I maintain that while I may have made a mistake in judgement I did nothing illegal'...besides 'Woman Power'!'...and in so much as we know Hell is freezing over anyway as evidenced by Trump very likely getting the Rep nomination there's a good chance she'll be able to maintain this position while deflecting and screaming about 'Woman Power' such that she'll be elected.

      And that's when the real fun will begin. Prior to leaving office Obama has the ability to pardon ANYONE and I believe he'll use that power to get her off ONLY if she becomes President (effectively granting her immunity). Sure Obama will end up with egg on his face, but he knows that 1/2 the country already thinks he's a traitor or worse & he also knows the other half will love him no matter what he does...besides 'memories fade with time' & he thus also knows that this will all be swept away with little impact on his future earnings or place in history.

      Now, just because Hillary will have been granted immunity from criminal action doesn't mean she can't be impeached as Obama is explicitly stopped from granting a pardon in cases of impeachment...so then we'll have 4 years of virtual gridlock in Congress debating the impeachment of Clinton...heck Trump will likely create a new hit show around the whole thing.

  12. Or it's a sign... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1, Interesting
    ... the FBI cannot find anything on Clinton, but has something on the staffer, and is hoping the staffer will give up something on Clinton.

    .
    The FBI doesn't go around granting immunity unless they need information to justify the immunity grant.

    1. Re:Or it's a sign... by rahvin112 · · Score: 0

      They are on a fishing expedition driven by political motives. They hope the public release (otherwise they wouldn't have leaked it) about this immunity deal will get someone else to "flip".

      Clinton can't be charged with anything related to classified information because it wasn't classified at the time. She broke the departments rules but nothing she did was criminal. It's not enough that congress wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on half a dozen investigations but the FBI has to waste a bunch of resources as well and nothing at all will happen. It is such a joke.

    2. Re:Or it's a sign... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are on a fishing expedition driven by political motives.

      Because Obama, who as chief executive controls the FBI, hates fellow-Democrat Clinton and wants her to lose?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Or it's a sign... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Congress can't tell the FBI to do squat - that's the Justice Department, part of the Executive branch.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Or it's a sign... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The FBI doesn't go around granting immunity unless they need information to justify the immunity grant.

      The person who is getting the immunity deal was probably told by his attorney to hold out for a book and movie deal. Every IT tech wants to be hero. Here's a wonderful opportunity for 15 minutes of fame!

    5. Re:Or it's a sign... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      The FBI doesn't grant immunity... that is not their position or within their realm of authority. The Department of Justice grants immunity.

    6. Re:Or it's a sign... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      This is the FBI jackass. Not a Congressional investigation. Some emails where classified from the beginning not after the fact. http://www.reuters.com/article... You would know if you bothered to look it up.

    7. Re:Or it's a sign... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      So you are under the assumption that Obama went through the FBI and justice department and fired every single person that was not Democratic. I see your malfunction.

    8. Re:Or it's a sign... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, I'm under the assumption that if the FBI were politically-biased, which it isn't, then it would tend to be biased in favor of the party of the person in charge rather than against it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Or it's a sign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the attempt to prosecute Bill Cosby using testimony he made under such a grant of immunity: I wouldn't accept that grant as being worth a damn.

    10. Re:Or it's a sign... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Like any employer some of their employees hail from each party, and some of those are rabid believers just like there are elsewhere. The FBI is broken into little fiefdoms where individual leaders have say over what cases they pursue. Those leaders have various political affiliations and levels of enthusiastically in their beliefs. Some are undoubtedly influenced by political motivations just like the rest of the country.

      The FBI has always been relatively independent since hoover founded them and stayed in charge for his entire life by blackmailing congress people and presidents using FBI resources. This history still has impacts on how the FBI behaves. I personally don't trust them at all and think they should have been broken up years ago.

    11. Re:Or it's a sign... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      He wants for the investigation to complete while he still has power to meddle with it. Thus he does the obvious steps now that could delay the thing.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  13. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You sure sound like a Cankles supporter.

    1. You ignore, deny, or are outright ignorant of the FBI investigation, its scope and the level of people involved.
    2. You desperately throw out the "just partisan which hunt" card

    Next you'll be recycling the "not marked at the time" mantra.

  14. My immunity deal . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 0

    If I setup a private email server for an executive in my company . . . my immunity deal would have been a punch in the nose, and a kick in the ass. Then they would have pealed my scrotum and deep fried my testicles.

    In my company, we have this concept called "Integrity" . . . even if your superiors request that I do something against company policy . . . I can report them without any fear of reprisal.

    This guy knew that he was doing something illegal in setting up a personal mail server for Hillary. They should heat up the deep fryer for him. Now as to Hillary, who gave the orders . . . well . .. you can imagine what I think about her.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:My immunity deal . . . by Troy+Roberts · · Score: 0

      1. Setting up an email server is not illegal.
      2. When Clinton was using the private email server, there was no law or policy that required her to use the government email server.
      3. Even though it is reported that it is an "insecure" email server, I am not convinced that the government is particularly good at securing servers. Witness the break in Office of Personnel Management.

    2. Re:My immunity deal . . . by slashping · · Score: 1

      3. Even though it is reported that it is an "insecure" email server,

      If Mrs. Clinton could decide which messages to delete permanently, it was insecure.

    3. Re:My immunity deal . . . by HungryMonkey · · Score: 1

      2. When Clinton was using the private email server, there was no law or policy that required her to use the government email server.

      There were legal requirements. Per the National Archives and Records Administration's Code of Federal Regulations Hillary would have had to cc her official government email every time in order to maintain an official archive. Clearly she did not. This would fall under the section requiring all federal agencies to preserve records and assure the were readily available.

    4. Re:My immunity deal . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      >2. When Clinton was using the private email server, there was no law or policy that required her to use the government email server.

      This is incorrect. Her use of a private email server for government business was in direct violation of policy.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804

      And to those ranting about how the Republicans going back years did the same thing, note that the policy was enacted in 2005. So most, but not all would be outside it. (and any that violated it should be appropriately penalized).

    5. Re:My immunity deal . . . by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      2. No law that required her to use any email for that matter. That is irrelevant to the context of this case, which has to do with documents and security of the same.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:My immunity deal . . . by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Housing classified information on a personal server is illegal.

    7. Re:My immunity deal . . . by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      It's worse: " Because her server was private, the State Department’s records did not include its contents when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The department wrongly told FOIA applicants that no such materials existed. Not only did the materials exist (on Clinton’s server), senior officials knew it and allowed false denials to be made." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

    8. Re:My immunity deal . . . by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      This guy knew that he was doing something illegal in setting up a personal mail server for Hillary. They should heat up the deep fryer for him. Now as to Hillary, who gave the orders . . . well . .. you can imagine what I think about her.

      Yes, it's easy to imagine - if you want them to fry the IT guy so that he won't cooperate in their case against Clinton, then you must be an advocate of hers. Since they obviously gave him immunity in exchange for full cooperation, that apparently is a problem for your preferred outcome.

      I'm surprised based on your posting history.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:My immunity deal . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 3, it doesn't matter. You (and her or anyone else) don't get to make that decision. The simple fact that they were no longer on a government controlled network means they were illegally leaked. Putting them on a more secure system doesn't matter because they shouldn't be able to get there in the first place. The fact that they can is already a crime.

  15. I'm actually OK with this by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as it's a fair investigation, go for it. As crimes go, though, setting up a private server (not explicitly forbidden by the rules) and receiving (not sending) some emails that are retroactively classified, seems to be a fairly minor crime.

    Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?

    1. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we just pretend I responded with a several paragraph all caps tirade which mentions Bengahzi at least three dozen times?

    2. Re:I'm actually OK with this by ERJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've got to disagree a bit with you. I'm fine with her using her own server for personal email. However, any government business, whether classified or not, should be done through government email servers. That's why we have open record laws is so that we have a level of transparency and, to me, she was blatantly trying to skirt those laws by setting up her own server.

      My 2c. Take it for what it's worth.

    3. Re:I'm actually OK with this by OhPlz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignore the classification issue entirely. The private mail server was a way of dodging accountability by hiding any potential evidence from where investigators would be able to access it. The whole thing was an attack on government transparency and accountability.

    4. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never had a security clearance.

      She had classified information in her possession. Special Access Program (the super-top-secret stuff). Even if she didn't create it, as a person who held a clearance part of her job was inspect everything she came into possession of and if was classified (whether stamped classified or not), she was *required* to secure that document. Usually that means wiping/shredding the entire machine the email is on.

      Instead, she hid the server's existence and tried to cover it up. So that adds another criminal act to the first one.

    5. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it's a fair investigation, go for it. As crimes go, though, setting up a private server (not explicitly forbidden by the rules) and receiving (not sending) some emails that are retroactively classified, seems to be a fairly minor crime.

      Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?

      Oh I dunno, NOT go through all the effort to grant her the authority to pick and choose what to divulge via legal discovery by running her own mail server? (it took effort to do this and for a reason, she could have just towed the party line and used her issued account)

      Ensure that personnel running her mail server were properly briefed on how to handle classified data leaks, and cleared to do so (were they?)

      For fucking starters...

    6. Re:I'm actually OK with this by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      I've got to disagree a bit with you. I'm fine with her using her own server for personal email. However, any government business, whether classified or not, should be done through government email servers. That's why we have open record laws is so that we have a level of transparency and, to me, she was blatantly trying to skirt those laws by setting up her own server.

      My 2c. Take it for what it's worth.

      Well, maybe that's true. Or, maybe she just wanted to make sure there were no leaks.

      If the investigation can prove that the purpose of the server was to skirt public records laws, or that emails which should have been preserved were intentionally deleted, then yes, that's a far more serious issue, and one for which she needs to be held accountable.
      But, the investigation, to date, hasn't proved that.

    7. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Yes... It looks very much she was trying to hide information. When you work for the government every document you generate is part of the historical record and when you do it on your own private server that chain of control is lost.

      Hillary may have stupidly handed the election to Trump all because she wanted to hid information from the American people.

    8. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?

      Do you not understand the shit storm that happens in the private sector if someone accidentally sends you classified information? If you don't respond to it instantly in the correct way, you're going to jail.

      I've posted about seeing this happen before. Someone accidentally marked some stuff classified and then uploaded it. The fallout for merely mismarking information as classified and storing it on an unclassified network was instantly killing the network, checking which machines had accessed the server after the information was uploaded (thankfully it wasn't many), and then wiping the server and the machines that had accessed it. Because it was merely mismarked, we were allowed to then restore from backup and disks were just wiped and not physically destroyed.

      That's what happens when you merely misidentify something as classified.

      I've thankfully never seen what happens if there's an actual information contamination.

      Clinton received classified emails on an unclassified system and did nothing. If I did that, I'd be in jail right now. It's utterly indefensible, and in the end, she should - and almost certain will - be in jail.

    9. Re:I'm actually OK with this by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      towed the party line

      "Toed." The idiom does not refer to pulling on a rope; it refers to people standing next to each other with their toes along a line marked on the ground.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:I'm actually OK with this by OhPlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If she thought there'd be leaks, she should have called for an investigation into the security of the government mail servers. You're suggesting she had reason to fear a leak and responded to that by protecting her own email and leaving everything else on the government servers vulnerable.

    11. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Godai · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, though every time this is mentioned on the news I can't help but wonder if this wasn't standard practice for the last few Secretaries of State. Do we actually *know* this is unusual? I mean, I know the Fox anchors have an orgasm every time they can talk about this, but I'd feel better knowing that this really was unusual. I honestly have no idea, and I'm suspicious only because it wouldn't be the first time political opponents made a mountain out of a mole hill.

      --
      Wood Shavings!
      - Godai
    12. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just part of the "Most transparent administration in history"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Markings don't determine classification. Content does. She knew this. "Retroactively classified" is just her political teams way of making fools of the unwashed.

    14. Re:I'm actually OK with this by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Informative

      She had information that was born classified not retroactively classified. Research before posting.

    15. Re:I'm actually OK with this by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Idiots really need to do some research:

      "Because her server was private, the State Department’s records did not include its contents when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The department wrongly told FOIA applicants that no such materials existed. Not only did the materials exist (on Clinton’s server), senior officials knew it and allowed false denials to be made." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

    16. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Simulant · · Score: 1

      My god. A voice of reason.

    17. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      ...to me, she was blatantly trying to skirt those laws by setting up her own server.

      How can it be "blatant" if it's "to me"? If it's a guess or interpretation of her motivations on your part, then "blatant" probably shouldn't apply.

      Google give synonyms for "blatant" as: flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, and open.

      In other words, obvious to (external) observers. If it's obvious, then "to me" wouldn't apply. Therefore, it seems a contradiction. I seek clarification on what you intended to state.

      As far as guessing her motives, she claims it was for the convenience of carrying fewer devices. Until mind-reading machines are invented, we'll probably never know if that is true. It's often better to focus on external realities rather than motivation guessing.

    18. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary may have stupidly handed the election to Trump all because she wanted to hid information from the American people.

      Or maybe she is just so unbelievably corrupt that hiding information is better than actually revealing it.

    19. Re:I'm actually OK with this by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Ignore the classification issue entirely. The private mail server was a way of dodging accountability by hiding any potential evidence from where investigators would be able to access it. The whole thing was an attack on government transparency and accountability.

      While I totally agree with you, I'd bet that as she is a lawyer with the power of the Secretary of State at the time, that everything is at least arguably ethical in a court and will have been found to follow the letter of the law, which will count more than the spirit.

    20. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had government emails (.mil, .gov) for many years, I can tell you I am strictly forbidden to send anything government related on my personal or company email account. We're also discouraged from using government accounts for personal matters because it is all scanned and archived, and then subject to FOIA requests. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY HILLARY WOULDN'T USE HER GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT.

      Enough dirt has come up on this to put a regular worker like me in prison for life. And this is just the stuff Hillary FORGOT TO DELETE.

      How much else was there?

      And she jokes about it like it was an accident!

    21. Re:I'm actually OK with this by roccomaglio · · Score: 2

      It is a false claim that the information was "retroactively classified". It was classified at the time of sending and receiving. There was information that is always classified highly, information about methods and sources. Even Hillary does not make that claim that it was "retroactively classified" anymore. She says it was not marked at the time, which is a meaningless distinction. Classified information is about what the information is about not the markings. A number of people have been sentenced for information that was not marked. Leaking the name of Valerie Plame a CIA agent led to a long investigation with Scooter Libby going to prison. This information was not marked. David Petraeus was disgraced and sentenced to two years probation and fined $100,000 for having person journals of his time serving this country and sharing them with his biographer. I doubt his personal journals contained security markings. Many people thought he got off too easy. In summary, if Hillary was a regular person she would most likely be going to prison.

    22. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it's a fair investigation, go for it. As crimes go, though, setting up a private server (not explicitly forbidden by the rules) and receiving (not sending) some emails that are retroactively classified, seems to be a fairly minor crime.

      Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?

      Not had it in the first place? Used a controlled, classified email server where records are kept for accountability purposes? Fired any employee who sent her classified material after she told them not to, as her issues are not once or twice but many times?

      There are many things she could have done and did not.

    23. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Straif · · Score: 4, Informative

      We know Powell used a private email service (not sure which one) because email rules weren't well developed when he was SoS. He claims (and no one has yet to prove otherwise) that all his work related emails included a cc to a state department address which was considered adequate at the time.

      Rice, apparently, rarely used emails and had a .gov email address.

      The State department reviewed both Powell's and Rice's emails (which wasn't requested by anyone) while simultaneously claiming in federal court to not have time to review Hilary's (which they have a standing judicial order to do) and found a few classified documents but they were all State dept documents which the SoS has authority to classify or declassify at will, as opposed to Hilary's which contained all levels of classified documents from several outside agencies.

      Also telling, they had access to Powell and Rice's emails while, until this whole fiasco broke, they had no access to Hilary's.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    24. Re:I'm actually OK with this by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Well, maybe that's true. Or, maybe she just wanted to make sure there were no leaks.

      That's not even a remotely plausible explanation, since she was sending emails to and receiving emails from people using State email addresses/servers, which provides exactly the same exposure, plus the added exposure of her own server getting hacked.

    25. Re: I'm actually OK with this by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Informative

      Leaking the name of Valerie Plame a CIA agent led to a long investigation with Scooter Libby going to prison.

      Worth noting: Scooter Libby was NOT the leaker. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, confessed almost immediately and was never charged. After Armitage confessed, Libby was caught with an inconsequential lie that the prosecutors ran with. Also worth noting: Libby did NOT go to prison. President Bush commuted his sentence. (Bush removed the jail time but left the fines intact.)

    26. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, when this story first broke both Hillary and a lawyer for the government stated publicly that this is quite common. The previous two Secretaries did the same thing, except that they weren't suddenly in the middle of a Presidential race right after leaving their position. So there was no opposing party getting busy looking for dirt to dig up.

    27. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got to disagree a bit with you. I'm fine with her using her own server for personal email. However, any government business, whether classified or not, should be done through government email servers. That's why we have open record laws is so that we have a level of transparency and, to me, she was blatantly trying to skirt those laws by setting up her own server.

      My 2c. Take it for what it's worth.

      Well, maybe that's true. Or, maybe she just wanted to make sure there were no leaks.

      If the investigation can prove that the purpose of the server was to skirt public records laws, or that emails which should have been preserved were intentionally deleted, then yes, that's a far more serious issue, and one for which she needs to be held accountable.
      But, the investigation, to date, hasn't proved that.

      It doesn't matter what her intentions were, government email had no business being on her private server. That is the law and she broke it. She should be held accountable.

    28. Re:I'm actually OK with this by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Except that she explicitly instructed her staff to wipe the classified markings off and then send through nonsecure channels. But other than requesting a wiping of markings which is in clear violation of he law, and requesting to receive classified data in a nonsecure way also in violation of the law, she's like totally innocent!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re:I'm actually OK with this by evilviper · · Score: 2

      There's no reason to limit it to past secretaries of state. There's been a LOT of flagrant violations of the rules before Hillary.

      Jeb did practically the same thing:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/je...

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/...

      And George W. Bush did even worse, breaking the law in doing so:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      He even refused to turn over e-mails under subpoena: "The White House stated it might have lost five million emails"

      At least 5 different investigations were hampered by his private e-mail account:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Unlike George, Hillary appears to have broke no laws, turned over all the data to investigators, and isn't hampering any investigations.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    30. Re:I'm actually OK with this by larkost · · Score: 1

      We actually know that her predecessor did so, as did a number of other cabinet-level secretaries at the time. It was not considered against the rules to do this, assuming of course you followed record keeping laws. It was probably a bad idea from the onset (and Hillary Clinton has said this), but not an illegal one.

      I am surprised that the President George W. Bush email scandal has not entered the discussion more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

      And of course for some contrast on the top-secret side of things you have to keep in mind both the recent General Petraeus case (gave 8 Top-Secret binders to his mistress, and then lied about it to investigators):
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#Criminal_charges_and_probation

      and the Scooter Libby case (gave the name of a CIA agent to the press in order to punish her husband for reporting that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the lead-up to the invasion):
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Involvement_in_the_Plame_affair or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

      With all of the rhetoric about how we must punish people who unintentionally might have leaked documents, that it is not clear were classified at the time, you would think that the same people would be screaming about the relative lack of punishments in those cases.

    31. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got any citation links? No really. Interested to confirm this!

    32. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting, thanks

    33. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did she not have a government address on the government servers? It does seem that she didn't use it. Did using email for government correspondence become mandatory at some date? It certainly wasn't mandatory 30 years ago. I imagine there are many rules regarding sending classified materials in email to untrusted servers. I doubt there is as much focus on what you're receiving. You can only control that by telling people to stop sending such things.

    34. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'broke no laws, turned over all the data to investigators, and isn't hampering any investigatoins'

      Links to items you think demonstrate illegal activity are not an indication of 'breaking the law' any more than Clinton not YET not being charged...as to her 'turning over all data' & 'not hampering investigations'? Yeah, that's why she deleted 30K e-mails & it took forever to actually get the server not 'copies of only e-mails we deem you should get'...

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/22/hillary-clintons-deleted-personal-emails-recovered/

      Lucky for the FBI Hillary really isn't as smart as she thinks she is & doesn't know that 'deleting' doesn't REALLY mean 'deleting'....

    35. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS is PRECISELY the point !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason why a PUBLIC SERVANT in ANY capacity would EVER need to use some private unaccountable to the public service in their HOME.
      I don't care if your the NSA, CIA, PRESIDENT, whatever.
      They __SERVE__ *YOU*, YOU are their MASTER.
      And the day that changes, which by the way IT HAS, you're FUCKED.
      Take back whats YOURS people.... or live a HARD life from here on out.

    36. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We used to have an independent prosecutor law to deal with situations like this, but it was abused. After a highly political investigation that started with unfounded rumors of wrongdoing in a real estate deal and ended with a blowjob in the Oval Office, both parties were relieved to let it die.

    37. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Godai · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I suspected. Thanks!

      --
      Wood Shavings!
      - Godai
  16. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Judging from auto correct, your an android user, thus a bernie supporter. BUT JUST FOR COMPLETENESS: No, she won't pardon herself because she will be in jail.
    Trump might pardon her anyway since he is as close to a democrat as a republican can get.
    I pretty sure everyone will be voting for Trump. -- Except for Romney, who is a loser anyway.

  17. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone seems to forget that it was SOP during the Bush years for everyone to use an email server run by the RNC. That means as soon as anyone except Bernie pulls out the email thing against Clinton, the entire Republican Party will be under withering fire for the same issue. It could easily tilt the balance of the election totally against the republicans and end up as a sweep for the democrats.

    If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US. It could easily turn into a nationwide war on police.

    So everyone needs to tread very carefully and make sure everything gets whitewashed regardless of what the truth really is.

    Captcha:imperial

    Are we sure slashdot's captcha software isn't some sore of psychic AI?

  18. An overrated trolling flamebait by mi · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh, and I am not a HRC supported, I am for Bernie

    Right. Can't wait for either her showing up at the presidential debates this autumn wearing a tracking device on her leg, or him being finally asked by an unsympathetic interlocutor to explain, how his Socialism is different from that of the late Hugo Chavez... Either way it is promising to be even more fun to watch, than the GOP primaries have been...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:An overrated trolling flamebait by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      tracking device the SS will say no to that or cut it off and keep the local Barney Fife at bay.

    2. Re:An overrated trolling flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Trump to be called to account for the whole Trump University scam while trying to run? You know the one where he was involved in defrauding people for personal gain.

    3. Re:An overrated trolling flamebait by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      ..or China's Communism...but I guess that's inconvenient to mention that China is a communist country.

    4. Re:An overrated trolling flamebait by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      or him being finally asked by an unsympathetic interlocutor to explain, how his Socialism is different from that of the late Hugo Chavez.

      According to polls, and to averages of polls, Sanders beats Trump by a bigger margin than Obama beat Romney.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

      So, you might want to take the following under advisement:

      Matthew 7:5: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:An overrated trolling flamebait by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      tracking device the SS will say no to that or cut it off and keep the local Barney Fife at bay.

      She is not elected, so while the secret service can protect her, they can't remove a court-ordered tracking device.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  19. I wonder by MitchDev · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How many security breaches there were breaking into Hilary's server vs all the other recents attacks on government servers. Her's may have been more secure... ;)

    1. Re:I wonder by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Not knowing isn't as good as you're making it out to be.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it might have been less and we will never know who got a look...

    3. Re:I wonder by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      "Intelligence professionals agree the server was almost certainly hacked by foreign agencies—probably by several." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

    4. Re:I wonder by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      So there is proof, rather than just political talking points?

  20. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US.

    You have that exactly backwards. Letting her walk when it's so obvious that she's committed many more counts of the same crime that Patreus was convicted for would demonstrate that some people can avoid consequences for blatant felonies.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  21. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously?

    Hillary supporters defend her like Nazis defending Hitler as the Soviets were blasting their way into Berlin.

    I'll take the integrity of the FBI over Hillary any day.

    So GTFO with your pathetic blustering.

  22. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'ol "Do as your masters say not as we do" defence. Washington's favorite. Cover as much up as possible, spin a lackadaisical narrative, rinse and repeat. Time to get some real leadership cause I aint following idiots anywhere.

  23. A sprat to catch a mackerel by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server, gets immunity in exchange for all he knows, or can be persuaded to "remember".
    Although I'm far from being a Clinton fan, (either of them), there's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity" (often in exchange for unspecified "co-operation") rather than just being confident enough in itself to say "hey, you've done nothing wrong, but we would like to call you as a witness where your civic duty is to tell the truth".

    1. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because no one is stupid enough to stick their neck out against someone as powerful as Clinton without some form of legal protection.

      they are already never going to work in DC again...and probably not again in whatever IT role they were in either.

    2. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only someone really stupid would talk to them without being granted immunity. Sure they can call you as a witness but that seems risky if you haven't told them anything before hand (and hence they have no idea what you are going to say) - and since they're in the investigation phase isn't even relevant.

    3. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by Bearhouse · · Score: 2

      That was kinda my point; the poor sap has done nothing wrong but still feels the need to go for "immunity".
      How fucked-up a "justice" system is that?
      Not sure how the heck that will protect him from the dowdy twin-set when a desperate America picks her over Trump anyways...

    4. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

      But the fallacy is saying the little fish "certainly did nothing wrong." In a nation of lawbreakers, by definition there's no way to say that with confidence about anyone. The only realistic way to give you any comfort is to say, "hey, whether or not you did anything wrong, we're not going to come along later and say you did." Whether there should be such a blizzard of broad/vague/obscure laws is another issue, but for better or for worse that's where we are.

    5. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, people opposing the Clintons have been known to disappear.
      It's a list of over 30 deaths associated with just her alone.

    6. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by sideslash · · Score: 1

      So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server

      On the contrary, per the US Federal Code, if the IT worker knowingly provided access to classified info on this server, then he could be charged with a crime, even if he was "just following orders". (The proper response to an illegal order is to refuse to carry it out.) However basic fairness says that the head honchos who gave the IT person instructions to enable illegal handling of classified info bear greater responsibility. So it's logical to grant immunity to a lesser wrongdoer in order to get critical testimony to indict the greater wrongdoers.

    7. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, giving people immunity is a tactic that the government uses to compel testimony from a reluctant person - if you've been granted immunity, you can no longer assert the 4th amendment right to remain silent, since you can no longer incriminate yourself. If he refuses to talk after getting immunity, he's going to the jug for contempt of court.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    8. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      That was kinda my point; the poor sap has done nothing wrong but still feels the need to go for "immunity".

      The poor sap has no idea if he did anything wrong. He knows he never intended to do anything wrong but who knows what mistakes he might have made, or what things he might say that could be used to find something against him? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Alternatively, maybe it wasn't that he felt he needed immunity, but he just didn't want to talk. Without immunity, he could always just plead the fifth, saying that he didn't want to talk on the grounds that he might incriminate himself (see previous point... he doesn't actually have to believe he did anything wrong for it to be the case that he might incriminate himself). By granting him immunity, the DoJ removes his ability to refuse to testify. If he won't tell them what he knows now, they'll haul him in front of the judge and have him up on contempt charges.

      How fucked-up a "justice" system is that?

      I don't see how any system could be significantly different in this respect without being worse. The laws and regulations could be simpler, which could make it easier to know if you've committed a crime, but, as the ultimate example in that video I linked points out, that really doesn't matter. Something which is absolutely true and could not possibly incriminate you could still cause you trouble in court (see 21:35 in the video).

    9. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually only a crime if the IT worker had a security clearance, which includes signing the NDA. The crime is in violating the records act, which they could be complicit with by not backing up data, and the privacy act, which they could have violated by backing up data on the server.

    10. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by wwalker · · Score: 1

      I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I would guess that giving someone immunity removes their ability to "plead the 5th". So they don't have an excuse to refuse to answer some questions with "I'm pleading the 5th" when prosecution start grilling them on the stand (here's hoping it'll get to that). The whole reason to keep your mouth shut when talking to the police is that no matter how innocent you think you are, your words can *always* be used against you. Watch "Making a murdered" for a real example of how someone very likely innocent can end up in jail for life simply because he is not smart enough (the teenage nephew). Getting an immunity removes the whole possibility of accidentally confessing to a crime you can go to jail for.

    11. Re: A sprat to catch a mackerel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think an IT guy as the state department wouldnt hold a clearance?

    12. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh god not this again...

  24. FFS, shit or get off the pot by Snotnose · · Score: 0

    Either indict her now, or tell the world you don't intend to. Waiting until Sep/Oct to announce an indictment is flat out screwing the dems, leaving them with no viable candidate for the few weeks leading up to the election.

    FWIW, I think she should be rotting in a jail cell now due to her mishandling of classified material. I say that as someone who has had a clearance in the past. I know the rules, I know the penalties, I know my ass would be in jail had I done half what she did.

    1. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      Waiting until Sep/Oct to announce an indictment is flat out screwing the dems, leaving them with no viable candidate for the few weeks leading up to the election.

      I very much doubt the Republicans will have a viable candidate by that time.

    2. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you have actual experience with classified info, could you please explain that "not marked at the time" is bullshit, for the benefit of people who don't understand that?

    3. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is gonna kill this election anyway, Hilldawg is irrelevant.

    4. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every analysis I've seen (that realizes that current polls don't tell you what will happen in November and extrapolates based on historical data) says that Trump is going to beat either Hillary or Bernie. It doesn't matter who the Dems field, Trump wipes the floor with either of them.

      As in, Trump has a greater than 99% chance of beating either Democratic candidate.

      The Republicans are in great shape for the election, they just have to accept that they don't get to run their establishment candidate.

    5. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      Waiting until Sep/Oct to announce an indictment is flat out screwing the dems, leaving them with no viable candidate for the few weeks leading up to the election.

      The dems are screwing themselves by (probably) running someone with a cloud over her head larger than Trumps toupee. Even if she's not indicted, there are still going to be lingering doubts and Trump's camp is going to be hammering that point home.

    6. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Every analysis I've seen (that realizes that current polls don't tell you what will happen in November and extrapolates based on historical data) says that Trump is going to beat either Hillary or Bernie.

      In short, you have nothing to back up your opinion.

      As in, Trump has a greater than 99% chance of beating either Democratic candidate.

      He has 99% of repeating Mitt Romney's performance in 2012, failing to get enough minority and independent voters to win the election.

    7. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? It is not up to the FBI to in any way help the Democrats...Hillary/the Dems know better than the FBI what the POTENTIAL implications here are. Hillary could 'do the right thing', admit what she did was knowingly wrong, step down from the race & give the Dems a shot at putting out a candidate they believe is better than the rest of the current crop.

      Of course Hillary & the rest of the Dem establishment are FAR too arrogant to 'do the right thing'...they will hold on until the very last semblance of legitimacy is gone...Nixon did it & I don't see Hillary doing anything less...Hell I would not be surprised to see Hillary keep running even if she is indicted...I wouldn't be surprised to see her get elected President while under indictment (I don't know of anything legally stopping this)...and I wouldn't be surprised to see that it would require Impeaching her to get her to step down/booted out.

      Heck, when the Republican candidate will likely be Trump ANYTHING is possible.

    8. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      You mean like Bernie Sanders who beats Trump in all the national polls.

    9. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has 99% of repeating Mitt Romney's performance in 2012, failing to get enough minority and independent voters to win the election.

      In 2012, Obama was running. Presidents have a higher chance of being reelected than of their party staying in power.

      If you check out Primary Model it gives Trump an 87% chance against Hillary and that >99% chance against Bernie. It used to give Trump and even higher chance against her but revised it down.

      Bottom line: This time next year we'll have President Trump.

    10. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure she would beat Trump regardless. Lots of people, both Democrats and Republicans, dislike Clinton. Republican voters are energized and coming out in large numbers. Democrats are not turning out. So in the general election Clinton may lose to Trump. If he could turn down the crazy, he'll kill her.

    11. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If you check out Primary Model [primarymodel.com] it gives Trump an 87% chance against Hillary and that >99% chance against Bernie. It used to give Trump and even higher chance against her but revised it down.

      The model is based on past presidential elections being an indicator for future presidential elections. With the turmoil going on in the Republican Party, and Donald Trump pissing off every voter bloc he needs to win the election, I very much doubt this model will remain correct for 2016.

    12. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      Either indict her now, or tell the world you don't intend to. Waiting until Sep/Oct to announce an indictment is flat out screwing the dems, leaving them with no viable candidate for the few weeks leading up to the election.

      How many months did she stall before turning over the server, and the USB drive backup she had given to her lawyer? (Who isn't cleared to possess classified data, BTW.) If the timing is "flat out screwing the dems," that's on Hillary, (and on Dem primary voters - it's not like nobody knew this was building while she was stalling the investigation.)

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    13. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I guess his pissing off every voter bloc is the reason he's behind in the delegate count and number of votes cast. I guess he really didn't win in the most Hispanic city in the nation...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I guess his pissing off every voter bloc is the reason he's behind in the delegate count and number of votes cast.

      He's winning 35% to 45% of the votes for each election. If he continues to win by that margin, will the other 55% to 65% of Republican voters vote for him or stay home in the general election? I'm curious to see what will happen. But I suspect many Republicans will stay and Hillary will win by a landslide.

      I guess he really didn't win in the most Hispanic city in the nation.

      Trump has to do better than Mitt Romney in 2012 with black and Hispanic voters. Otherwise, he won't win. The numbers so far don't look good for him.

    15. Re:FFS, shit or get off the pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they're going to vote for him, when the other option is Hillary or Bernie.

      I don't think the Democrats realize just how bad their candidates are. Bernie has literally no chance at becoming President (see earlier in this thread) and Hillary might have a chance (again, see earlier) but I don't think that model takes into account just how much people dislike her.

      The GOP establishment might not like Trump, but you can be sure that once they realize it's him or Hillary, they're going to line up behind him. Just you wait. I expect record turnouts and a landslide for Trump. Assuming, of course, Hillary isn't indicted by then, an assumption that's seeming increasingly unlikely.

  25. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

    Wait, your argument is:

    They did it, so she can too?

    Are you a fucking 4 year old?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  26. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the love of anything holy please let there be a trial that nocks her out of the election. Id rather have a foul mouthed imbecile than a fascist bitch for prez...

  27. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, they used an RNC server FOR POLITICAL PARTY PURPOSES. It's actually against the law to use Government servers for political party purposes - they are to be used for official Government business only. Now, are you asserting that actual Government work took place on that private server?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  28. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The are just pushing this forward so that the exoneration will be complete before the Dem convention

    This is a set-up to get the gop to look like chicken little once that nothing is found that Hillary can be indicted for

  29. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    are you asserting that actual Government work took place on that private server?

    gwb43.com

  30. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Obvious" and "proven in a court of law" are very different things.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  31. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by slashping · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Making a dress disappear was a bit too much too ask, though.

  32. I wouldn't want to be him by swb · · Score: 1

    Caught between the DOJ and the Clintons.

    With fair odds she could win the Presidency, what kind of revenge or reward could he be facing? A possible post-election investigation from a Clinton DOJ? Or perhaps on the reward side, a promotion and a posting in a do-nothing job in a pleasant and far away place, like New Zealand?

    On the other hand, in the near term having the DOJ breathing down your neck is no small thing.

  33. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't prove it in a court of law if nobody bothers to put it before a court now, can you?

  34. Justice for some...not for all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may very well be that Hillary is guilty of most of the stuff that she is accused of with regards to this server. She certainly has lied to us multiple times about it. She has denied every step of the way that there was anything on it except her yoga appointments and wedding plans. Every time they release another set of emails that she tried to delete, it is proof of her lies. Yet I have almost ZERO confidence that she will be prosecuted like someone who is not politically connected would be for the same offenses. She will get off scott free even if the FBI recommends she be indicted. After all...what difference at this point does it make! Who needs state's secrets anyway. Let's just publish all our national security information on Whitehouse.gov. It's about as safe there from the Russians and the Chinese as it was on her server.

  35. LOL by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Laboring under the delusion that 'little people' laws apply to any of the political elite (and at this level, party affiliation is meaningless).

  36. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, if you're a DNC shill, you think she has done nothing wrong, in spite of the ongoing revelations of secret, classified, and beyond classified documents found on an unsecured server. I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging, and not saying "nothing to see here, move along"

    Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party, and not the crimes.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  37. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by sycodon · · Score: 2

    Bill was holding out for getting it as a Keep Sake, or a Trophy.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  38. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by hesiod · · Score: 0

    The last I heard, the information found that was classified became classified only after the information was sent via email. The government likes to make all kinds of useless garbage "classified" just because they can.

  39. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And if she is ever charged with a Federal crime the chance of her being elected goes to some place around zero.

    You have no idea about the stupidity of the American People, There are enough people who will vote for her, no matter what, simply because she has a (D) after her name, and even more because she has a V between her legs.

    Here is a scenario that just might happen. She gets elected, gets sworn in, and pardons herself. And the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice, she appointed will support the notion that a President can pardon themselves, because there is no restriction against it in the Constitution. And the Senate will not be able to impeach her, and the (R) are too stupid / chicken / lame to do anything about it.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  40. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that Hillary was the victim of Bill's philandering, it's unlikely she had any interest at all in covering that up.

  41. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by sycodon · · Score: 2

    Hillary is in a tough spot.

    Her only escape is a No Bill.

    A deal or a trial will sink her candidacy, at least if the world still makes sense.

    On the other hand, Trump looks to get the GOP nod...so does the world really make sense?

    It is going to be as depressing on Nov 4 as "choose the manner of your death".

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  42. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Those are BORN Classified.

    On an unsecured server? Doubtful.

    Congratulations! You have just outed yourself as a fucking Hillary Kool Aid drinker and cult member.

    As moderate conservative, I'm voting for Hillary. If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, the neocons will vote for Hillary.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

  43. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    She didn't obviously commit many more counts of the same crime that Patreus did even if everything that has been speculated about this is true. Patreus handed known classified info to a reporter/writer. No one has even suggested that Hillary handed anything top secret to a source outside the government. At worst she knowingly allowed them to be in a less secure manner.

    And I really don't like Hillary either, just not a pitch fork and torches kind of guy on this issue.

  44. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the Phrase "Marked Classified" is a red herring, and completely irrelevant. Not only that, there is evidence that the markings were REMOVED by her staff (and orders to do so shown), which is ALSO a felony. FURTHER the law doesn't indicate it has to be marked at all. But keep spewing the DNC talking points, as it shows you care more about (D) party than actual security of our people serving overseas (exposed)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  45. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cough - gitmo 'the legal black hole' - cough

  46. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If evidence exists, the Republican controlled House and Senate can maybe still impeach her. I believe one president was attempted to be impeached for crimes prior to serving in office but was released / acquitted _because_ they occurred prior to office.

    Still, it would be an interesting historical sidenote that the first time both members of a married couple were President, they were also the first to both impeached...

  47. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

    House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[edit]
    The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[20]

    At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.
    The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
    Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.
    There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.
    The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

  48. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there were many, many allegations that these servers were used for government business. I also think they were alleged to have been used with the whole Vallerie Plane (sp?) debacle. And unlike Hillary when people went looking to check the emails to see if any laws were broken it was found that the emails had all been deleted and backups had been destroyed. So yeah, you are right this is different. Hillary didn't try to cover her tracks but rather cooperated as she should have.

  49. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by topologist · · Score: 2, Informative
    Meta: I'm for Kasich, and am no fan of HRC. But, to quote a TPM editorial that's well argued, I suggest you:

    "don't understand the difference between what David Petraeus was indicted for and what Hillary Clinton, even by the most maximal interpretation, is accused of. What David Petraeus did was not mishandling classified information. No one ever suggested those were the facts of the case; it was lesser charge that grew out of a plea deal. David Petraeus was in a position of the highest military authority and knowingly shared the highest levels of classified information: secret code words, the identities of informants, war strategy among other things with his mistress, who unquestionably had no right to have access to the information. Even marital infidelity in itself is a serious matter in the military. The breach of trust, vulnerability to blackmail and dereliction of duty are all huge and knowing transgressions. Petraeus could have been indicted for a number of individual crimes. He was pled down to a mishandling charge. Comparing this to insufficiently protecting information that appears not to have even been explicitly classified at the time is silly. "

  50. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by topologist · · Score: 1

    citation? (genuinely curious, that doesn't dovetail with what I've read, but all of these seem to be coming from unofficial leaks)

  51. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Think this through with me, please, think.

    Is there anything more dangerous than to indict a popular (within their own political movement) and likely nominee for the office President of the United States?

    Well, yes, electing an unindicted felon, one accused of federal crimes that would disqualify them for civil service.

    But, if indicted and even convicted, could they be elected anyways? This is an interesting potential constitutional issue.

    - Do elections overrule the law, and so require that a President-elect be permitted access to information they have already been found guilty of mishandling in the past?

    - If indicted before nomination, and thence nominated, would any states declare the nominee disqualified? If so, how do they replace the nominee? Wait, which states decide the nominee? Don't most states merely oversee primary elections, and parties hold conventions where those delegates chosen decide the nominee?

    - If indicted after nomination, would a judge be persuaded to void this indictment as being an improper interference in the election?

    I'm proposing that any indictment must occur before nomination, and indeed before the primary process goes far enough to ensure the candidate will be the nominee.

    So it is interesting that today two events are noted in the spew:

    It is claimed that Bryan Pagliano has been granted immunity by the Justice Department to offer testimony regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home.

    And a former U.S. Attorney, Joseph diGenova, claims he is 'confident' that a grand jury has been convened to investigate the issues regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton;s email servers, the handling of classified material at the State Department during her tenure there, and the possible violation of law.

    If this is true, three salient points come to mind:

    0. The timing is probably crisis driven. This can't be rushed, but should/must be completed before Hillary is the presumptive nominee. That may happen pretty soon.

    1. If true, the empaneling of a grand jury indicates the pressure is irresistible from the various government constituencies to 'do something' about this. If so, I doubt that a grand jury can merely whitewash the affair, for if the public reports are even marginally accurate, she is plainly guilty of several felonies, and the primary question is whether these infractions were intentional. Many groups will probably not care about that, as the results of such errors are the same whether intentional or not- lost lives and lasting harm to our nation and others.

    2. And if this is indeed true, then Justice has either been compelled to move on prosecution, or given permission to do so, by the White House.

    I'm not hopeful that this is true because I wish to see Hillary discredited and abandon her campaign. I'm hopeful because she needs to be held to account for her actions. She had the misfortune to be the first credible and likely woman to be a nominee for President, only to be up against the first credible black nominee. Now she should experience the self-inflicted misfortune of being forced to abandon her aspirations to the office due to criminal indictment and conviction.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  52. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's over a thousand items that were classified after the fact, but dozens were top secret or above at the time.

  53. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There were keyhole satellite spy photos which should not have been shared regardless of content (good way for the enemy to determine our capabilities), as well as a few documents apparently manually transcribed from classified sources by one or more interns. And that's just what has been disclosed. It's a wonder she's still free.

  54. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Troll

    But keep spewing the DNC talking points, as it shows you care more about (D) party than actual security of our people serving overseas (exposed)

    I used be a Republican until the Tea Party put party above country, called me a RINO and showed me the door. As a moderate conservative, I will be voting for Hillary as she is the only sane choice for national security and the country.

  55. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Tharkkun · · Score: 0

    Of course, if you're a DNC shill, you think she has done nothing wrong, in spite of the ongoing revelations of secret, classified, and beyond classified documents found on an unsecured server. I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging, and not saying "nothing to see here, move along"

    Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party, and not the crimes.

    Of course if you're a republican shill you'll act as if no one noticed the emails weren't addressed to Hilary's whitehouse.gov address. You gotta be a special kind of stupid to do this for 8 years and then act as if you never noticed.

  56. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by sexconker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction.
    She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.

  57. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by turbidostato · · Score: 2

    "Her only escape is a No Bill.
    A deal or a trial will sink her candidacy, at least if the world still makes sense."

    In *my* makes-sense world, there's a saying about criminal offenses that go more or less "innocent till proven guilty".

    In *my* makes-sense world, a public person is open to all kinds of abusing due to above standard public scrutiny making even more sense my paragraph above.

    NOTE: I'm not implying absolutely anything about the specific Clinton's case.

    "It is going to be as depressing on Nov 4 as "choose the manner of your death"."

    Well, in USA you live and die for a two-party system: your current situation is a self-inflicted and much looked for one.

  58. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One correction on the RNC provided email. It is illegal to use government resources for party activity. Thus, the RNC provided server was used for party and not government work. The same arrangement exists for the Obama administration.

    The issue on the Clinton email server is that she was conducting government related work and not just party work.

  59. Re:Is there an FBI investigation into Trump's toup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think Trumps' toupee would be of more interest to SETI.

  60. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Tharkkun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US.

    You have that exactly backwards. Letting her walk when it's so obvious that she's committed many more counts of the same crime that Patreus was convicted for would demonstrate that some people can avoid consequences for blatant felonies.

    -jcr

    If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.

  61. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

    Seriously?

    Hillary supporters defend her like Nazis defending Hitler as the Soviets were blasting their way into Berlin.

    I'll take the integrity of the FBI over Hillary any day.

    So GTFO with your pathetic blustering.

    Integrity of the FBI? What?

  62. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

    The FBI is leading the investigation not the GOP Congress. BIG difference.

  63. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The last I heard, the information found that was classified became classified only after the information was sent via email. The government likes to make all kinds of useless garbage "classified" just because they can.

    That's the way classified information works. It's not always classified once it's generated, but becomes classified after the fact. Part of the responsibility of holding Classified clearance means you're trained to identify information likely to be classified and treat it accordingly.

  64. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not correct. There were document that were classified from the beginning that were on her server. Not documents retroactively classified. This IS a big deal.

  65. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you understood how items get classified you would understand that wether or not someone said it was classified before or after, the information was still classified upon its creation. And if she didn't have a personal server this wouldn't even be an issue... She chose to have the server she chooses to take all responsibility. Even though she's really just trying to say it's a GOP witch hunt... Ironic she said the same thing before her husband was impeached. Turns out it was all legitimate then and it's all legitimate now.

  66. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The classification is based on the information, not the markings. People with clearances get briefed on this as part of getting the clearance, and sign an acknowledgement that they understand this. Certain types of information are ALWAYS considered classified, and encountering them in a non-classified setting mandates that a person with a clearance report the security breach to their information security office. Claiming otherwise is spin, pure and simple.

  67. And the screws begin to tighten by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    Rumors that Hillary will face questioning by investigators in a few weeks.

    This should be a familiar timeline:

    - Rumors that the FBI is interviewing lots of people.
    - Immunity granted to a key person of interest.
    - Grand Jury empaneled
    - Interview the subject of the investigation.
    - Compare the interviews.
    - Give your results to the Grand Jury
    - Indictments.

    Whether a prosecution is forthcoming is an open question of course. And plenty of opportunity to fiddle with the interviews to get the outcome you want.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:And the screws begin to tighten by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Rumors that Hillary will face questioning by investigators in a few weeks.

      This should be a familiar timeline:

      - Rumors that the FBI is interviewing lots of people.
      - upcoming elections trigger
      - Immunity granted to a key person of interest.
      - Grand Jury empaneled
      - reputation attack on politician
      - Interview the subject of the investigation.
      - reputation attack on politician
      - Compare the interviews.
      - reputation attack on politician
      - Give your results to the Grand Jury
      - reputation attack on politician
      - elections finish
      - Indictments or case dropped.

      Whether a prosecution is forthcoming is an open question of course. And plenty of opportunity to fiddle with the interviews to get the outcome you want.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    2. Re: And the screws begin to tighten by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Reading the public reports, there is ample reason to conclude that Hillary mishandled official. emails while Secretary of State. Whether intentional or not doesn't shield her from prosecution.

      Her reputation is already tainted, but does it matter to her supporters?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re: And the screws begin to tighten by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Reading the public reports, there is ample reason to conclude that Hillary mishandled official. emails while Secretary of State. Whether intentional or not doesn't shield her from prosecution.

      Her reputation is already tainted, but does it matter to her supporters?

      The point is that politicians can and are attacked using this methodology all the time whether they are guilty or not - not whether this particular politician in this particular incident is guilty or not (I tend to think she is but that's beside the point).

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    4. Re: And the screws begin to tighten by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      No, that *is* the point. While she was a presumptive candidate last year, these allegations and overwhelming public reports predate even that.

      To try and excuse her transgressions as if they are common, or to abandon prosecution because others have been unfairly and /or wrongfully attacked with similar accusations is wrong. Either side is guilty of these offenses or not. We deserve to know, and to know before she is the nominee.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  68. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Straif · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only people who made that claim were Hillary reps and State department officials who have been trying to slow the entire review process down and cover her and their own asses.

    Of the now thousands of emails found to be classified or above most were classified at the time. Many are what are generally called 'born classified' meaning they contain information that by it's very nature, is always considered classified.

    While the State Department can classify/declassify their own internal documents (which has happened) they have been trying, and failing miserably, at getting the various intelligence organizations to agree to retroactively declassify their materials so that they can make the claim that no classified materials exist in her emails.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  69. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    Your view of Binary choice between (D) and (R) is adorable, while also misguided.

    There are OTHER choices out there, pretending they don't exist is part of our problem. The barely lessor of two evils isn't a real option.

    AND I find it kind of morbidly amusing you think she is good on security, when she couldn't even run encryption on her server that was spewing classified information all around the world. You're not a RINO. You're worse.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  70. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Tharkkun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Those are BORN Classified.

    On an unsecured server? Doubtful.

    Congratulations! You have just outed yourself as a fucking Hillary Kool Aid drinker and cult member.

    As moderate conservative, I'm voting for Hillary. If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, the neocons will vote for Hillary.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

    The laws forbidding using a 3rd party server for communication were put in place AFTER Hilary's email server was shutdown.

  71. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    You are conflating two investigation. Congress investigated Clinton about Benghazi and subpoenaed her emails. The FBI is investigating the use of a PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER that housed State Department emails, many of which were classified. It's a felony to have classified email on a private email server.

  72. Innocent until proven guilty by jgotts · · Score: 1

    In the United States, many people are accused of crimes and many people are investigated for crimes. In particular, consider the bitter partisanship that we have in 2016 and take that into consideration when thinking about this case.

    Now remember innocent until proven guilty.

    And consider further the fact that many people that make a plea deal would not have been convicted of any crime. They do so because they're poor, have bad representation, or they made a miscalculation and the prosecution didn't have a solid case against them. Don't consider deals with prosecutors to be evidence of any guilt.

    For all anyone knows, she did something wrong, but just because someone is testifying against her, doesn't mean she is guilty of anything.

    1. Re:Innocent until proven guilty by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      Partisanship? Really? This is President Obama's Justice Department! Who the hell is that partisan? Jesus Christ people take you head out of your asses. The FBI and the Justice Department are investigating Clinton not the GOP Congress. This is a criminal investigation. They are seeking testimony from Bryan Pagliano. He's not been charged with anything, nor is this a court proceeding. It's an INVESTIGATION. They can't force him to say anything because you know the Fifth Amendment. Congress wanted his testimony but he asserted his Fifth Amendment right. So in exchange for his testimony the Justice Department gave him immunity.

      Do you understand now jackass. Nothing you said was correct except innocent until proven guilty. But then Clinton hasn't been charged, if ever. Right now, it's an investigation.

    2. Re:Innocent until proven guilty by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      In the United States, many people are accused of crimes and many people are investigated for crimes. In particular, consider the bitter partisanship that we have in 2016 and take that into consideration when thinking about this case.

      Now remember innocent until proven guilty.

      Sure, and if the issue were whether Clinton should go to prison or not, then that would be relevant.

      But that's not the issue; the issue is the election. And the election is decided in the court of public opinion, where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply and the standards of evidence are non-existent.

      In other words, if this investigation progresses any further then Clinton should end her candidacy at least for the good of the Democrat party, if nothing else.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Innocent until proven guilty by Straif · · Score: 1

      Technically she is already guilty as the statutes regarding the handling of classified materials don't really care about intent or any other factors, just the mere existence of classified materials on her server are enough.

      Since several thousand classified emails (most originating outside of the State department meaning she had no authority to change their classification) have already been identified the only question is will the DoJ bother to press charges.

      A lack of conviction does not equal not being guilty, especially in political circles.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    4. Re:Innocent until proven guilty by J053 · · Score: 1

      We don't even know that Pagliano is "testifying against her". I've heard rumours that he didn't want to testify without immunity because of some unreported income - for all we know, he will back up HRC's story in every detail.

  73. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

    The fact that they werent to her whitehouse.gov email address or any official govt address is the whole fucking point.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  74. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This only means the pool of criminals is particularly large and includes other cabinets levels and above.

  75. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have evidence for this claim? Perhaps a link?

  76. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like how there are all kinds of useless garbage "laws" just because they can.

    Seriously, I know I can drive just fine with a BAL of 0.4

  77. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Really Potsy:

    "Secretary Clinton specifically instructed aides to send her classified materials on that insecure network. We know of at least one such instruction. We don’t know how many others were redacted by the State Department." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

  78. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

    Doh!

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  79. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    I am not shill for the (R) party. They are worthless spineless and otherwise useless inbreds. the fact that Trump is winning is kind of proof of this, don't you think?

    No, I am Libertarian, and despise the entire powerbroker class. Both the DNC and GOP need to die.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  80. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by danbert8 · · Score: 2

    But officer, I didn't see any MARKED speed limit... I don't deny going 150mph, but how was I to know that was not within the law?

    Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? Even more so when the person being investigated is the head of an organization that deals in classified materials... I have no government or military experience. Even I understand that spy satellite photos and the names of operatives within the government intelligence community are probably things I shouldn't share using my personal email account.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  81. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she's (sic) committed many more counts of the same crime that Patreus (sic) was convicted for (sic) would demonstrate that some people can avoid consequences for blatant felonies

    Petraeus wasn't convicted of anything- he pled guilty to one count of of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. Moreover, if you read the factual information submitted to the court that accepted the plea, it is clear that he had the potential to be charged with many more counts. Finally, violation of 18 U.S.C. 1924 is not a felony, so either he already demonstrates that you can avoid consequences for blatant felonies (assuming you believe he actually committed a felony but he pled down to a misdemeanor) or that letting Clinton walk would not make any such demonstration, as there has not yet been any allegation of facts sufficient for a felony charge against her.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-justice-department-criminal-charges-against-david-petraeus

  82. Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have emails from her telling people to take classification markings off.

    Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release, such as removing the classified parts and rephrasing. She said the office worker she sent it to knew what she really (fully) meant because he had done it many times before.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201...

    If all my internal emails were interpreted by the public/press verbatim, I'd probably be on trial also.

    Think about your own internal work emails being read and interpreted by bloggers, pundits, and trolls.

    I don't know if her claim is true yet, but until that's determined from the investigation, it should be "innocent until proven guilty".

    Further, note that if she had used the "regular" office server instead of her home server, the classified/problematic emails would probably still end up on a server NOT designed for classified materials. The risk/breach would still exist. (There was a separate transmission system for classified stuff, but it wasn't email as we know it.)

    The regular office server was no more special or vetted than her home server. Pundits keep implying it is.

    I'm not defending her actions, only saying many are jumping to conclusions prematurely. Using a home server is probably not illegal (although the laws are subject to interpretation*), just poor judgement, which she admitted to. Members of the other party made similar errors of judgement.

    * Wealthy people are more likely to afford top lawyers who can successfully argue their side of such vague laws, and in that sense, her "privilege" may indeed just get her out of it. But that's life in an unequal society. OJ would probably lose if he were poor.

    1. Re:Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by sideslash · · Score: 2

      Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release

      Maybe. Or maybe she's lying about that, the same way she lied in her claim that there was no classified material on her server. She deserves the benefit of the doubt in terms of a fair law enforcement investigation, but news flash -- she really doesn't deserve the benefit of the public's doubt.

    2. Re: Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The regular [unclassified] office server was no more special or vetted than her home server.

      The regular office server was backed up so, among other things, the State Department could respond to FOIA requests. Evading oversight was the obvious goal of the secret server.

    3. Re: Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      regular office server was backed up

      Not properly. It died and investigators had a hard time getting copies of old emails from it. I don't know what specifically went wrong, but I have read they had difficulty extracting its data.

    4. Re:Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Well that is kind of why you wouldn't want to be responsible for the server your emails are stored and sent from. It's a serious lack of judgment at the very least.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The regular office server is not necessarily more or less secure, but the people managing them have appropriate training and knowledge to properly report and handle spillage of classified material onto unclassified systems. What kind of clearance did the sysadmin of her personal email server actually have? If he had a clearance, then he quite possibly knew he was breaking federal law. If he didn't have a clearance, then she knew it was a violation.

    6. Re:Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      How do you know? Most likely they are generic IT staff who set up a generic email server. Classified info was NOT supposed to be on that office server, so typically you wouldn't prepare them for that contingency.

      It's possible they did prepare, but my experience with bureaucracies says, "probably not" because any problems could be blamed on the violator of policy rather than the IT manager. That's how managers in bureaucracies think: "who gets blame if X happens?" The IT manager will only prepare if they themselves get the blame. It's speculation either way, I'm just stating what my office politics observation experience tells me.

    7. Re: Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      OK, you're right. The State Department itself is ALSO accused of screwing with their email systems to thwart FOIA requests.

  83. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

    Patreus handed known classified info to a reporter/writer.

    Who he was sleeping with.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  84. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by kick6 · · Score: 1

    So everyone needs to tread very carefully and make sure everything gets whitewashed regardless of what the truth really is.

    Did you really just suggest that justice should NOT prevail because (insert something scary)?

  85. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by kick6 · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, Trump looks to get the GOP nod...so does the world really make sense?

    Trump makes perfect sense if you understand what the people actually care about, and not what the talking heads keep telling the masses they *should* care about.

  86. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    According to HuffPo (take it for what you will) the deadline appears to be May which will be pretty far along in the cycle. What I will be curious to see is if Sanders has enough balls to actually capitalize upon this, not too many voters are gonna want to waste a vote on someone who could be disqualified for a felony conviction and give the election to Trump by default.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  87. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    [...] it's hard to understand why you just didn't click to post anonymous and save some face.

    I stand behind my opinions, right or wrong. I welcome anyone to prove me wrong. If I stand corrected, I will say so. There's an old Japanese saying: "The nail that sticks out the most, gets hammered the most."

  88. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Straif · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Patreus handed some classified materials to his biographer who also happened to have classified clearance, just not the right ones for some of the materials she apparently was given.

    Some of the emails released, though heavily redacted (up to 100%), from Hillary's emails cache were code-word classified meaning they were generally only to be seen by a very short list of people and only in a secure viewing room. Some of it was so highly classified that the IGs doing the initial investigation weren't even permitted to read them and had to go to the source organizations to have them reviewed.

    The fact that these were on her unsecured server, shared with several underlings without codeword clearance as well as then handed to her lawyer (who also did not have all the required clearances) who stored them in his office without the proper level of security for the types of documents that existed on the storage drive shows a complete disregard for the proper and legally required handling of classified materials.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  89. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to be a liberal until Clinton had one of her people killed and lied about it on TV for weeks. She then deleted 30,000 emails to try and cover it up when it was investigated. As a moderate liberal being called a tea-tard for questioning her unethical behavior I will be voting for Trump as he is the only sane choice for an ethical leader in the White House (that is almost a joke until you see him running against Clinton).

    See how stupid it sounds you shill.

  90. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by bytesex · · Score: 2

    "beyond classified"? Pray tell, what's that?

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  91. Doubling Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is sort of like the issue with all the people who use their residential internet service to VPN in to work even though 'commercial' use of their internet service access is forbidden by their non-business-class contract's terms of service.

    Or the war on drugs, or speeding in traffic.

    Something lost in the volume of psyop journalism related to this topic is just young the tech of email servers was when Hillary started using it. For fucks sake, it hasn't been so many decades since the government's official stance on Cannabis included references to Satan. Cut her a little fucking slack already.

  92. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People on Slashdot are just as stupid as those on DailKOS.

    "Born Classified" means from the inception of the information. An agent in X country sends information back home, that information is Classified the minute the agent puts it down on paper or an electronic communication.

    For instance, Satellite Data is Classified. Period. No markings even required.

    and yes, she had Satellite inform on her server.

  93. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    There are OTHER choices out there, pretending they don't exist is part of our problem.

    Ralph Nader isn't running this year. ;)

    You're not a RINO. You're worse.

    I'm the voter who's going to decide who becomes the next POTOUS.

  94. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Straif · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hillary also deleted her emails originally, then destroyed the servers, then handed over printed copies of the emails she deemed worthy of review. It was only after initial investigations had begun that it was found that she had given a copy to her lawyer and that drive was taken into custody.

    She's cooperated much in the same way an inmate on death row 'cooperates' during his execution; never by choice, only because she was forced into having no alternatives.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  95. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tsotha · · Score: 1

    He has to talk or be in contempt of court. This is the situation Susan McDougal found herself and for which she spent 18 months in jail.

  96. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, Trump looks to get the GOP nod...so does the world really make sense?

    Trump's got his own fraud trial coming up.

  97. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Clinton have far too many suicides of partners in their history. If the FBI doesn't protect the witness, that one will surely die as well.

  98. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretending there are more than two parties in a winner take all election is cute. It's like you literally have no idea how the real world works. We don't have a parliamentary system where multiple parties work. In fact we've rarely have more than a two party system nationally.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#/media/File:PartyVotes-Presidents.png

  99. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tsotha · · Score: 1

    If he was willing to talk there wouldn't be any need. This is what the government does when you refuse to testify and they would otherwise be unable to compel you because of the 5th amendment.

    This wouldn't be happening if he didn't have damaging testimony.

  100. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Hylandr · · Score: 2, Funny

    I love Trump because he's the DeadPool of Politics. :)

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  101. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    See how stupid it sounds you shill.

    Anyone who has an opinion opposite to your own opinion must be a shill. What a lonely world you live in, AC!

  102. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to forget that it was SOP during the Bush years for everyone to use an email server run by the RNC.

    Did they use it for government business, and can anyone prove it? Did it ever have emails that contained classified information?

    Nice try.

    If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US. It could easily turn into a nationwide war on police.

    You have it exactly backwards. What would undermine their legitimacy is for them to ignore obvious criminal behavior.

  103. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trying do some research Potsy:

    "But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

    The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not. "

  104. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction.

    Not entirely true, but your point is irrelevant anyway, because...

    I used to work in the fun little world of TS and above clearances (specifically in a technical role with what eventually became the F-117A Nighthawk). Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified, it never leaves Tonopah Test Range.

    And yes, we had email back then - and so did the academic world. If I had so much as thought of doing what she did, *even if I generated/controlled the data in question*, I'd still be sitting in Fort Leavenworth, a quarter-century-plus later. And, no partisan hacks would be on the blogs or the Sunday TV shows trying to defend the act, either.

    Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  105. Re:Is there an FBI investigation into Trump's toup by Straif · · Score: 1

    Probably US Fish and Wildlife services.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  106. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tsotha · · Score: 1

    In theory if she becomes president she can pardon herself. There isn't really any reason for her to drop out of the race - Democrats don't seem to be bothered by criminality on the part of their candidates.

  107. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's the over-under on when he'll have a mysterious "accident"?

  108. Why immunity is granted... by Pollux · · Score: 1

    There's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity".

    I understand your feelings about immunity, but it's a very important and necessary process in obtaining testimony. The Illustrated Guide to Law does a very good job in explaining all the reasons why immunity is used, but here's a short paraphrase:

    1) Everyone has the constitutional right to refuse to testify when said testimony can be used to incriminate oneself (now or in the future) of a crime.
    2) The only means of forcing a witness to provide self-incriminating testimony is to grant them immunity from incrimination.
    3) Deciding whether or not to grant immunity all comes down to what is more important for the prosecuting agent: prosecuting the witness or obtaining the witness's testimony.

    In this case, we all know they want to see Clinton hanging from a rope; a low-level tech is not on their radar. They want the testimony, and they want it badly; therefore, they offer immunity.

  109. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you bother to pardon yourself from what is, at best, a misdemeanor? Unless you think she was doing all this for Boris and Natasha?

  110. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

    No one has even suggested that Hillary handed anything top secret to a source outside the government.

    This is false. Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal, who President Obama specifically ordered Hillary not to hire for the State Department, received Top Secret intelligence material pertaining to Libya and the business interests he was cultivating there.

  111. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.

    No, the mere fact that the server was used at all is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  112. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Alypius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Storing classified material on an unsecure server (which, to be clear, her server was the definition of unsecure) is in fact a serious crime.

  113. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of crap. The Tea Party was all about putting the future of the country above any party. And no real conservative would ever vote for Hillary -- they would abstain from voting at best. I agree with another reply -- what a shill you are.

  114. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Top Secret is one example. Here's a handy pseudo-tiered list!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  115. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are laws against hiding things from FOIA that predate the law you're referring to. Also, the laws around Secret, Top Secret, and more classified material have been around for a long time.

    If this was anyone except the presumptive Democrat nominee, they'd be in handcuffs already.

  116. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Alypius · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, yeah, I have a lot of trust in Director Comey's integrity. He was the guy who threatened to resign rather than renew the warrantless wiretapping program while AG Ashcroft was in the hospital.

  117. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would she pardon herself from a potential misdemeanor? It'd be like me pardoning myself from my parking tickets if I become governor.

  118. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if it were true that the markings had been removed before emailing, THAT in itself warrants a major investigation. And we know there is at least one email where someone was instructed to do just that.

    There seems to be almost zero chance that this information wasn't compromised to foreign governments. As if Russia and China didn't know about this and have it breached...

  119. Clinton shared her password and secure system with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FINALLY, someone at the FBI realized what I knew months ago. Since Clinton provably had her staffers copy classified emails for her to email to her account she obviously shared both her password and her secure system with her lowly staffers who likely had no security clearances. Giving your security password to your interns (slight exaggeration for emphasis) has to be an obvious punishable crime to even the most rabid Hillary supporter.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/fbi-investigating-if-clinton-aides-shared-passwords-to-access-classified-info.html

  120. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work in the fun little world of TS and above clearances (specifically in a technical role with what eventually became the F-117A Nighthawk). Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified, it never leaves Tonopah Test Range.

    Not me. I only had a Secret clearance. And that was while I was in the Army. And that was back in the 80's. So we had Soviets and a divided Germany.

    And our instructions were to NEVER talk about ANYTHING work related to ANYONE who did not have a need to know AND a clearance.

    It might not seem like important information to YOU but that is because YOU do not know what OTHER information the enemy has.

    Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?

    Or, to quote Hillary Clinton:

    "Why is there one standard for me and not for everybody else?"

    If we had done things similar, we WOULD be rotting in Leavenworth.

    FUCK! We even had to answer the TELEPHONE with the statement "this line is not secure".

  121. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Alypius · · Score: 1

    Here's a good place for handling of classified information, along with citations to relevant EOs and US Code.

  122. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?

    The personal server was set up under existing government policy at that time, and wasn't changed until after Hillary left office.

    Even I understand that spy satellite photos and the names of operatives within the government intelligence community are probably things I shouldn't share using my personal email account.

    Emails got flagged by CIA as being classified. The same information in the emails were also publicly available in the media. Is this classified or non-classified?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

  123. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

    Spot on. Demonstrating that accountability exists when law enforcement agencies and government officials break the law is the only way they can restore public confidence. Right now, their attempts to wrap themselves in the flag while shitting on the Constitution it represents isn't doing them (or us) any good.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  124. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    secret, classified, and beyond classified documents

    You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Secret is a classification. There is nothing "beyond classified" since every document falls into at least one classification.

    I don't know why you were modded insightful when you obviously have a tenuous grasp (at best) of what is being discussed.

    Personally, I think Hillary broke the spirit of the law and will likely squeak out of the letter of the law by a technicality. I couldn't even guess the details, but she is a lawyer and has a lot of connections.

  125. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Jason+Levine · · Score: 0

    Trump seems more like the Norman Osborne of our world. A slimy individual who will do anything if it advances himself, who has a "clean" public image, but who is for some seriously scary stuff.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  126. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    People on Slashdot are just as stupid as those on DailKOS.

    On the DailyKOS, you can actually have an intelligent conversation with other people. Unlike other comment boards where everyone is too busy calling everyone else shills — or worse.

  127. Voting is picking the least evil/bad by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    There is no perfect candidate. The other candidates have either done shady/suspicious things themselves, are too extreme to get elected, or have insufficient experience.

    I'm not saying being "extreme" is inherently bad, only that it's pointless to back a candidate who's unlikely to get elected.

    Plus, I believe one has to have a bit of a dark side to deal with shady world leaders. A lot of the job is out-jerking jerks. It's why Kirk mad a better captain than Spock.

    1. Re:Voting is picking the least evil/bad by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Power corrupts, yeah. But Machiavellian hearts of darkness are one thing, having the incompetence to get caught is another. I say lock her up and throw away the key. She's one of the weak and sickly world leaders, and this is a natural part of the cycle of life. Our leaders are widely assumed to be scoundrels, so it's not news. But when the curtain slips and there's something tangible to actually indict these people for, then they absolutely do need to be removed from office. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon -- I wish he had let the Justice Department do its thing and air all the dirty laundry instead.

      The alternative is that you get leaders who know they can do anything they like, and even flaunt it publicly, and nobody can touch them. Is that what you want?

    2. Re:Voting is picking the least evil/bad by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's why Kirk mad a better captain than Spock.

      That's a Freudian Typo. Should be "made".

    3. Re:Voting is picking the least evil/bad by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      something tangible to actually indict

      That's been the hard part.

      Our laws as written are "crap code": vague, contradictory, and outdated because they're written and selected by politicians and lobbyists, NOT Vulcans or somebody comparable.

  128. no by dlt074 · · Score: 1

    I do not think you have ever worked with classified GOVERNMENT information before.

    One does not simply "remove" classification markings for "non-classified" release. Once it's classified, it can only be unclassified by the appropriate process, which is not through any means she employed and is not easy to do.

    if any of us little people were caught doing what she did, we'd be facing years in prison.

    1. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, as head of the Department of State, she is the final arbiter on what is classified and what is not, at least for information that originated in the State Department. If the data originated in the CIA, DHS, DOD, etc, then yeah, not so much. But it is entirely possible she had some document and decided "There's no reason for this to be classified". She could then very well just email it to a staffer and say "Get rid of these markings, this isn't classified".

      Not saying that's exactly what happened, but people act like there is some oligarchy above her head that decides on things like this. While that's true for the vast majority of federal workers, she was pretty darn close to the top and had more latitude than most.

    2. Re:no by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "simply remove" or anything close, that I can see. The worker she was communicating with in the message of topic is allegedly the very person whose job it is to "unclassified [it] by the appropriate process", or at least initiate the necessary process.

    3. Re:no by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      for the sake of argument, i'll magically wave a wand and say that all of that is true. which it not, but let's say it is. *poof*

      she was storing classified information on a system not allowed to store or carry classified information. that alone is years in prison.

      again. the handling of US GOVERNMENT CLASSIFIED information, is special and comes with prison time if not followed to the tee.

      she blatantly ignored the law and should face the punishment.

      I don't expect anyone who has not had the pleasure of dealing with classified information of understanding the game she is playing.

    4. Re:no by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      she was storing classified information on a system not allowed to store or carry classified information. that alone is years in prison.

      So if somebody sent YOU classified info HERE AND NOW to your existing email account, you automatically are guilty and go to prison for years? That's what you are implying, as I interpret your claim.

      Also note that office server she "should have" been using was not designed for classified materials either. If somebody sent her classified stuff that ended up on that office server, it would be no more or less of a risk than to her home server. It was not a "special" server.

      she blatantly ignored the law and should face the punishment.

      Your Blatant-A-Meter appears to need recalibration, in light of high readings when applied to the flimsy evidence given.

    5. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [I'm not dlt074]

      So if somebody sent YOU classified info HERE AND NOW to your existing email account, you automatically are guilty and go to prison for years? That's what you are implying, as I interpret your claim.

      There are SOPs for just such situations, clearance holders are briefed on them, and they are required to sign off on their understanding of their responsibilities and the consequences of failing to meet such responsibilities. It is readily apparent that Secy. Clinton and her staff failed to follow the relevant SOPs for handling multiple instances of non-State Dept. classified material.

      Also note that office server she "should have" been using was not designed for classified materials either. If somebody sent her classified stuff that ended up on that office server, it would be no more or less of a risk than to her home server. It was not a "special" server.

      It might seem counter-intuitive, but that's irrelevant. As I understand the matter, even if classified material were being displayed on public electronic advertising billboards on the busiest roads through DC, it is still classified and must be treated as such by anyone holding a clearance. That is why the DNC talking point about certain information being published in a major newspaper is a red herring - the SOS (and others) still had an explicit (not merely implied) responsibility to treat such information as classified. That may seem like a ridiculous restriction, and I appreciate that perspective, but there are defensible reasons for it.

      For example, if a report of certain drone operations appears in the NYT, that may have some value to a foreign intelligence service, which will assess and record not only that information, but also assign a level of credibility to it based upon the source. If at some later point the SOS negligently affirms some subset of that information, the foreign intelligence service will re-assess the corresponding published information, likely assigning greater credibility to it, and possibly assigning slightly greater credibility to the remainder of the associated information not negligently affirmed by the SOS. Now, if that information existed in a vacuum, then this whole thing might seem moot, but information hardly ever exists in a vacuum. A foreign intelligence service will also re-evaluate how that greater credibility affects associated information it has obtained by means other than the NYT and a negligent SOS. That is just one obvious example of why this sort of problem must be treated with the greatest seriousness.

      FWIW, I think Petraeus got off easy, and I don't see why Bush-43 era officials should get a pass on an investigation, either. If mommy catches her kid with his hand in the cookie jar, she shouldn't accept "but daddy didn't punish brother for doing the same thing yesterday" as a defense - the correct course is to apply the appropriate remedy for the misdeed at hand, and ideally apply the the appropriate belated remedy for the prior misdeed as well (plus have a pointed chat with daddy). State secrets aren't a cookie jar triviality, so IMHO it should be heads on pikes all around - figuratively, of course, allowing for due process.

      - T

  129. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    The Tea Party was all about putting the future of the country above any party.

    Based on emails from my Tea Party relatives in Idaho, the Tea Party was established as a gut reaction to the president being a [church bells] (to paraphrase Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles).

    I agree with another reply -- what a shill you are.

    My opinion is opposite to your own. Therefore, I'm a shill. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

  130. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by anon208 · · Score: 0

    Great comment. One question what do you think of the liberals who hate Hillary. Are they shills to? Please enlighten us.

  131. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.

    Mishandling the data (by putting it on an insecure device) is a crime, and it does not matter if that vulnerability was exploited or not. Merely putting the data is a violation.

    I have no idea why you modded interesting; your post is factually incorrect.

  132. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging,

    Like that time Bush and Cheney deleted 22 million white house email or whatever it was an no one cared.
    "Oops I accidentally all the evidence" - George Bush
    Or no one remembers that his war dead still pile up and will until Iraq has a solid government again... which may take a few decades.

    Your "DNC shill" is rather telling and covering with "Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party" just doesn't work.
    The fairness of "If republicans have shills then the DNC does too!" is false equivalency. While the DNC certainly does, shills is not most of their base. The DNC shills tend to not be nearly as crazy either.

    Dems play stupid/nice, Republicans play dirty/evil but both are sock puppets for corporate money.

    At least if Trump gets elected we will get a few more good angry Ministry albums.

  133. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can think it through for you pretty quickly. It's well-settled that no further qualifications can be imposed for an elected federal office than those explicitly appearing in the Constitution. So is Hillary Clinton a natural born citizen? Is she over 35 years old? Has she been resident in the United States for the last 14 years? There's your answer.

    As to your hope that she be "discredited and abandon her campaign... due to criminal indictment and conviction," you do realize that the most aggressive reading of the facts means she may have committed a misdemeanor, right? She could easily have been guilty of a much worse crime if she had slapped her husband on finding out about his infidelity. Would that also disqualify her from the presidency? It strongly suggests to me your opinion comes from a position of misogyny given it's perfectly reasonable to cite "I think she made some bad decisions with her email" or the like as reasons not to vote for her.

    I wouldn't particularly accept "I don't like how she dealt with these accusations," though, given how Republicans were so happy to manufacture this out of control.

  134. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It got painted over.

  135. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, Bill didn't know about it. Monica kept it as a trophy and Bill foolishly thought she wouldn't blab about it.

  136. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keeping that dress is probably the only reason Monica is still breathing.

  137. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she ge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guilt by marriage? Why not, we're throwing out all the other rights as fast as you can say "terrorist".

  138. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't say she was guilty by marriage. I said she tried to deflect a scandal from her husband by saying it was just politics when it was in fact not a fabrication. She is now doing the same thing again with her own scandal. In no way did I say she is guilty because she was married to anyone who had his own scandals.

    I'm just saying it's the same game and they weren't wrong then and they aren't wrong now. She did commit a crime and anyone with any training of clearance knows it.

  139. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Secretary of State she had the authority to declare when something is classified or not.

  140. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I'm fully bipartisan on this. Lets bring 'em in and start with thumbscrews and work from there. I generally hate ALL politicians as they are almost all corrupt. I think it's almost time for the guillotine.

  141. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but what about the allegations/instances of requesting scrubbing of labels? That sounds worse than the summary you quoted. Though when it first came out, I expected to hear a defense of 'exigent circumstances', i.e. gov server down for ordinary computers suck reasons, and the balance of lives in the world not stopping for that kind of a technical bottleneck. Of course I imagine there is a political and legal statute of limitations on the ability to claim exigent circumstances

  142. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Yunzil · · Score: 1

    As opposed to the people who will vote for the other guy simply because he has an (R) after his name (or a P between his legs)?

    And all this is likely moot anyway because she's probably not going to be charged with anything.

  143. priorities are out of order by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    look, you can go after Clinton and burn her at the stake but that doesn't change the fact that top secret and above top secret documents are being sent via an insecure email system! i think they need to change their focus from "you broke our security" to "our security is inadequate!" if you are even capable of sending the information somewhere else without having to retype everything on another computer, then you have flawed security.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re: priorities are out of order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what people are saying happened homie.

  144. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so you are saying Hillary should have "slept" with the server?

  145. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here you go. Pretty cut-and-dried illegal action there, requesting that the classified mark be removed and send it non-securely. For anyone else, that's not just a firing offense, but one that will get you prosecuted and probably spending time in prison.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  146. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Well, maybe they weren't marked classified because she directed people to remove the markings and send them on a non-secure e-mail server.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  147. GOP showing true mastery of shooting themselves by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (in the foot, of course)

    If the GOP were to manage to somehow knock Hillary out of the race for president, things actually get much worse - not better - for their cause. As much as they hate Hillary, they are overlooking the fact that Sanders beats every GOP candidate in national polling by even larger margins than does Hillary. Knocking her out would only guarantee their defeat.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:GOP showing true mastery of shooting themselves by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      GOP? This has nothing to do with the GOP. It has everything to do with she broke the law and needs to be prosecuted. It's funny how fast democrats cry that this is some kind of political game.

    2. Re:GOP showing true mastery of shooting themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So since you didn't provide a link to support your statements....

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

      Clinton beats Trump and Carson but loses to Cruz, Rubio, Kasich in every poll

      Sanders beats Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and looks just slightly ahead of Kasich and Carson

      Some of the margins are too close to call (like Cruz over Clinton)

  148. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And that has what to do with Hillary breaking the law with her e-mail server?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  149. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont think you've sat through any opsec briefs. Youre not remotely qualified to judge her actions.

    Silly kids. Think all the worlds knowledge is on wikipedia.

  150. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    As Secretary of State she had the authority to declare when something is classified or not.

    Only regarding classified information that originated from the state department.

  151. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

    Those are BORN Classified.

    On an unsecured server? Doubtful.

    The laws forbidding using a 3rd party server for communication were put in place AFTER Hilary's email server was shutdown.

    The laws forbidding placing classified materials on unsecured servers connected to the public internet were in place BEFORE Hilary's email server was created.

    Stop confusing FOIA and recordkeeping compliance with classification and information security. They're different issues.

  152. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this is an excellent view. We should collectively try to rise above petty politics and have an objective look at what she did. She needs to go through the due process just like everyone else, no exceptions.

    One could of course argue that there are other immoral or illegal actions closely tied to certain politicians (torture to death for example), but the glass shield needs to be broken somewhere. Once you punch through, the whole illusion of privilege tied to high positions in the political system will come down.

    --
    -SR
  153. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd prefer someone who committed a breach of security like Hilary vs. someone who promises to commit what would be war crimes if elected (deportation of all Muslims, for example).

  154. Re:Trump for prez by DrJimbo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If the indictment comes out before the Democratic convention then it would be very bad for Trump. It is only good for Trump if it comes out after the convention and if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  155. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by butchersong · · Score: 1

    I'm not a Trump fan but a civil vs criminal matter wouldn't really be considered comparable. Besides, based on what I've seen so far he'd probably find a way to turn it into a positive -more free publicity.

  156. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Madeleine Albright is a sexist for saying “There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women" when referring to support for Clinton?

  157. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    According to Hillary's own emails, she was having classified information sent to her, stripped of any markings and then sent over a nonsecure channel. That's what happened per the records released from the State Department. Unless you contend that Hillary just put that in there as a troll for the future?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  158. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    Not true. Her server was allowed, as it was grandfathered in under the new regulation. What was not allowed, and the center of the discussion, is if classified emails were sent to and from this server. Which was never allowed. It's right to exist was found legal.

    The real problem here is the investigative team which is mostly Republicans have been found to have their own email servers, and, surprise, may have also sent classified emails. It's kind of like the prosecutor going after a murderer and being found to have also murdered someone. This case will not make it far at all.

  159. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last I heard, there was various HUMINT (some HCS-O) on the server, which is classified from the moment it starts existing, without any classification authority needing to be involved. But, hey, maybe someone else improperly declassified it before putting it on Hillary's server, so there's still a chance that she isn't the one to blame, right?

    This is a fucking embarassment to anyone that holds a security clearance.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  160. Re:Trump for prez by Penguinisto · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Slightly off-topic, but who says Trump will win the nomination? Cruz and Rubio could just as easily get together, pool their delegates, and become a Pres-VP combo, with whichever one having the biggest # of delegates coming out at the top of the billing. Top guy does 4-8 years, VP then does 4-8 years more as President.

    Sounds sleazy at first blush, but compared to "Superdelegates"? It's doable and it actually makes sense.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  161. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    Why would you say that? Hillary is far and wide the closest Republican the party has had running in the past 20 years.

  162. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, yes, electing an unindicted felon, one accused of federal crimes that would disqualify them for civil service.

    Except the requirements for holding the office of President are spelled out in the Constitution, not federal statute.

    Constitutionally speaking, Charles Manson is legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States, and could serve from his cell in Corcoran State Prison if he got enough votes.

  163. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous coward?

  164. Hindsight is cheap by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    serious lack of judgment

    Let's look at this judgement thing in more detail. Email is relatively new to many gov't agencies. The laws and practices regarding it were still being worked out and evaluated. The "paper-era" laws didn't directly apply.

    The "regular" office server was not intended for classified info either. The home/office thing is Chevy-vs-Chevy, NOT Chevy-vs-Lexus. Thus, the home server is NOT clearly a more risky choice. Arguments about which is technically less risky will be full of technical and operational nuances beyond H's background, and probably still subject to diff professional opinions. (Gov't infrastructure support is often shoddy, I would note, in part due to lowest bidding and lack of monitoring by gov't staff.)

    And, there was no (clear) law against home servers at the time.

    And, she's not an IT expert nor expected to be.

    Jeb and C. Powell also used an outside server/service for gov't work emails such that it's clear "best practices" had not been established. "Do what every one else is doing" does not give the answer.

    Thus, saying it's an "obviously" bad decision doesn't fly.

    What mental computation steps do you imagine she should have taken in her position at that time that would clearly lead to a "no" answer?

    I agree it's a poor choice, but not "obviously poor", especially to a non-IT person. It's a nuanced "poor".

  165. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It strongly suggests to me your opinion comes from a position of misogyny given it's perfectly reasonable to cite

    Yes, and all opposition to Obama, Cruz & Rubio is out of racism... their actual policies or views.

    I wouldn't particularly accept "I don't like how she dealt with these accusations," though, given how Republicans were so happy to manufacture this out of control.

    Wait... so the FBI and State Department IG are under Republican control now?

  166. A new first for a President! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Didn't she brag that we should elect her so she could be the First Felon President? A new first in politics at that level.

  167. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Trump only makes sense when he's not talking. When he is talking he's just whipping up the crowd into a frenzy without actually saying anything substantive.

  168. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I was responding to a named coward, as far as myself... I have refused to use my login until /. proves itself to be more than a shill-centric site

    At this point it has moved from being a dice-promo board to a political sock-puppet board

    Thanks for noticing

  169. The paid attack dogs are out in force today. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is astounding the number of rabid attack dogs that are swarming all over this thread. You'd think this was an old-fashioned lynching.

    What this really is is just the criminalization of politics. People are making hay out of information that was retroactively classified, and things that never should have been classified at any time. For fuck's sake, a New York Times article was declared "classified"! That defies all reason and sense, yet it is standard operating procedure for the farce that is our "national security" apparatus.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillary-clintons-new-unlikely-ally-in-email-controversy-colin-powell/2016/02/04/6d0bcc30-cb82-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

    Read that. All of it. I'm talking to you, foaming-at-the-mouth Clinton haters. Gen. Colin Powell just called you out as the partisan attack dogs you really are.

    "I have reviewed the messages, and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said of the emails, which were uncovered late last year by the State Department's inspector general and, he said, brought to his attention by the department in recent weeks.

    Clinton has said that the emails in question did not originate with her, and that the information was not "marked classified" when she received it. Late Thursday, after Powell's remarks, her campaign released a statement saying she "agrees with her predecessor that his emails, like hers, are being inappropriately subjected to over-classification."

    The State Department and the intelligence community have clashed over the origin of some of the material, with intelligence agencies saying information could only be gleaned from classified sources and State saying much of it comes from its own personnel simply paying attention to the obvious in the countries in question.

    So in summary, the people whose job it is to spy and gather secrets are asserting that anything and everything are conclusions based on "classified information", and the people whose job it is to watch the world are saying, "Mary Lou in Louisiana can figure this out by watching the news." It is exceedingly clear that the national security apparatus is just trying to protect their own jobs and egos, and have lost sight of reality. And it is also exceedingly clear that the attacks on Clinton are just a partisan witch-hunt by people trying to turn political disagreements into criminal indictments.

    And just as a reminder, Bush's White House mysteriously lost all of their e-mails. All of them. The ones that are legally required to be kept for the Library of Congress, and that happened to include all of the internal discussions leading up to the Iraq invasion based on known lies. Where's the criminal investigation into that? Where are the Republican talking heads demanding those heads on a pike? Crickets, I hear.

    Remember, one of the signs of the impending fall of the Roman Empire was when Consuls were routinely accused and tried in court the instant they left power. It was standard practice. That's one of the reasons Ceasar overthrew the democracy, he couldn't afford to leave power and get thrown in chains. Remember that every time you demand Clinton get indicted.

    1. Re:The paid attack dogs are out in force today. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as a brief follow-up, remember that program where a housewife in the northeast managed to out-perform every single CIA and intelligence analyst in predicting world events? The one who only watched the ordinary news, whereas the intelligence geniuses had access to all of the top-secret and super-classified information available to the government.

      The people responsible for deciding what is classified and what is not have their heads up their butts, and people who think all that secret spying and national security bullshit are worth anything need to just have their tongues removed.

  170. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    If a venture succeeds then Trump takes full credit and will loudly point to it. If the venture fails, Trump will say he only gave his name to the project but was not personally involved. And his followers think he's a great at running businesses despite all his failures. Sure he's rich but he didn't start at $0. If you start with $200 million you should be at a billion in a few decades but it's unclear that he has that much as he's not releasing his financial details.

  171. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    If Hillary gets elected, everything will be a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" or "Sexism" !

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  172. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Let me know where in the Constitution, it states that there has to be parties at all?

    My supposition is that ALL primaries need to be open, and no parties are allowed. Why should tax payers support parties that we don't agree with? My party doesn't require taxpayer "Primary" elections ;-)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  173. Re:Trump for prez by lgw · · Score: 1

    If anyone has a majority of delegates at the convention, he wins, no pooling allowed. Only of that doesn't happen do we get a "brokered convention" with all the backroom dealing and shenanigans. I can totally believe Cruz/Rubio coming out of a brokered convention, given the way the wind is blowing.

    (Rubio is done as a presidential candidate after last Tuesday, BTW, as the establishment is holding their noses and getting behind Cruz to try to stop Trump, but Rubio likely won't actually drop out, so he'll keep getting delegates).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  174. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video

    If you don't know about that video, DON'T claim to know where the Tea Party started. You are a shill, a liar, and you've been called out by numerous people for lying. Tea party started by Rick Santelli on CNBC, period (by accident). You can't find a reference to it before that day.

    You obviously have lost countless debates on politics with tea party people because you resort to calling them racists when they clearly are not. No one is buying your shilling here and the responses you've gotten should have made that obvious. You are a shill because you lie, you make up positions for people you disagree with so you can "debate yourself".

  175. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Even if she could pardon herself (the prez can't pardon his/herself), it's curious that she would she have to. Barack Obama could pardon her today for any foul deeds of the past, the way Ford pardoned Nixon, and *poof* this mess goes away overnight. The fact that he's not doing that must mean he's not willing to take the political hit like Ford did, or he just doesn't like her much.

  176. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Wrong on both counts. First of all, you can go to jail for a misdemeanor. A parking ticket is an "infraction".

    But more importantly, what's happening here is multiple felonies. That's something you'd have to take seriously if you were Clinton.

  177. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Hillary is in a tough spot.

    Her only escape is a No Bill.

    Shit, and Bill is one of the best things she has going for her. I'm not sure how she'll get out of this one.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  178. Uh, it's the Obama administration by mveloso · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure if you noticed, but Obama is the President and the FBI is running the investigation.

    1. Re:Uh, it's the Obama administration by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      That is exactly the kind of conspiracy that tends to get moderated up here on slashdot, as someone has kindly demonstrated for us...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  179. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by wwalker · · Score: 2

    If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.

    Using the same logic, driving under the influence isn't a crime if you haven't run anyone over. Right?

  180. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, she has responded in the only way that a rational person can respond to a witch-hunt

    Give them what they ask for, and nothing more

    At this point we are in the phase where they claim to have something, which will evaporate to nothing before everybody's eyes, leaving the witch-hunters looking like the wankers that they are

  181. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by larkost · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you read to the bottom, they do clarify that there are two pretty major unknowns in this argument:
    1. Was the contents of the talking points that they were (unsuccessfully) trying to send through the secure fax machine actually secret (at the time), or were they just trying to use it as a convenience?
    2. Did the talking points in question ever get sent over insecure email?

    Both of these have to be "yes" in order for something illegal to have happened. And, as usual in this debate: we have answers to neither question. You can argue that if #1 is true then there was definitely some inappropriate instructions, but #2 has to also be true for actual transgression to have happened.

  182. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emails got flagged by CIA as being classified. The same information in the emails were also publicly available in the media. Is this classified or non-classified?

    [Posting as AC because of prior mods in this thread.] Speaking as one who has held a Secret clearance for over 30 years, I am happy to be able to answer your question. Classified information that is made public (for example, by publication in a newspaper or other medium) is still classified. All of the laws regarding the handling of classified information still apply.

  183. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US.

    You have that exactly backwards. Letting her walk when it's so obvious that she's committed many more counts of the same crime that Patreus was convicted for would demonstrate that some people can avoid consequences for blatant felonies.

    -jcr

    If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.

    You clearly have no clue regarding what is and isn't criminal in regard to handling classified material. Please stop talking. Just do it, because you're a fucking idiot.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  184. Re:Trump for prez by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

    Slightly off-topic, but who says Trump will win the nomination?

    You're right. I should not ASSume. OTOH I was responding to a post that had already made that assumption and also assumed Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Perhaps I should not have corrected one assumption without correcting the other one.

    Cruz and Rubio could just as easily get together, pool their delegates, and become a Pres-VP combo, with whichever one having the biggest # of delegates coming out at the top of the billing. Top guy does 4-8 years, VP then does 4-8 years more as President.

    This seems extremely far-fetched to me. It seems extremely unlikely there would be so much cooperation and even if there were, such a move would tear apart the Republican party (cue a quote from the Lord of the Rings movies about sharing power). The Democrats would have a similar problem if Sanders has the majority of pledged delegates but the superdelegates give the nod to Clinton.

    Perhaps one of the reasons I ASSumed Trump would win the Republican nomination was that I had recently read: The rise of American authoritarianism. If they are correct then Trump should easily win the nomination barring unforeseen disasters (although I'm in the camp that sees a Trump presidency as a disaster). This article is the only thing I've read about Trump that makes sense to me. I think most commentators don't understand the situation. TL;DR: Trump appeals to the burgeoning authoritarian wing of the Republican party; fear is the mind-killer.

    That article gave me hope that a Trump victory in the general election is not a given, even if he runs against an establishment candidate like Clinton.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  185. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting the court of public opinion - if she's charged she becomes highly radioactive.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  186. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Your world doesn't exist in politics. Serious charges have serious impacts.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  187. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elections and prosecutions are orthogonal to one another. There's nothing to stop a convicted felon from being elected, or from being sworn in as president - and once sworn in, there's no limitation on the power of pardon, so they can absolutely pardon themselves if they want to.

    So if ever you find yourself convicted and on death row, think it over - there's one way out that's completely legal and above board. All you have to do is persuade 100 million Americans to vote for you.

  188. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    FWIW, with Trump as the likely RNC candidate, I initially considered the same. However, in my opinion, the overriding issue is that whoever ends up in the Oval Office will be replacing Scalia, and likely on or two more justices over the next 4-8 yrs. For that reason, and that reason only, I may hold my nose, and vote Rep.

    Other than that, I see HRC as the lesser of two evils, in spite of her criminal behavior in handling classified information.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  189. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    And posting this is pure chicken shit. Grow a pair.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  190. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Considering that Hillary was the victim of Bill's philandering, it's unlikely she had any interest at all in covering that up.

    Her only interest in being with him for the last 30+ years was to get herself into that office. Do you really believe she wouldn't have left him otherwise? He's been screwing around for ages, and she's sucked it up, and looked the other way.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  191. Warnings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. It only works if you have the proof they need in their case against a "bigger fish"

    2. It only works if the political class chooses to not use YOU as a scapegoat (i.e. blame it all on you, jail you, and tell the public that the case is over)

    3. It only works if the prosecutors have a good case against their "bigger fish"... if not and if YOU have broken the law then you may be the only one going down.

    4. None of this "works" in four favor, if you are the little guy without a good lawyer and the prosecutor is taking an approach to his or her case that does not require your evidence. If you and your evidence are not very helpful to the prosecution, then you are a co-conspirator and may be doing time at the same time as the "big fish" but in worse facilities and with nobody posting bail and no legal team working on your appeals.

    The moral of this story, boys and girls, is that you are always better off doing the right thing and no matter how expedient it may seem to do somebody else's dirty work. You just never know when some cops and lawyers may show up and tell you they are prosecuting somebody for something that happened several years ago and which you might have participated in. Clean hands and a clean conscience are always best.

  192. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 1

    "According to Hillary's own emails ..."

    More like "according to Hotair.com's dodgy interpretation of Hilary's emails." CBS News had a different take:

    But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

    Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

    Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

    It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.

    On Friday, the Clinton campaign's press secretary, Brian Fallon, denied that the information was classified.

  193. The obvious headline people are missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that this proves there IS an actual legal case under way, contrary to what Hillary has always maintained. She continues to this day to insist there is just a typical "security review" under way at the State Department as she dismisses it like Marie Antoinette dismissing the ornery peasants.

    The feds NEVER grant immunity to a case before there are prosecutors actually building a case, AND they have an actual proffer from the person granted immunity that indicates the evidence is sufficiently beneficial to their case that they can justify letting THAT person off-the-hook for whatever he did in the pursuit of somebody more important who has done something the public will believe was far worse.

  194. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, are you saying classified information should never be transmitted. The Secretary of State should receive classified briefings in a secure location when they are in town? The reason you weren't allowed to transmit classified information is that it was not a requirement for your job.

    If Clinton used insecure email for things that needed to be secure, she had bad advice and was bad at (at least) that portion of her job. Was she secretly moving things onto her private server, or did the whole state department send email to get home address for years and nobody ever warned her about the problems with that.

  195. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    You accuse me of misogyny?

    You are indeed an arrogant bigot. Go away and don't pollute my life further.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  196. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    However, in my opinion, the overriding issue is that whoever ends up in the Oval Office will be replacing Scalia, and likely on or two more justices over the next 4-8 yrs. For that reason, and that reason only, I may hold my nose, and vote Rep.

    Same here...the thing I'm most concerned about right now, is getting a new justice replacement, that is someone who is a strict constitutionalist, and will look to interpret the Constitution as our forefathers wrote it and meant for it to apply.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  197. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patreus was sharing sensitive information regarding names of undercover agents with his mistriss, not simple using a possibly insecure channel to transmit possibly sensitive data. Nobody offered Hillary sexual favors to get sensitive information from her, and no sensitive data is known to have been stolen.

  198. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    god damn it. They should hang them all!

  199. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You are a shill, a liar, and you've been called out by numerous people for lying.

    I'm being called a shill because my opinion is opposite to what some people want to believe. Insulting me does not change my opinion — or shut me down.

    Tea party started by Rick Santelli on CNBC, period (by accident).

    I've seen that video. I've seen the Republican Establishment cynically co-opted the Tea Party to rally the base. I've seen Donald Trump run off the cliff with the Tea Party crowd following him like lemmings.

    You obviously have lost countless debates on politics with tea party people because you resort to calling them racists when they clearly are not.

    I'm not running a tally of whether or not I "won" or "lost" debates. I'm just expressing opinion. If you don't reply back to this comment, I'll forget all about you and move on. As for the racism, Donald Trump traded in those dog whistles for a megaphone to tell the whole world what the Republican Party tells people in private. You got a problem with that, take it up with him.

  200. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Except neither Cruz nor Trump are GOPe. So they have exactly ZERO reason not to savage Hillary over this. Why, it's almost as if there's several internal movements within the GOP that virulently disagree with the way the leadership is acting.

  201. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Classified information that is made public (for example, by publication in a newspaper or other medium) is still classified.

    If you read the article I linked to in my comment, the CIA marked emails as classified because the Afghanistan drone program were mentioned in passing by various State Department officials. None of the emails had classified information. If the CIA classified my grocery list, that doesn't mean that my grocery list contains classified information. If the CIA has its way, ALL INFORMATION would be classified.

  202. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by lego_boy_aus · · Score: 1

    I'm the voter who's going to decide who becomes the next POTOUS.

    Looks like someone has tickets on themselves here...

  203. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Lenny369 · · Score: 0

    Wrong. There IS such a thing as beyond classified. Its called top secret (a classification) with special access (an official designation, but not a classification). As far as we know, per the FBI, there were at least a dozen such emails designated "special access," meaning our senators on intelligence commitees with top secret clearance arent even allowed to see them. You should try using this thing called google before you make unfounded assumptions publicly.

  204. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Yep. Taking any headings off of something that is supposed to be sent via secured channels, and transmitting it via non-secure methods is totally legit!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  205. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Hillary is far and wide the closest Republican the party has had running in the past 20 years.

    I think that honor should go to Obama. He got most of the Bush tax cuts made permanent, approved the operation that got Osama bin Laden killed, enacted the conservative health plan based on an American Heritage Foundation proposal and Romneycare in Massachusetts, and extend many aspects of the Bush foreign policies. He took a page of the Bill Clinton playback by co-opting the Republican agenda as his own.

  206. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Lenny369 · · Score: 0

    Wrong. The moment she is indicted (not convicted) of a felony she is automatically not the president anymore. Us code. "Not eligible to hold office." Period. Try again.

  207. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    [...] a strict constitutionalist, and will look to interpret the Constitution as our forefathers wrote it and meant for it to apply.

    The Constitution isn't the Bible. One of the reasons why there are so many Christian churches in the world today is that no one knows how to set up 1st century church in a 21st century world where the Romans are long gone. A literal reading and applying of the Bible won't work today's world. Too many things have changed. The Constitution is not a static document and the Founding Fathers are long gone..

  208. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Likely it will all be over by then. I smell the stink of deleted 'personal' emails. So is it a personal email or a public email when you start negotiating kick backs, it is a personal email or a public email when you start appointing cronies, is it a personal email or a public email when you use the office of the state department to gain political advantage in your egoistic run for 'Total Power'. So who did most the the deleting and did they keep copies just in case, as life insurance and how many more emails are going to be released from the, 'purposefully secret from the rest of government and investigatory agencies', email servers. It could be far bigger than just naughty email servers.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  209. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Lenny369 · · Score: 0

    Skipping the "mostly republicans did this according to my imagination" obvious nonsense, She was Secretary of State! You obviously have not considered the gravity of that position in this situation. Diplomatic deals! She probably had more damaging information than our top military generals. Probably even Obama, honestly, because he doesnt review every conversation about deals (plausible deniability), he only gets the need to know summary at the end of the email string. Think. Sec of State email is probably the single most damaging account to be compromised in the entire country.

  210. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know you are but what am i !

  211. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Lenny369 · · Score: 0

    WHAT evidence that the accounts were being used for official business? It sounds like youre trying to say the .gov addresses involved proves that there was official business in those emails. Thats not logical.

  212. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Lenny369 · · Score: 0

    This again... wow... wrong. US code says she cannot "hold public office" if so much as indicted of a felony. Note cannot hold is different than cannot be elected. The moment she is indicted of a felony she legally cannot hold the office, so she is not the president anymore. But lets not be silly, she has more baggage than every president in history combined, there is no way she could be elected. This is happening now to settle it early.

  213. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how it was proudly called Obamacare, by the DNC, and passed with out a SINGLE GOP vote for it. In fact the GOP has actually gotten a bill through Congress to repeal it.

    But now that it is the absolute failure and killer of the middle class and that has become obvious you claim the GOP wrote and passed it. You are pretty much implying they got it passed over Obama's objections. "We have to pass this bill to find out whats in it" Pelosi said as she got it passed the house along a purely partisan vote.

    Do you realize everyone here is laughing at you? I can see why you call tea party people racists. If your best debating tactic is to blame failed DNC policies on the GOP you probably lose every political debate you ever have and have to resort to name calling so you can feel better about yourself after you are ridiculed by everyone else.

  214. Re:Clinton shared her password and secure system w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FINALLY, someone at the FBI realized what I knew months ago. Since Clinton provably had her staffers copy classified emails for her to email to her account she obviously shared both her password and her secure system with her lowly staffers who likely had no security clearances. Giving your security password to your interns (slight exaggeration for emphasis) has to be an obvious punishable crime to even the most rabid Hillary supporter.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/fbi-investigating-if-clinton-aides-shared-passwords-to-access-classified-info.html

    [emphasis added]

    I sincerely doubt it. The rabid Hilary supporters would claim that it's the fundamental job of her staff to keep her informed no matter what and no matter where she might be.

    magic word: annoying

  215. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other thing that is missing is the fact that these were TALKING points. Who were they with? If with the public, then it should not have been classified in the first place. Sadly, since the time of W, the gov has been classifying just about everything. So, it is quite possible that this should not have been classified, but was done so via inertia.
    So, at this time, I would like to see what the DOJ comes up with, and will ignore the whining neo-cons who create conspiracies everywhere.

  216. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Informative

    And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction. She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.

    You have evidence for this claim? Perhaps a link?

    An image of the email in question, from Hillary. The text says: "If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Technically, that's a federal crime punished by 10 years in prison.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  217. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gumbi+west · · Score: 1, Troll

    She was the Secretary to State and I'm pretty sure had the right to change the classification status of something generated to the department of state. So, yes, she can give those instructions.

  218. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by tsotha · · Score: 1

    You are incorrect. Neither indictment nor conviction are impediments to the presidency. In a legal sense they do not matter.

  219. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    If you would ever vote for Nader you were never a republican in the first place.

  220. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    insufficiently protecting information that appears not to have even been explicitly classified at the time

    Long ago proven false. Some of the information was of the highest possible level of classification, "born classified" and not anything that could be mistaken for unclassified material. Things like source names and satellite photos.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  221. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh god not that clintons kill people shit again

    tell me: is Obama Kenyan, too?

  222. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Funny how it was proudly called Obamacare, by the DNC, and passed with out a SINGLE GOP vote for it.

    You're overlooking to 200+ amendments that the Republicans sponsored or cosponsored. In fact, they wrote one-third of the bill. The only reason they didn't vote for the final bill was that the Democrats had enough votes. In short, they had their cake and ate it too. Now that's what I call crony capitalism.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/10/obamacare-study-republican-contribution/

    But now that it is the absolute failure and killer of the middle class and that has become obvious you claim the GOP wrote and passed it.

    Before ObamaCare passed, my health insurance was was $500 per month. The exchange had it slightly cheaper for $350 per month. My employer just switched to a new HR provider and my healthcare plan is now $150. Woo-hoo! Thanks, Obama!

    Do you realize everyone here is laughing at you?

    Do I care? Nope.

    [...] you probably lose every political debate you ever have and have to resort to name calling so you can feel better about yourself after you are ridiculed by everyone else.

    You mean like Donald Trump? Sorry, I don't stoop that low.

  223. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Correct, the Constitution is not a static document. That is why there is, within the document itself, a process to change said document. It's almost like he founders knew that times change and that when truly necessary, the Constitution should have a way to change as well.

  224. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    Maybe. But was she with Obama or Biden at the time?

    I also wouldn't be surprised if the SoS has special dispensation around that. If there was one person other than the POTUS or VPOTUS who would have such dispensation, it would be the SoS.

    But if not, then, yeah, throw the book at her.

  225. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.

    No, the mere fact that the server was used at all is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

    Plus, erasing all those emails counts as destruction of public records. Unless anyone thinks she had thousands of emails about yoga appointments.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  226. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If Hillary gets elected, everything will be a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" or "Sexism" !

    If Hillary wins, she will have defeated both. That will be a bitter pill for many who made a career out of both.

  227. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply not true and very stupid.

    Anybody with a functioning brain and a half-decent lawyer who found themselves in the middle of a big league shitpot like this will steadfastly invoke the 5th and say NOTHING until they get immunity. Even if their hands are clean. You don't want to wind up as the scapegoat.

    This is exactly what Ollie North did (and how the ACLU kept him out of jail). Yes you RW fuckers - the only reason Ollie ain't in jail is the ACLU. Limbaugh, too.

  228. Two options. by jxander · · Score: 1

    His immunity means one of two possible things.

    Either he's going to take the fall hard ("it was totally my fault, she had no idea, etc.") or he's dragging her down hard.

    Either way, there's going to be some resolution soon.

    --
    This signature is false.
  229. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    Taking any headings off of something that is supposed to be sent via secured channels, and transmitting it via non-secure methods is totally legit!

    If the talking points contained no classified information, it's perfectly legit to strip off the security headers for transmission over a non-classified network. Hillary wouldn't be the first presidential candidate to reveal classified information.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/did-ted-cruz-release-classified-information-during-debate-2015-12
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/12/14/marco-rubio-leaks-classified-information-for-political-gain-again/

  230. Re: Trump for prez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would make sense if one of the two (at least) was female or from a different ethnic background. Who would want Mojito Sr and Mojito Jr in charge at the white house?

  231. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he'll get VinceFostered

  232. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tsotha · · Score: 1

    The thing I love about leftists is the more certain they are the more you can be sure they're wrong. Oliver North wasn't granted immunity by the courts, he was granted immunity by Congress. And they granted him immunity for exactly the same reason the FBI worked out an immunity deal for Hillary's sysadmin - they wanted to put his boss in jail.

    Rush Limbaugh was never granted immunity for anything. Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

  233. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, McDougal was the subject of an egregious miscarriage of justice and she DID eventually talk, just not the the political hack who had been trying to get her to lie.

    Go look it up.

  234. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because it's a monoculture there. It's like talking to yourself.

    Take any one of them out of there is it's Fuctard this, Thuglican that, racist, sexist, homophobe everything.

  235. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If you would ever vote for Nader you were never a republican in the first place.

    You have no sense of humor. No one in his right mind would vote for Nader.

  236. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I highly doubt you were a Republican. If you were you would have known what the Tea Party was about instead of relying on MSNBC's description.

    And IF you are and you will vote for Hillary, then you are a fucking asshole. Because she stands against everything Republicans theoretically believe in.

  237. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    According to another comment that linked to a different article, the email was about talking points. If the talking points contain no classified information, they email wasn't classified and it was safe to transmit over a non-classified network.

  238. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya.

    You ARE a shill for Hillary.

    She had Top Secret and Compartmentalized data on the server. Illegal..markings or no markings. People are JAIL because of that kind of thing.

    And the state department said they didn't know about her server, so how the fuck could it have been set up under State Department policy?

    GTFO shill.

  239. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    And IF you are and you will vote for Hillary, then you are a fucking asshole.

    Of course, I'm an asshole. Most voters are!

    Because she stands against everything Republicans theoretically believe in.

    I used to be a Republican. Since moderate conservatism isn't popular with the right-wing extremism of today's Republican Party, I saw the writing on the wall and I shifted my allegiance.

  240. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is an indictment enough to disqualify a person on the ballot, or must they be convicted? The timing does seem tight...
    What if she's indicted before the election, is elected, and after the election is convicted?

  241. This is the real issue for me by bangular · · Score: 1

    I could never vote for Hillary because by setting up a private server, she was knowingly trying to skirt around FOIA. This plus all the other backroom DNC deals to ensure her nomination leads me to believe her presidency will just be more backroom deals we'll never know about. I just can't do it. I'll vote 3rd party before I vote Clinton.

  242. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [...] you probably lose every political debate you ever have and have to resort to name calling so you can feel better about yourself after you are ridiculed by everyone else.

    You mean like Donald Trump? Sorry, I don't stoop that low.

    You called tea party people racists. Suddenly you don't resort to name calling now that its been pointed out? Not even Trump is as bad as you.
    You also repeated that the GOP wrote Obamacare when everyone knows its not true.

    When you get called out for lying, you don't just repeat the lie and hope no one noticed. It makes you lose all credibility.

  243. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    That's because it's a monoculture there. It's like talking to yourself.

    As opposed to a cesspool where everyone is spewing out at everyone else?

  244. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You called tea party people racists.

    You have never heard of the Southern Strategy?

    In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a strategy by Republican Party candidates of gaining political support in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

    When you get called out for lying, you don't just repeat the lie and hope no one noticed.

    I responded to over 40 comments. I think everyone noticed. If calling me a liar makes you feel better, I'm not going to stop you.

    It makes you lose all credibility.

    I have credibility with the people who know the facts. You're not one of them.

  245. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dig into them. I bet what you'll find is exactly what I found when I first heard about like allegations. In that particular instance, what actually happened was, someone used a classified computer to write a speech, that never should have been in the classified computer to begin with - it was always intended to be read publicly. Which should make it less "omg she told someone to send her classified info why isn't she in jail", since the speech wasn't actually classified.

    I'd lay offs on it being something like that - not because I like her (I actually don't - on the other hand, I don't actually like *any* of the current candidates), but on the basis of having dug at it before and the similarities to what I see people saying now (heck, it might even be the same actual incident).

    Maybe something different has surfaced since then - I don't have time to dig at it at the moment (been working 18 hours, need to sleep) - but if you really want to know it can't hurt to look.

  246. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party, and not the crimes.

    If we're gonna prosecute politicians for crimes, let's stop this bullshit about emails and get Dick Cheney in jail for war crimes, treason, and espionage.

    You hate party politics? Where the FUCK is your outrage over the Bush administration? This hand waving misdirection is garbage; you are most of the problem with party politics.

  247. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified
    >Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?

    Because in her capacity as cabinet member, maybe she had the authority to declassify documents? And you didn't when you were a peon?

  248. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol. Partisanship is the worst but YOU GUYS are the worst !.

    Fucking idiot.

  249. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    And yes, we had email back then - and so did the academic world. If I had so much as thought of doing what she did, *even if I generated/controlled the data in question*, I'd still be sitting in Fort Leavenworth, a quarter-century-plus later

    At that point you would be disseminating information, not just receiving it. Do you have any proof that she was sending out classified information through her private email server? It was less-than-brilliant of her to set up an email server where she could receive work email that could potentially be classified, but if she actually sent out classified material through it that is another problem.

    As the saying goes, don't assume malice when stupidity can explain it.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  250. trump by spongman · · Score: 1

    If she wins the primary and this blows open then Trump's gonna be president.

  251. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Not only that, there is evidence that the markings were REMOVED by her staff (and orders to do so shown), which is ALSO a felony.

    There's a bit more to it that that, hoss. Various people in the government also have the ability to declassify documents. Some stuff stays classified forever, some stuff automatically expires at a set date, other things can have classification removed by a delegated authority, etc. It isn't ALWAYS a felony, a lot of depends on who did what and what authority they had at the time.

    For example, the VERONA project was declassified in 1995 and now you can get PDFs of a lot of the docs right from the government.

    As a cabinet level position, she may very well have had the authority to say "these docs are no longer classified".

  252. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    They were labeled classified. The SOS cannot unilaterally decide to remove the classified label on information. Sorry, she asked for something to happen that was clearly illegal.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  253. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By which statute? Because no, it isn't.

  254. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    You fucking moron. I don't have to claim it because they don't even bother to hide it. If you think Goldman Sachs is showering the bitch with money because they care about the poor you're the biggest fucking idiot on the internet. Unlike you idiots that slavishly eat the shit of your particular brand of political hacks I have no problem sloughing off on the shit stains that pollute my side.

  255. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. A misdemeanor is something punishable by less than a year in prison. Which is, at best, what she's guilty of. Your "multiple felonies" is media-parroted bullshit. I dare you, find me an actual federal statute with a >1 yr penalty that there are facts alleged that she would be guilty of. You can't.

  256. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she ge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it doesn't. Try this: US Code says you're an idiot. No, I guess I can't cite a particular section....

    Even if it did, it's not constitutional- you can't add additional qualifications for constitutionally-defined offices. Could Congress and the current president pass a law that says your hair has to be non-orange to take office?

  257. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    The thing I love about leftists is the more certain they are the more you can be sure they're wrong.

    This is totally off topic but I read that and can't resist asking: what is your opinion on climate change?

  258. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three facts I don't believe are in serious dispute:

    Fact one: she had special access classified info in emails on her server
    Fact two: she gave copies of those emails to her lawyers, who were not cleared for those levels of classification.
    Fact three: knowingly or not, transmitting, or causing to be transmitted, classified information to persons without the proper clearance is illegal.

    I don't see there being much more to discuss?

  259. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by jcr · · Score: 1

    It would be an incredible opportunity for third parties if BOTH of the Ruling Party candidates were on trial during the election.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  260. so, crime then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first point doesn't make sense. The documents had the markings, so it was required to assume that the documents were actually classified.

    Suppose they really were not classified, or suppose the second point ("actually sent") wasn't true. In this case she still thought that she was sending classified data insecurely and she intended to do it. You know, we do prosecute attempted murder. Furthermore, even if nothing actually happened, the intent was there. Is this acceptable to you???

    Remember also that the email server only existed to evade FOIA laws in the first place. This is fully premeditated. She's confident that she's above the law -- it only applies to little people, not a Clinton.

  261. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She had the responsibility to classify things that could cause substantial harm to the nation by their disclosure. And the rules for classifying and declassifying are very clearly stated.

    For instance, here is an old NIMA guide for information classification.

    What's interesting is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of original classifiers in the United States, yet she is the ONLY ONE who seems to have been unable and/or unwilling to follow the rules.

    It's treason, pure and simple. She thinks she's above the law... and people are proving that she's right. It's sad, it's idiotic, and it's scary.

    She should be in federal prison.

    Posting AC because honestly, I'm afraid of her, of people who think like her, and of the struthious apathy of the American public.

  262. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Classified is both a designation for identifying classified materials and a classification of the materials itself. Classified is one of the lower ranked classifications where there are classifications levels beyond that which require special handling and limits who can see or use and for what reason.

  263. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?

    So, you're saying that it isn't because she is from the Democratic Party or her name is Clinton that you are up in arms, but because the law should apply equally to all? It is a noble sentiment with which I agree; but do you feel it applies to also to those who are on the same side as you, politically? How about if the perpetrator was somebody really close to you, somebody you have always looked up to? Would there be any leniency in you world view - any room for humanity, with it's inevitable frailties? In my view, priciples are good and right, but people often matter more; things are never black and white.

  264. no permission needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if this is indeed true, then Justice has either been compelled to move on prosecution, or given permission to do so, by the White House.

    The FBI people know they will be out of their jobs in less than a year anyway because new appointees will replace them. They also know that any attempt by Obama to stop the investigation will just look worse for Clinton, same as if he'd pardoned her.

    1. Re: no permission needed by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Reports are that the FBI people objecting to the cover-up are career civil service agents and investigators, not appointees. Same in the intelligence and diplomatic communities.

      Obama most likely fears retribution from the Clintons.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  265. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    This is the justice department doing this. It's head is appointed by Obama who is a democrat. Ideally the justice department is not political in operation but you cannot claim republican conspiracy on this. Any attempt to do so would be little more than a distraction from the truth.

  266. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Trump makes sense to everyone who thinks the government is out for themselves at the expense of the people. He makes sense to people who do not like jobs going over seas- even when they remain in America (did you train your H1B replacement yet? ). He makes sense to a lot of people who seem to have been burned by the "establishment" who do whatever they want and to hell with what the people want.

    That might very well be a third of the population. I think it is more considering Bernie's success. You call it retarded bigots, I call it a big problem. I'm also betting that you are part of what they see as the problem.

  267. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He surely is a Keynesian though

  268. How long until he gets disappeared? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Knowing the Clinton protocol for handling individuals such as him, he might want to consider having protection from her as well.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  269. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Gryle · · Score: 1

    Let's give Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt and assume she didn't send anything out. She still has a responsibility to report any compromise of classified material (known as "spillage"), to include classified information showing up on her private email server, to the security office of the Department of State. The DoS would have opened an investigation to trace the source and wiped all the computers involved with the spillage to ensure there was no information left on it. Mrs. Clinton knew she had a duty to report. She failed that duty. End of story.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  270. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Wrong again. 18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information. She can go to jail for ten years on each count.

  271. Re: Trump for prez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President trump is a disaster. From the future we see how well it goes:

    https://youtu.be/h45bAiu_tzg

  272. Well I hope he's in a safe house... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    people who cross the Clintons have a tendency to wind up dead

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  273. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    > And our instructions were to NEVER talk about ANYTHING work related to ANYONE who did not have a need to know AND a clearance.

    If you're the Secretary of State, choosing what secret information to reveal, and when, is part of the job.

  274. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    > Ideally the justice department is not political in operation

    Law enforcement is by its very nature political. It's enforcing the will of those who make the laws on the population. The ideas that it law enforcement is supposed to be dispassionate, or even-handed, or to ignore the wealth and political status of the accused are themselves political in nature.

  275. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    The problem you still have with that though is you are assuming she knows the status of everything sent to her, and more importantly knows that there is something of classified status being sent to her there. At that point you are entering a meta zone where you are making assumptions about what a person knows, when you cannot prove it one way or the other.

    I'm honestly not a big fan of hers. I'm just saying that she is being exposed to far more scrutiny than previous secretaries of state, even though we've seen that at least one previous secretary of state did the exact same thing with email while he was there and received no such retaliation for it. To really convince me that something terrible happened here, I need to see that she actually set out to do something nefarious or at the very least was aware that what she was doing was illegal. I have not seen anyone meet that yet.

    In other words, this still ain't Watergate.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  276. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Going by what her husband did if she wins, and he's rich enough, he'll get a pardon right before she leaves office.

  277. Wait, 2009? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    So she didn't set up a private server until she was already running the State Department? And here I thought maybe it was something she just kept using. Looks even worse now.

  278. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    > But, if indicted and even convicted, could they be elected anyways? This is an interesting potential constitutional issue.

    Of course she could. Look into the political career of many politicians who have been convicted, such as Marion Barry.

  279. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, but you are a shill if you keep talking about revelations that don't actually exist.

    again: just like every supposed complaint of illegality against Obama for the last 8 years: if you idiots ever actually had anything to run with you'd have already used it, and she'd already be behind bars .

    Jesus Christ, I can't believe we're going to have to deal with 8 more years of you idiots fake complaints of law breaking.

  280. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The laws forbidding using a 3rd party server for communication were put in place AFTER Hilary's email server was shutdown.

    So, if the law said that robbing a person at gun point was illegal, I rob you at knife point, the next day a new law says robbing at knife point is another illegal method, are you saying you're totally cool with me having all your money because it was a perfectly legal method at the time?

    Thought so...

  281. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no it's not a violation of the FOIA.
    All you've done is prove you don't know what you're talking about.

  282. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by dywolf · · Score: 1

    Oh I have a pretty good idea.
    It's shown by all the armchair "experts", including you, posting on this thread, and modding up each other's increasingly ignorant statements of "fact".

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  283. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure he was trying to refer to compartmented information(SCI) and special access programs(SAP), which aren't really classification but are directly related to how the data should be handled and limited.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_.28SCI.29_and_Special_Access_Programs_.28SAP.29

  284. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by ausekilis · · Score: 1

    This is the big difference between the worker bees and the higher ups. The worker bees get an example made of them, just like Manning and Snowden. The higher ups get a wrist slap, at most a demotion and coerced retirement, like Patraeus when he gave his mistress classified info. Consider that Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice both got classified emails on personal accounts and we don't see them rotting in a cell.

    It's a total double standard and Hillary will never set foot in a prison. With the publicity she may even be rewarded for it (book deals, higher fees for public speeches, interviews, etc...). Call it within borders diplomatic immunity.

  285. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    The SOS cannot unilaterally decide to remove the classified label on information.

    The talking points were derived from classified information on a classified network for release to the public at large. If she's not able to turn classified information into non-classified information, she would never be allowed to speak in public. Her job is to communicate to the American public as to what is going on in the world at large.

  286. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah sure, and the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to run a campaign in this country just pop out of the air

    if you are are solid in your beliefs then how about showing some evidence of collusion or money buying votes?

  287. Clinton 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016!

  288. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Hillary will back poligamy and take all her staffers as partners, then they couldn't be compelled to testify.

  289. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    It would be an incredible opportunity for third parties if BOTH of the Ruling Party candidates were on trial during the election.

    -jcr

    Well, since both parties are in a battle against non-party members who have only joined their respective races due to our de facto two party system, it could be said that it has already been an incredible opportunity for third parties.

  290. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in the same boat, but I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Hillary. I hope somehow Sanders gets the nod and I'll vote for him in the hopes everything is deadlocked for 4 years and we get at least one decent candidate next time (Carson is actually my favorite, but being more of the soft spoken, intelligent type is not playing well in this circus)

  291. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Political in a general sense maybe but it transcends or it is supposed to transcend party politics on the national level.

  292. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, I think you mistyped. "Confidential" is one of the lower ranked classifications.

    There is always some confusion due to different groups (DOE, DOD, NSA, etc.) using some different legacy markings and modifiers, not to mention different countries. But nobody I know of has a "classified" marking

    In the US, it goes UNCLASSIFIED (frequently with FOUO) -> CONFIDENTIAL -> SECRET -> TOP SECRET

    So something the is UNCLASSIFIED is not a real classification level (i.e. no real restrictions) but is still a classification.

    When people talk about "above TS" they really mean TS compartmented information (SCI/SAP/ECI kinds of stuff)

  293. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything more dangerous than to indict a popular (within their own political movement) and likely nominee for the office President of the United States?

    Electing Donald Trump?

  294. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    So now they are down to 'Nixon's defense'.

    No, everything she does in not legal because of who she is.

    Next defense. This is starting to get funny.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  295. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    There are now two nearly identical assertions of 'Nixon's defense' on this forum?

    Does anybody get the DNC talking points email list that is willing to share?

    When did this start getting pushed?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  296. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Three repetitions of 'Nixon's defense'...

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  297. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Four times. This must be a DNC talking point. Idiots likely don't remember the last time 'it's legal because of who I am' was asserted.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  298. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging

    No, the Dems would pull out that old, reliable, 'hold elected officials to a higher-standard' argument and claim that the mere accusation alone should invalidate a Republican candidate's campaign - when Democrats are caught in these situations they argue 'innocent until proven guilty'... The most recent examples of this was Rep. Tom Delay (R) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D). Tom Delay was accused of violating election laws BEFORE they were signed into law and was run out of the House Leadership - he was ultimately found innocent of all charges. Rep. Rangel solicited funds on official stationary, keeping multiple rent-controlled apartments in Harlem (3) including using one for his office, all in violation of rent laws in NYC, and failed to properly file his personal income taxes, including failure to report income from a vacation rental property in the Virgin Islands... He kept his job, and was guilty of all charges.

  299. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    No he's not. There are no Keynesian. Keynesians save money in good times. There are only 'print and spenders' with a cover story.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  300. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she ge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She is not accused of 'disclosing' its 'spillage' at best, not great but not a crime.

  301. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    The classification is based on the information, not the markings.

    The reality is it is impossible to send information from a secure server to an insecure email server - you can copy & paste info from the secure system to an insecure system but in doing so you have to be aware you are doing so to circumvent security.

  302. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    She becomes un-electable.

    The level of cognitive dissonance required to support her make 'her people' rocks in this regard. They will stick with her to the end, claiming she was railroaded.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  303. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    So you believe any post that gives you a way to mentally wiggle out of being wrong?

    Your whole thought process is about protecting your ego.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  304. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Mentally replace dailyKOS with freerepublic and see exactly who you are.

    Don't like it? I'm sure you will respond like a freeper.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  305. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    She has girlfriends on the side too, perhaps they shared.

    Mutual dirt keeps those two together. Bill can't have liked raising Web's daughter.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  306. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A POTUS can be impeached for an unpaid traffic ticket. (high crimes and misdemeanors) An impeachment is a political proceeding, not a legal one. In that sense, Bill Clinton's impeachment was "legitimate". It didn't mean it was an appropriate application of the article. Hillary was certainly correct in calling it (& Whitewater re-investigations) a GOP witch hunt.

    What Hillary seems to be accused of, on the other hand, its deadly serious, in that there may be grounds for an indictment.

  307. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it has no fucking relevance.

    The nature of crimes she could be accused of has to do with transmitting classified material to someone not authorized to receive it. If it is determined that classified material was sent to the "house" server, and every person who viewed the classified material were authorized to view the material, there will be zero legal basis to indict Hillary with that felony.

    The fact that she would setup a private, non-secure email server for her job related communications, including classified materials, is the fucking point, and yet may have no legal consequences.

  308. great! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    now he won't get diseases.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  309. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    The Clinton have far too many suicides of partners in their history. If the FBI doesn't protect the witness, that one will surely die as well.

    They had the ghost of Vince Foster kill Scalia.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  310. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    "beyond classified"? Pray tell, what's that?

    double secret probation

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  311. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Of course, if you're a DNC shill, you think she has done nothing wrong, in spite of the ongoing revelations of secret, classified, and beyond classified documents found on an unsecured server. I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging, and not saying "nothing to see here, move along"

    Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party, and not the crimes.

    a lot of people don't see the crimes because there has to be, you know, crimes.
    classifying emails as classified, after the fact? not as convincing as if the emails were classified BEFORE they were sent to the server.
    in any event, given the evidence of hackers hitting the state department server, not to mention the FBI server and the office of personnel management server, and god knows what else; and the evidence of no hacking from Clinton's server, you'd think pure embarrassment would lead to the end of the witch hunt.
    ironically, the people most interested in hillary's theoretical crime involving email servers are the same people who would dismiss a theoretical crime involving a firearm, and vice versa. "OK, so there was no ill effect of your use of a private server/unregistered gun, and granted that some folks who did not do so have been victimized, nevertheless theoretically use of a private server/unregistered gun could lead to a problem and therefore you must be punished."
    except for the part where her server was not in fact illegal when set up.
    in conclusion, BENGAZARAH!

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  312. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because he's not a useless coward, unlike you.

  313. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that these were on her unsecured server, shared with several underlings without codeword clearance as well as then handed to her lawyer (who also did not have all the required clearances) who stored them in his office without the proper level of security for the types of documents that existed on the storage drive shows a complete disregard for the proper and legally required handling of classified materials

    There was this great PBS Frontline describing how Pelosi or somebody 'violated' some similar 'laws' or something by like stealing the last existing 6000 page unredacted U.S.A. Torture report, then locking it in a safe somewhere in the Senate. Dollars to Doughnuts, the DOJ isn't going to be exploring in depth the nuance of that legal situation anytime soon.

  314. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

    My supposition is that ALL primaries need to be open, and no parties are allowed. Why should tax payers support parties that we don't agree with? My party doesn't require taxpayer "Primary" elections ;-)

    As someone already mentioned, the problem is that the "winner take all" electorial system that is baked into the US Constitution automatically creates a two-party system whether you want one or not. Trying to outlawing politics parties will not solve the problem. You need to change the Constitution to make the electorial system more fair than "winner take all".

    A simple introduction to these ideas is available in a few short videos at Politics in the Animal Kingdom. We know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. The difficulty is that whoever is in power has little motivation to drastically change the system that put them in power.

    The US Constitution was the prototype. Many of the Countries that followed us learned from our mistakes.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  315. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction. She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.

    FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret" FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton's Email Use And David Petraeus' Crimes FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  316. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Even if it were true that the markings had been removed before emailing, THAT in itself warrants a major investigation. And we know there is at least one email where someone was instructed to do just that.

    There seems to be almost zero chance that this information wasn't compromised to foreign governments. As if Russia and China didn't know about this and have it breached...

    Yes, as proved by today's news that the server logs show no evidence of any hacking.
    " Security logs keep track of, among other things, who accessed the network and when. They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers."
    but you think "almost zero chance", so who needs evidence? that only applies to things like the documented hacking of the official state dept email server by russians.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  317. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    I think this is an excellent view. We should collectively try to rise above petty politics and have an objective look at what she did. She needs to go through the due process just like everyone else, no exceptions.

    One could of course argue that there are other immoral or illegal actions closely tied to certain politicians (torture to death for example), but the glass shield needs to be broken somewhere. Once you punch through, the whole illusion of privilege tied to high positions in the political system will come down.

    you realize that there is an investigation ongoing, right?
    like the neverending benghazi investigation?
    or mr. trump's top operatives' discovery of "unbelievable evidence" that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?
    perhaps well discover that Monica Lewinsky gave Hillary oral sex, and thereby save the Republic from destruction.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  318. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 1

    You have sensitive, then secret, then Top Secret, the code word compartmentalized TS. This way group A with TS does not need nor have access to group B-Z's TS files.

    Anything at the TS or higher level is automatically considered TS and can only later have its classification lowered. She knew this and did it anyways. Hell she had to manually copy or photograph files on a air gapped system to email them via her server! This is not an 'oops' issue but a concerted effort to access and share national secrets over an unsecured network.

  319. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    It looks like a violation of 18 USC Sec. 793 to me.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  320. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see NO parties and ALL of the crimes.

    No persons worth voting for in any election since 1970's.

    Criminals run the u.s. oligarchy, and have since at least Nixon.

  321. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this comment was spot-on:
    "Congratulations! You have just outed yourself as a fucking Hillary Kool Aid drinker and cult member."

    Hope those kankles taste good you retarded sheep!

    How do any of you sleep at night knowing you would support a criminal?

  322. Can't get much more politcally motivated than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sad that they're this desperate to find something incriminating.

    Maybe they should check to see that she flosses every day.

  323. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh... how else do you explain:

    "I'm not hopeful that this is true because I wish to see Hillary discredited and abandon her campaign. I'm hopeful because she needs to be held to account for her actions. She had the misfortune to be the first credible and likely woman to be a nominee for President, only to be up against the first credible black nominee. Now she should experience the self-inflicted misfortune of being forced to abandon her aspirations to the office due to criminal indictment and conviction."

    when the argument is that the most severe reading of the actual facts and the actual laws make this a mere misdemeanor? In most states, you'd be committing a more serious crime if you sat in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in the ignition with a blood alcohol level of .09%.

    If you can otherwise support those relatively extreme words above, yes, you may not be a misogynist. I have no problem with people that say they're uncomfortable with her judgment given this situation- that seems perfectly rational even if I don't agree- but when blowing this up using language like "discredited" "held to account" "abandon" "criminal indictment and conviction" it does indeed suggest at least subconscious misogyny,

  324. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Does he have a server backup that he has setup to be delivered to the FBI on his death.

    If he doesn't, he's a dead man.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  325. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she ge by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    She absolutely disclosed to her lawyer. She is done unless elected or pardoned. At her age, it's a life sentence.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  326. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    There are laws about how to declassify information and it's not just "because the SOS said so"...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  327. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

    I completely fail to see any point in what you just wrote. Maybe you failed to see the point in what I wrote as well.

    --
    -SR
  328. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you're wrong. Read the statute you cite. Requires all of the below which have never been alleged by anyone:

    1) must be knowing and willful (a)
    2) must actually prejudice the safety of the US (a)
    3) the information must relate to SIGINT (a)(1)-(a)(4)
    4) the receiver must not have been authorized by the President or the head of a department or agency of the United States Government (b)

    You know, like the head of the State Department. Who is that again?

    Try again on finding an actual statute.

  329. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Your whole thought process is about protecting your ego.

    Sorry, I'm not Donald Trump. I was pointing to a fact that I learned elsewhere in this mind-blowing discussion on Slashdot. Take it with a grain of salt.

  330. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still have hope what I sent to WH is still recoverable... four or five emails are unique and irrepeatable, on coordinates, math, bio...

  331. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Delwin · · Score: 1

    Someone pointed out to me recently that DoD and State have very different sets of rules regarding classified information.

  332. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Delwin · · Score: 1

    No. Class information should never be transmitted on an unsecured medium of any kind. Big difference.

  333. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    There are laws about how to declassify information and it's not just "because the SOS said so".

    You did read that link first before posting?

    The Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Executive Director exercise downgrading and declassification authority in the FERC.

    I was not aware that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission set the classification standards for the State Department.

    http://www.ferc.gov/

    Maybe this link will provide some insights. Although it doesn't mention who declassifies information, it's reasonable to assume that the person who has the authority to classify information can also declassify information.

    In the State Department, original classification authority for top secret info goes to the secretary of state or anyone the secretary has said -- in writing -- can do the job. Past examples include: "Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, the Counselor, Assistant Secretaries and equivalents; Chiefs of Mission and U.S. representatives to international organizations."

    Secret or classified information is decided on by the secretary and/or a senior agency official, who can give classification power to others in writing as well.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-state-department-classifies-information/

  334. Re: Trump for prez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump isn't in line to get 50 percent though. If he doesn't he get half the GOP can get real wierd to block him.

  335. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment If the CIA classified my grocery list shows you have never worked in this environment. If your grocery list was classified, you would still be obligated to treat it appropriately as required by law. And you would likely serve jail time if you told someone to remove the headings and send it on a non-secured channel. The serious question is who would be joining you in your cell. In all the security paperwork I have been required to read and acknowledge, there has never been an exemption listed if your name was Hilary.

  336. typical hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the glass shield needs to be broken somewhere

    It's funny how this sentiment is always positively expressed when a republican is the one smashing in a Democrat's window....

  337. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're talking about GW Bush right? RIIIIIIIIIGHT?

  338. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So she declassified it. Now prove that isn't in her capacity as Secretary of State.

  339. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Having the authority for formally start a process to declassify something is not the same thing as having the authority to ignore classification at her whim.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  340. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never answer false premises.

  341. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    It's funny that Bernie manages to fund his campaign without the oil companies and banks pouring millions into his coffers. Likewise Ron Paul ran with funds raised from mostly individuals. I know you think that Goldman Sachs and Exxon are really just nice guys that like giving millions of dollars to politicians just to help out but the rest of us aren't that simple. Tell me, do you really believe they shower her with all that money and expect nothing in return?

  342. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Your comment If the CIA classified my grocery list shows you have never worked in this environment.

    I should have contacted the Information Security Officer on duty to request that the CIA declassify my grocery list because it was based on publicly available information (i.e., Food King weekly flyer). No reason for me to starve to death because the CIA has nothing better.

  343. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she ge by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    The public information available supports conviction under ;

    18 U.S. Code  793(e) and (f)
    44 U.S. Code  3106
    18 U.S. Code Â1001
    18 U.S. Code  1924
    18 U.S. Code  2071(b)
    18 U.S. Code  641
    18 U.S. Code  1505
    18 U.S. Code  1519

    Some of these are derivatives of other charges, but the first three statutes are all primary offenses, easily supported by the public record, and there is one felony charge available there.

    If you wish references and sources, Google is replete with those. You should be offering me complete and sound refutations of the many public statements supporting indictment on any of these charges. Note that some of these do not or require intent, and Hillary was trained in these and other laws and the handling of information while Secretary of State.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  344. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    If she could pardon herself, Tricky Dick would have already tried the same stunt.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  345. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Having the authority for formally start a process to declassify something is not the same thing as having the authority to ignore classification at her whim.

    Wouldn't it suck if the staffer submitted the written request to the Information Security Officer on duty and got approval to strip the security headers? Proof! Another smoking gun email goes up in smoke.

  346. You are in error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is, and has been for decades, a criminal act to transfer classified documents from a classified system to an unclassified system, and another crime to place such documents into a place where they are insecure. Oh, and EACH document constitutes another criminal act. I was strictly warned about this decades ago when I first got a security clearance. As a cabinet secretary, Hillary Clinton was given a personal briefing on all this and was required to sign a document, co-signed by the person who briefed her, acknowledging both that she was so briefed and also that she understood it.

    Remember: The Obama administration prosecuted General Petraeus for making classified docs available to his girlfriend/biographer...... WHO WAS AN ARMY OFFICER WITH A SECURITY CLEARANCE. You see, you cannot even make such documents available to other people with a clearance if they have no authorization to see them. Hillary not only put all those files into the hands of an unauthorized outside IT vendor, but she then made copies of the files and gave them to her lawyer (who has no clearance and no authorization) who stored the copies on a flash drive in an unauthorized safe in his office. This whole mess is a monumental waterfall of illegal and incompetent acts. I understand full-well that many progressives want to dismiss all this bad behavior in the name of protecting a left-wing politician, but how can you defend this and then support Obama prosecuting a young sailor for taking a foolish but innocent "selfie" aboard his submarine? There are all sorts of "small fish" in the military and places like the State Department whose careers and lives are mangled by security violations far less broad, intentional, and severe than Clinton's..... and for the most part none of them have gone full in-your-face you-cannot-touch-me defiant when confronted.

  347. Let history be your guide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's very interesting to see the flip-flop so many on the left have taken here. Democrats loved the idea of giving immunity to John Dean, whose testimony then led to Nixon's downfall. More interesting is that Hillary was at the time a young Democrat staff lawyer working on the Watergate case who was so in favor of sticking it to Nixon that [a] she advocated for making a legal argument that he was not entitled to have a defense lawyer and [b] she was kicked-off out by the Democrats running the investigation for being too unethical.

    Interestingly, the Republicans at the time did the right thing and helped the Democrats usher Nixon out of office. The Clintons clearly learned the following evil lessons from this vital bit of US History:

    1. Do not maintain any records you do not need to maintain, that way you have more wiggle room and cannot be undone by documents later

    2. Maintain any records you must maintain under your own control away from normal government oversight and where no courts will know to look

    3. Do not use government employees to run your systems, people far away in places like Colorado and who are not well known to people in the beltway are not likely to know the laws you are going to ask them to violate, nor will investigators even think to look for them.

    4. Throw massive piles of political mud at any investigator or prosecutor. Distract the public with accusations that such people are evil, corrupt, perverts, etc so they will not notice that they are non-partisan employees (often appointed by people in your own party) who are investigating actual violations of law.

    5. When you get in trouble, make sure all your partisans have no ethics and will stick with you, and you can get away with anything. The last thing you want is political allies stupid enough to think there is such a things as "wrong" who might later squeal to investigators, speak the truth under oath, or eventually be portrayed as a famous movie character called "Deep Throat" hanging out in a parking garage.

  348. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    After you finish dreaming, acknowledge that they didn't and if they had the process would have taken a month or more. Suck it.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  349. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Suck it.

    These manufactured scandals don't have a great track record. How is the Benghazi investigation?

  350. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny thing about "Obamacare" is that it was a Republican idea to start with. It was the Republican response to the proposed "HillaryCare" back in the 90's, though the idea goes back to Nixon. A system very similar was implemented by Republican Governor Mitt Romney at the state level in Massachusetts. Obama and the Democrats basically adopted the system to try to get the Republicans onboard with some kind of healthcare reform, but as soon as that happened it became "Obamacare" and the Republicans did a complete flip-flop on the issue. Really, Obama's biggest mistake with Obamacare was that once it became obvious that the Republicans were not going to support whatever he suggested, he should have gone back to proposing a single-payer system instead pushing forward the mess that eventually became law. Though part of that is also due to the "bluedog" Democrats. It must be kind of tough to have a party that promotes independent thinking, instead of marching in lockstep with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

  351. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course. If you don't vote R straight down the ballot then you're not a Republican.

  352. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    We may see a new slogan for a (presidential) election, one not seen before: "Never been indicted"

    Reports of it being used in a labor union election are probably a joke or a myth.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  353. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    So she declassified it. Now prove that isn't in her capacity as Secretary of State.

    Honestly, do you really think that if she has the authority to declassify documents, the proper procedure is for her to just order someone to remove classified markings...?

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  354. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    I disagree, political elites should not be punished the same as us peons. They should be punished much more harshly. Their sentence should be at least twice that of your average citizen. Same for police. Though the death penalty should be reserved for politicians at the federal level. In particular it should only be used when a politician attempts to violate the constitution.

  355. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    Nixon said he could do anything. I'm saying the SoS has certain powers due to laws that grant them to the SoS. Pretty big difference.

  356. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by jcr · · Score: 1

    In theory if she becomes president she can pardon herself.

    No, she can't. She can pardon anyone else, but under American law, nobody has the power to pardon themselves. If that were possible, Nixon would have let himself off the hook instead of cutting a deal with Jerry Ford to let him walk.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  357. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by jcr · · Score: 1

    Each of several thousand counts.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  358. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by jcr · · Score: 1

    What's your next guess?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  359. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by jcr · · Score: 1

    Petraeus wasn't convicted of anything- he pled guilty

    Evidently you didn't proofread this. When a defendant pleads guilty, he is convicted without contesting the charges.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."