Slashdot Mirror
The FBI Recommends Not To Indict Hillary Clinton For Email Misconduct (theverge.com)
FBI Director James Comey says that his agency isn't recommending that the DOJ pursue charges against Hillary Clinton for setting up a private email server as Secretary of State. At a press conference on Tuesday, Comey added that while there is "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," they think that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." The Verge reports:The recommendation is the result of a painstaking investigation by the bureau, which uncovered a number of new details. The investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain classified information, including 8 chains contained information that was marked as top secret at the time, Director Comey said. Secretary Clinton used several different email servers and numerous mobile devices, and many of those servers were decommissioned and otherwise altered as they were replaced.
And nail that bitch to a wall.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Que surprise.
And they wonder why people are so hell-bent on voting for a jackass like Trump...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This will probably end up handing the closely contested presidential race to Trump, for better or worse. Giant Meteor 2016!!
Obama told the FBI not to. Typical Democrat corruption...
with her money she'll hire the best legal team out there and litigate the case until she dies of old age
Yesterday: I thought I couldn't get any more cynical.
Today: I realized how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Bravo Madam Clinton! Bravo!
While belonging to opposite political parties, at the end of the day they all play for the same team. The government takes care of its own.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Who expected anything else? The rest of us would be in jail, or hiding in a foreign embassy.
So intent is now needed to be prosecuted for a crime? Good to know. As long as I dont intend to commit that crime, I wont be prosecuted. I have never seen america so corrupt in my life. I am so disappointed in the FBI and ALL OF IT AGENTS that would allow this to happen.
FBI AGENTS: You have officially become a joke to the rest of the world. Dont expect any respect from any of us anymore.
Goldman Sachs' employee Hillary "Feel free to suck my husband's cock" Clinton can commit felonies without being prosecuted. Who could have ever imagined that...
When Lynch and Clinton met last week, that was to communicate with Hillary that it was decided not to do anything.
BTW, Lynch was appointed by Clinton back in 1999.
The Clintons as so corrupt they don't even hide things any more.
The FBI was careful to point out that Hillary was "grossly negligent," and exposed classified and top-secret documents to hostile foreign powers, and mentions that people who do such things face punishment (as long as they're not Hillary Clinton). But he's leaving it up to Loretta Lynch to determine which punishment is appropriate. That's Loretta Lynch, fresh from her half hour "bumping into" Hillary's husband in her private plane the other day. Nothing to see here, just move along.
Oh, and if you're wondering about the FBI's sprawling, ongoing corruption investigation of Bill and Hillary's family business as it raked in millions of dollars from foreign government with business before her as Secretary of State, that's still in progress. Under Loretta Lynch's watch, of course.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The FBI indicated that they DID find classified material, with markings, in the emails that were on the server. But that it was there "without intent" whatever that means.
As someone with a clearance, one thing that gets drilled into your head through constant reminders is that carelessness with classified material is NOT an excuse. That if you accidentally leak classified information through simple negligence, you are as guilty as someone who does it intentionally.
Well, guess what. Clinton accidentally leaked classified information to third party governments through known negligence.
But she won't be charged.
This is just beyond bullshit for the FBI. We can only hope that Wikileaks steps up and really does have the evidence to prove the FBI is refusing to do their damned jobs.
From CNN's site:
No 'clear evidence' Clinton intended to violate laws.
Gee, I guess we could use that same statement on just about every rule we intend not to break. So much for rule of law.
Hillary is untouchable in Obama administration. Can you imagine what will happen if a normal person did the similar thing?
Laws don't apply if you are rich and connected enough.
If the government isn't going to hold Hillary Clinton of all people accountable to the law of the land then why bother having laws? The longer she stays out of Prison, the more fun this is going to be.
She has big enough balls I guess we can call her the "Teflon Don". But hey.. at least she knows "Cyber" Security.. and how to maintain the safety and security of Americans both inside and outside the US.
--Hired Net Grunt
....because she's already got all of them in her pocket?
I don't support Trump. But Hillary should be indicted. If not, that just show how broken the legal system is.
or in her case Queen. We are not a nation of laws applied equally, clearly some animals are more equal than others. While this may have been true in practice for some time, it's now being brazenly displayed.
.. would they!
Defying Clinton is probably as lethal as defying the mob. I know I'd be in Leavenworth if I did what she did. In fact, we were specifically directed to not send any confidential messages to private email servers; doing so with secret or top secret is asking for a trip to leavenworth ... if you're not above the law.
Ignorance, incompetence, negligence... all three of those words will get you a lengthy prison sentence unless your name is Hillary Clinton.
that need any evidence to show laws are only in place for the masses and not the rulers, this should fit the bill quite nicely.
The corruption of our government is so engrained now it will be impossible to remove without destroying its host.
It's become a cancer you no longer wish to fight because you've realized you're only prolonging the inevitable.
Hopefully, the end comes quickly.
when James Comey gets some really comfortable position in the Clinton administration. Like an outrageously high pension, or a cabinet position above his means.
Seriously, at what point does gross negligence become criminal? That's the real question. Even if it doesn't, as someone who works in a classified environment I can tell you that if I did this, I would be fired, lose my clearance, and most certainly never be granted another. I find this whole charade pretty upsetting.
Woot!
After 20 years of this crap, I'd be hard put to believe any thing they trump up to try to pin on her.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Just like the FBI said, she was grossly negligent especially considering the rules about archiving and secrecy...but it happens way too frequently in the "real world" of business for me to be surprised. No executive I have ever seen has had to follow any sort of IT rules. Anything that gets in their way is magically removed.
I did a lot of desktop support in my early career, and am still connected to that world because my specialty is end user computing and end user systems management. The facts are as follows -- every executive, senior VP or above in large companies, has a different set of IT rules than the rest of us:
- Almost every executive I've encountered has no password, no drive encryption or other protection on their machines. Either that, or they have Zuckerberg style "dadada" passwords and need special exemptions carved out of the corporate password policies to deal with it.
- Almost all of them forward their emails to personal accounts so they can get their emails on whatever flavor-of-the-week consumer device comes out.
- 99.9% of them let their secretaries send and receive their email by giving them their password. Same goes for executing transactions.
- Before iOS and Android got good Exchange integration and full MDM, it was extremely common to have "basement email servers" -- sometimes they were in the data center, and sometimes they really were in the exec's basement. We don't need that anymore, but I can imagine the State Department's IT people aren't exactly early adopters especially concerning communications.
- Tons of support time is spent getting whatever crazy computer, tablet, smartphone, Amazon Echo, game system, etc. connected to the company network and functioning -- stuff that the "little people" would never be allowed to use.
The point is that all executives bend the rules, and the IT staff allow them to because they like being paid. In my mind this is no different...Clinton was essentially the CEO of the State Department. Would you tell your CEO that he wasn't able to access his email from some unsecure consumer laptop on his private jet?
American's hate cheaters, and this conviction allows Trump to play the victim card on behalf of America as a nation. If anything this decision helped Trump supporters big time while swishy Clinton supporters keep on chugging that kool-aid.
Gross negligence? This does not require intent. In any case, Trump is right about one thing (not much else): the system is rigged. We are being trained not to expect any consequence for those in power.
Nothing to see here, move along.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/re...
There isn't even an entry for people who were sent to prison for being careless about top secret security clearance.
The most likely occurrence for being sloppy would be a reprimand and extra training classes.
People are prosecuted for intentionally releasing top secret material to enemies or to the public.
People are not prosecuted for being careless or incorrectly configured servers.
It is not true that "anyone but hillary" would do prison time for what happened here. They would get butt hurt and it might even hurt their career (and might get them fired and their clearance withdrawn) but federal prosecution for all practical purposes does not occur in this kind of situation.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"...The investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain classified information, including 8 chains contained information that was marked as top secret at the time, ..." ....in the emails that had ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY SCRUBBED before 'handing them over' to the FBI.
Sic Transit Gloria Republica, 2016 Anno Domini..
-Styopa
The DOJ is not recommending you do anything that could possibly leave Trump running unopposed.
I have mod points, and I'm tempted to use them on this thread, but I think it's more important to comment. I must begin by saying I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy and do not plan to vote for him.
That said, I am flabbergasted that the FBI basically said that Clinton broke laws, but because it wasn't intentional, they don't recommend charges. If you or I did that, we'd be in Federal PMITA Prison faster than you can say, "I'd like to speak to my lawyer." How many people have been found guilty in court with a reminder from the judge that "ignorance is no excuse."
It is now crystal clear that there are two sets of laws in this country: one set that applies to us regular folk and another that applies (or doesn't, rather) to the elite.
My guess is that, in the end, Joe Biden decided he didn't actually want to run for president this time around, or you can bet that the FBI and DoJ would come down hard on Clinton.
If DoJ prosecutors were reasonable, Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. Fuck this double standard.
Fuck, I will vote for Trump then.
This ruling was rather obvious to not indict a Clinton, which we knew was going to happen, based on the mafia strongarm tactics of BOTH Clintons "volunteering" to meet with Lynch within the last week (yeeeeah, not suspicious at all). More importantly, this ruling also weakens an entire Nation since it now helps set a precedent for anyone accused of mishandling data classified at the highest levels.
Why punish anyone for mishandling classified data? If I were being accused, I would merely point to this entire Clinton case as my defense and wait for my slap on the wrist. Given the gravity of the violations the punishment should be devoid of any exceptions, and respectful of the black-and-white way that the government data handling policies are structured and written, which are applicable to anyone and everyone handling classified data. Her violations are black-and-white. The punishment should be too.
And we have the unmitigated gall to sit back and point at other governments and call them corrupt? That's a laugh.
Translation, Hillary Clinton was guilty as !@#$, and incurred numerous negligent violations. However, seeing as she is likely to be our boss next year, and the fact we value having our jobs, we have decided to recommend that charges not be pursued.
will be interesting to see what ordinary people say at the poll booths
Hillary is beginning to remind me a lot of a modern day J. Edgar Hoover. She's a big player, interconnected with lots of high ranking officials, and probably has enough dirt to bury anyone by fiat of position length of involvement.
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Especially when there's a 50:50 chance that she'd be in a position to rain down bucketloads of the brown stuff on any and every-one dumb enough to try it or who had any association (however remote) with the action.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Seriously, what would it take for an indictment? They already had the proof. They had the lies, and the intent. Is the only way she would have been indicted if she said "I want to be punished"?
Captcha "Shocker"
The FBI, Comey elaborated, had found no example of a prior prosecution ever having been brought in a classified-information case that did not involve intentional mishandling of material, “vast quantities” of mishandled information, evidence of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice." ... Comey also said that investigators had used forensic analysis to uncover “thousands” of work-related emails that were not among the group Clinton turned over to the State Department
Deliberately setting up your own personal server is not “intentional”, more than 100 emails is not “vast quantities”, and thousands of emails that were required to be turned over, but were not, is not “obstruction of justice”. Nope, no sign of any crime, nothing to see here, move along...
Under Barack Obama, a very brief search for people prosecuted for mishandling classified information brings up James Hitselberger, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Kiriakou, Shamai Leibowitz, Bradley Manning, Jeffrey Sterling - and, of course, Edward Snowden, if only they could get their hands on him. Most view themselves as whistleblowers. Hillary, on the other hand, is just corrupt. So that's different, I suppose.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
FBI director is a Drama King based on his other security claims
Please be just as generous in your portrayal of Clinton's Ethics / Lying when you decide to vote for her. MKAY?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Hillary is untouchable for the simple reason that the entire institution is in the same boat. "House of Cards" anyone?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
For some things yes, however for plenty of others, only 'gross negligence' is required to convict her for multiple offenses under 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) based on what is publicly available months ago would have been easy even for a country prosecutor.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
What a joke. First off, I hate both Clinton and Trump so I have no dog in the fight when it comes down to who is elected president.
What she did was criminal When I had my TS clearance, doing just 1% of what she did would have gotten me sent off to a federal pound me in the butt prison. We were constantly reminded of all the ways we would be criminal responsible for any intentional or unintentional leak of sensitive information.
You can't touch the privileged elite. If a joe blow with a clearance did this they'd be in prison by now.
Since her boss, our President, endorsed her candidacy, it should have been obvious her conduct would not be referred for criminal charges.
And even if it were, her boss would probably not permit the Attorney General to actually seek an indictment.
The fix was in years ago, even before the second Bush presidency.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Hillary gets to be president while Snowden is branded a traitor. The system is rigged.
She is flying around with Obama in Air Force One. He would never allow her to actually get in trouble for something like this.
The FBI indicated that they DID find classified material, with markings, in the emails that were on the server. But that it was there "without intent" whatever that means.
In law, intent matters, that's why there's a difference between the charge of "manslaughter" and "murder", even though there's a corpse involved in both:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Can somebody please explain to me how the fuck "classified" and "e-mail" can be used in the same sentence? E-mail is NOT SECURE! It never has been. Why the hell is anybody talking about how she "should have used the secure e-mail system" instead?
I'm serious, can somebody please explain what this "secure e-mail system" is supposed to be, because unless every e-mail is PGP-protected, there is no such thing as security when it comes to e-mail. Period. If you sent an e-mail across the Internet, the NSA has a copy, guaranteed. Probably Russia and China, too.
Also, has anybody pointed out that during the timeframe in question, when Clinton should have been using the "secure e-mail system" instead of her own, that very same "secure e-mail system" was infiltrated by Russia and completely compromised? That seems a rather important point regarding how "secure" this e-mail system she should have been using was.
Once again. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SECURE E-MAIL! Please, please, somebody prove me wrong. I feel like I'm surrounded by crazy people.
Please be just as generous in your portrayal of Clinton's Ethics / Lying when you decide to vote for her. MKAY?
Or Trump.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"Ignorance of law excuses no one" And lying just makes it worse. Anyone voting for her needs to get their head removed from her ass.
Rod Blagojevich did nothing and got 14 years and yet his friends got off with much more.
At this point, even if Trump won, Hillary would just decapitate him live during his commencement speech and put on his head like a hat, but not be charged anything for the action.
There is no justice when those in power are judged by a different set of rules.
Yeah, cuz Trump always plays fair!!
I don't see what the problem is, send that heifer to jail.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
*** Hillary 2016 ***
Intent doesn't matter when dealing with classified documents. You let them out, you get fried.
Unless you have enough power, then you don't.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Too bad he is a libertarian.
So Hillary: Unintentionally hired a consultant Unintentionally bought a server Unintentionally paid the consultant monthly to manage the server Unintentionally secured a political appointment job in State Dept IT group (the first-ever political IT appointment) Unintentionally used her private server exclusively for all work emails Unintentionally retained 30,000 emails for two years after she left office That's a little hard to swallow, don't you think?
The GOP's campaign against the Clintons is starting to look at lot like the coyote wanting to have the road runner for lunch.
Doing what she did was precisely what got Petraeus prosecuted and sentenced to a few years of probation.
. . . that will from here on be used for anyone else investigated for mishandling of classified information, under the theory of "equal protection under law".
I also have a clearance (and hence, ALSO posting as AC), and even ***ONE*** TS leak would have put me in jail. But now a threshold has been set. . .
It's not a good election year in general for those who value honesty and integrity. If the GOP wanted to counter Clinton's (alleged) integrity problems, they selected a very poor counter match. Trump admitted to bribing politicians during the GOP debates. That is not "integrity" by any measure I know. (And include his other fibs and flippings).
People will have to decide on policy positions and personality, NOT integrity, because neither do well in that category.
Then again, most politicians are spinners and always have been clear back to antiquity. Our systems seem to filter out honesty. Humans.
Table-ized A.I.
Mishandling classified information (Clinton) or starting a war without cause and basically being a war criminal (Bush, Cheney, et al)? As a practical matter neither one has any chance of being prosecuted if for no other reason than to save the country from turmoil (yeah let's indict a major party's candidate in an election year over some relatively minor transgression in the grand scheme of things). Just like how it was better to just to move on after the 2000 election fiasco, some injustices just aren't ever going to be remedied.
The funny thing is I'm sure a lot of the very same people here on Slashdot up in arms over this issue think Assange, Snowden, Manning are heroes for releasing classified information. Of course they shouldn't have been prosecuted either.
I would agree to HRC getting whatever punishment GW got for doing the same thing. What was that again?
"Comey added that while there is "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," they think that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
I think he means "no reasonable prosecutor terrified of the prospect of never-ending retribution against self and family would bring such a case."
The political machine is so broken it it were a car, i'd strip it down to the bare frame, clean whatever can be kept, replace whatever is FUBAR, and put it back together.
Sadly, there is no way that trick can be done to an organization made of money and people. So.. what can be done? Can anything be done? Yeah, so my question is rhetorical, but it still stands -- how can We the People fix it? I'm convinced it'll take many decades, if not a century to fix.
Or maybe we just implode like our daddy did a couple of weeks ago. How's that Brexit working, UK?
Crazy thing is, I admire them for having the sheer balls to give the V to their leaders. (I'm not talking about the peace sign. Turn it around.)
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
...which would mean both prosecution and conviction for anyone besides Hillary.
Comey gives her an out because he can't prove intent, but the statute itself doesn't require intent, period.
It's almost like Comey was forced to decline prosecution, but found enough courage to share enough details to make it obvious she should have been prosecuted.
I can't fathom why you're so overjoyed that the choice for our next President is still between a narcissistic race-baiting Dorito-tinted proto-facist and a vote-for-me-because-vagina self-enriching-at-the-publics-expense focus-polling-before-standing-for-anything unindicted felon.
Myself, I was hoping for a Democratic disqualification due to pending indictment, so we could get a reasonable third option.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I wish they would have more political recommendations /s
Twinstiq, game news
One wonders just what kind of "deal" Hillary made with Comey for this recommendation? "I will support all your surveillance measures 100%."
SHOCKED!!
Not really. We all knew she'd get away with it, right?
... because we all decided LONG ago who we're voting for and nothing will ever change our minds.
Just get your ass to the fucking voting booths in November and worry about other shit until then.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Trump is a non-issue, as the press and even the Republicans not supporting him. He doesn't get a "generous portrayal" of his ethics, so there is no double standard there. Yes, there are people who will vote for Trump, just as there are those who support Clinton. But since this is a story of and about Clinton, and how people are willing to say anything to support her, I only mentioned her.
FYI, Gary Johnson is the ONLY Presidential Candidate worth voting for at this point. Especially if you are concerned about the Ethics of Clinton and/or Trump.
And don't give me the bullshit argument about he can't win. Voting for someone just because they might be able to win is a popularity contest. Neither Clinton nor Trump aren't even close to being good enough.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Vote Gary Johnson. Libertarian. Honest Politicians are rare, and he has the right policies to sway both Democrats and Republican "single issue voters".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Not really. For example, some information that was marked "classified" was also reported to be public knowledge at the time and available from foreign newspapers, TV, etc. already. One may be able to claim that they got the info from such sources rather than classified documents.
To comb the world publications/websites to rule that out could be a yuuuuge job, and perhaps impossible because not everything is saved, especially in the 3rd world. Good lawyers know how to inject such dead-ends into trials. I'm just giving one example of "outs".
Further, lower-level staff members are also guilty of carelessness according to the statements. If Clinton's "power" gets her out of prosecution, that should not apply to underlings, and they should also be up for prosecution.
You may argue that nobody cares enough about the underlings to prosecute them, but if that's the case, then Democrat's claim of political "witch hunting" rings true: Republicans only push to bust her because of her political position.
So, which is it? Too big to jail, or too small not to jail?
Table-ized A.I.
Ah no they don't, gross negligence is enough:
"The Espionage Act prescribes lengthy prison terms for government officials who cause classified material to be moved to an unsecured location, either willfully or through 'gross negligence.'
Actually, this was Sanders' last chance at the whitehouse. If Hillary had been forced to step aside, he'd have been the last man standing.
#thebern here wasn't against trump at all - Trump wins either way, with an indicted criminal as an opponent, or a corrupt plutocrat who rigged the system to avoid indictment.
Area 51 is officially classified, government officials are not supposed to even acknowledge it exists. Same with the drone strikes in foreign countries. Yet everyone knows about them. If the classified info in those emails is something like that then it's not a big deal. We are talking about 8 TS and 36 secret email chains, which sounds a lot, but it could be fairly benign stuff.
The FBI was careful to point out that Hillary was "grossly negligent,"
Nope. ...
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
and exposed classified and top-secret documents to hostile foreign powers
Nope.
"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence... we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."
Do you have anything else you would like to pull out of your ass?
The "lower-level staff member" who helped set up Clinton's email server assisted the FBI in their investigation in exchange for immunity against prosecution. He knew how serious a breach of protocol this was, and took steps to cover his ass.
Anyone But Clinton
Trump, sure, he's an ass.
Sanders, sure, he's a crazy keneysian.
But I'd pick out any random felon from prison to be POTUS before picking Clinton.
There are a number of strict liability crimes that have significant jail sentences. The most common of which is statutory rape.
In United States v. Kantor, an actress deliberately misrepresented her age to appear in an erotic film. The Ninth Circuit used this as grounds to find the film's producer not guilty of child pornography. The result appears consistent with the unclean hands doctrine: someone guilty of forgery is unjustified in pressing charges on grounds of reliance on a forged document. (See "Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes" by Laurie L. Levinson.) Applying the logic of Kantor to statutory rape would raise the bar on statutory rape to negligence. Or in which post-Kantor cases has such a defense already been unsuccessfully applied?
He's a nutcase, but at least he's an honest nutcase who does love his country.
I doubt Bernie's candidacy stands a snowball's chance in Hell, but maybe if a miracle happens . . . .
This post is going to be nasty and it will probably be modded down to oblivion but I don't care. It will be here on Slashdot servers for those who wish to read at -1. So here goes.
I've had a TS/SCI clearance before and know for a fact there would have been severe consequences if I did what Clinton has done as reported officially by the FBI now. For sure I'd be fired never to have a security clearance again and I'm pretty sure I'd be in jail and/or fined heavily. This goddamn cunt Hillary Clinton gets away with it as if she's above the law. I should get shit-faced drunk then come back here to spill all the classified information I know. After all being clueless and careless can now be a way out of responisiblity, but unfortunately the rule of law still applies to us lowly non-connected citizens.
This hideous lying monster has a good chance of being elected POTUS. I so hate this prospect and if it comes to that and this fucking Progressive hag keeps up her modus operandi, then it's WAR. /rant and I feel better.
Voting for Trump now just to make those apologetic cucks actually get up off their welfare moochin rears and have to defend Hillary's regime of corruption.
Comey has lost all credibility now
Vote for Trump, it's the only way to punish her now.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
You may argue that nobody cares enough about the underlings to prosecute them, but if that's the case, then Democrat's claim of political "witch hunting" rings true: Republicans only push to bust her because of her political position.
Right now, the Democrats control the executive branch, which is responsible for prosecuting. Congress (and the Republicans) can't do anything here.
Come on, Clinton did wrong here. Admit it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4-1 on him seems like good odds...
So you have inside knowledge that each and every email came from such a source? If not, charges are still valid.
Which is why the whole lot of them are getting off. If they got charged, why not her? If she got charged, why not them? They opted for the easy route and said 'none of the above'.
Outright political corruption.
Personally, I can't stand Trump... but given the statute of limitations won't have expired on some of the things she was let off on today... I may just have to hold my nose in November, cast a vote for the stupid red hat and hope that he will bring charges if elected.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I also meant those assisting in preparing documents and messages, such as perhaps Jake Sullivan.
By the way, didn't "server tech guy" cancel the immunity deal recently by deciding to take the 5th? (I get mixed interpretations of this from Googling; I'm not a lawyer.)
Table-ized A.I.
Power isn't supposed to be an argument before the law. The reason they aren't prosecuting the underlings is because they'd have to prosecute her. It is known that people like Huma Abedin, who is her Chief of Staff, tried to get her on to something more secure. The fact is that *she* didn't want to. Prosecuting her underlings for not opposing her may be possible, but would probably immediately expose that any intent to break the law started with her.
The issue you are proposing is not really a contradiction. They might prosecute an underling as a scapegoat, but they can certainly benefit from the same umbrella as their boss does. Especially if prosecuting an underling could be just as bad for the boss's campaign as for the underling.
To be honest, I don't actually think they're actively shielding her, they just don't want to go down the path of prosecuting her or her people if they can avoid it. That's the problem with power, it makes people not only less able to mess with you, it makes them less inclined to as well.
Or 18 U.S. Code 2071: (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Cornell University must have left off the crucial clause of that particular section. Due to today's events, it clearly reads:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Unless they are named Hillary Clinton, in which case there will be no fine, imprisonment, or charges whatsoever.
See! It's right there in the statute!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If she was so innocent, why did her IT guy plead the 5th so many times? Honest question.
Not saying she didn't break the law, not saying she shouldn't be prosecuted/punished, but... I would bet she and her department were far from the first to ever to be complacent about security and following accepted protocols. Her email server(s) might have been potentially _more_ secure than a number of government agencies which scares the hell out of me. Maybe the FBI and the DOJ should be scrutinizing all government employees and agencies, I'd suspect they discover many of the same issues.
There is a reasonable third option; the Libertarian guy and several others I think.
Problem is, no matter what, this is an election between pubs and dems. Like it or not, these are your choices.
Trump or Clinton. Which one scares you less/
Here is the Law: (18 U.S. Code 1924)
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection
(a). (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security
Others have gone to jail for one impropriety relating to this law. Note how 'intent' is not part of the law.
Clinton violated this law many times over.
Her mail was hacked and the data Is in the hands of foreign governments, and we know this is a fact.
There is no reason that We The People are held to laws that the government is not.
Most of the u.s. government are criminals by a few measures, the least of which is that they take an oath to work for We The People, and then all they do is piss on us.
That should be "which contained" or "containing".
Is it much of a surprise that the original is correct?
At the bottom of the
Unfortunately, this campaign comes down to either electing someone who represents everything wrong with the status quo, or the guy who represents everything that could go wrong with trying to change the status quo. I am thoroughly not looking forward to the next four plus years.
I hate to break this to you, but whoever becomes president is almost certainly going to be re-elected in 2020. Don't think so? You're likely wrong about this. Consider the following list of presidents since 1900 who lost a re-election bid and why they lost.
William H Taft - Intensely disliked even by his own party to the point that over half of them backed a third party candidate instead (Teddy Roosevelt).
Herbert Hoover - Punished for being president during the Great Depression and having no solution for it.
Gerald Ford - Tarnished by the Nixon pardon and economic malaise.
Jimmy Carter - Intensely disliked by his own party and economic malaise.
George H.W. Bush - Economic malaise.
Note that George H. Bush and Barrack Obama easily won re-election despite being hated intensely by almost half the voters. So the only way that sitting presidents lose re-election bids is if they are intensely disliked by their own party (Won't happen with Clinton and Republicans are unlikely to turn on Trump if he wins a first term) or are presidents under economic downturns (Obama survived this one though). So like it or not, I'd suggest planning for the 2016 winner to be re-elected in 2020. The odds are really good on that.
Sorry, I'm not following. Here's an example of the kind of legal flow I'm suggesting:
Prosecution: "Mr. X, you included mention of fact A in document B while assisting Mrs. Clinton, correct?"
Mr. X: "Yes, that is true."
Proc: "Did you know fact A was classified information at the time of preparation of document B?"
X: "If I remember correctly, I got it from a foreign news source, not a classified document."
Proc: "Which foreign news source?"
X: "Sorry, I don't remember, that was 5 years ago. We monitored a lot of different sources. I merely forwarded fact A as something to keep an eye on; we didn't validate it beyond that."
Now it would be the prosecution's burden to show that not a SINGLE foreign news source or site ever carried such info, which is probably not practically possible.
That's your personal interpretation. I can't say I really know; I'm not a lawyer and haven't seen all the relevant details.
Colin Powell, a Republican, said the classification system is unruly and abused out of CYA paranoia. That's a valid perspective to consider, being he's actually been in that position and has no reason to politically defend Mrs. Clinton. (Such statements were made before Trump was the clear GOP selection.)
It is rational to at least consider Mr. Powell's perspective, wouldn't you say?
Table-ized A.I.
I appreciate that you're trying to pick out an actual statute that she violated (instead of, like many others, simply asserting she broke the law) but I don't think that one actually cuts it. First, gross negligence requires a likely and foreseeable harm to have been consciously disregarded, not just a generalized 'oh these were classified so it would be harmful if they got out.' Second, speaking of intent, it seems highly likely an argument that Congress didn't intend the law to apply to the Secretary of State would succeed. (Superior officer? Huh? The Secretary should go tell the President? Then what?) Third, the law is also very likely unconstitutional as applied to the Secretary of State- Congress can't just criminalize stuff that an Officer of the United States might do in performance of his or her duties, even if those things are couched in terms like "negligent". (If I would have been entitled to murder you in self-defense, I can't be convicted for criminally-negligent homicide just because I was waving my gun around to scare you off instead of deliberately shooting at you.)
Hi!
Former New Mexico resident here.
Gary Johnson is pretty much worthless.
Myself, I was hoping for a Democratic disqualification due to pending indictment, so we could get a reasonable third option.
Grow up. There would be no third option more palatable than either of the current two.
Fortunately, POTUS does not require a moral/legal/intellectual/spiritual paragon.
At this point, every cycle we can elect someone better than GWB will be a huge win for humanity.
Voting for someone because they might be able to win is a sensible act - if what you're ultimately concerned with is the makeup of the Supreme Court. I assume, as a Johnson supporter, you're fine with a 'business-friendly' court - even if it's also seriously corruption-friendly too, and throws stuff like Net Neutrality out the window.
But honesty in some absolute sense is, in fact, not the most important factor in a President. What they will actually do and the policies they will support is way more important. You just happen to like Johnson's policies - so why not just admit that and call it a day?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Full context:
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
Money quote:
"a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way"
Money word:
"or"
The standard in question does not require intent at all.
tl;dr - she did break the law, but we're declining to prosecute her
...whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
If you're a Republican, and you think this is an outrage, that's not interesting, that's a given.
If you're a Democrat, and you welcome this news, that's not interesting, that's a given.
I'm in a third camp. I'm a lifelong Republican, and even I think the investigation was mostly political.
but not criminal negligence? Damn it, am I going to have to eat my words and vote for Trump? Damn it.
So Gucifer didn't do anything wrong by association then, right? Or are they holding him for the same reasons they're going after Edward Snowden and Julian Assange?
Yeah, and do you know what gross negligence is? Why don't you explain it to us so we can judge your legal credentials. Also while you are at it explain your understanding of "remove" and "trust".
By the time you are don't you'll know why no reasonable prosecutor would try to take this case to court. It's weaker than your mom's cocktail.
Mmm hmmm. And as soon as he had that immunity and told them everything he knew, they realized he had nothing to offer.
Smart people demand immunity no matter what. Everyone here on Slashdot would do that. It doesn't mean you're corrupt, it means you are following competent legal advice.
Only a total moron takes Trump by his public-facing, highly successful PARODY of a Republican candidate. Trump is media savvy, and like ALL entertainers, knows he must chose a 'controversial' alter-ego to gain a required support base.
But, in reality, Trump is pro-choice, pro-female rights, pro-useful-immigration - the PROBLEM for the neo-liberal filth is that Trump is ANTI-WAR.
The neo-liberal movement - perfectly defined by Humanity's worst living war criminal, Tony Blair, is a direct descendant of Fabian, socialist and communist movements. The perfection of the control of the masses for the most evil ends- mainly mass murder in the name of Eugenics. Hitlery Clinton has sworn alligience to Israel, and the plan to immediately take the USA to war with Iran- with the full intention to escalate to using NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the name of 'defending Israel'. The leadership of the Republican and Democrat parties had commited to a pact to see Hitlery elected as POTUS. By making Hitlery 'stand tall' by choosing official midgets for her presidential 'opponents', the door was accidently left open for wild-card Trump.
The entire mainstream media of the West, owned and controlled as it is by 'friends of Israel', has worked tirelessly to demonise Trump to no avail- actually pushing support his way by disgusted voters who are repelled by the war agenda of the zionists.
The problem the media scum have is that Trump has a broad base of INFORMED support- people who know why they would never vote for a depraved monster like Clinton. Many of Trump's supporters see him as a bit of a joke, but they'll take a joke over a guaranteed war-monger any day.
At this point, even if Trump won, Hillary would just decapitate him live during his commencement speech and put on his head like a hat, but not be charged anything for the action.
Indeed, the secret Service would likely honour her decapitation proficiency with a great many discharges, which would render legal charges unnecessary... Not that that would stop the House Republicans from demanding at least 5 separate public inquiries into her actions.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Secretary Powell is probably correct. But that's how the government works.
Would anybody be standing up for some little guy if they broke those byzantine CYA rules, though?
It would be something if this caused some change which actually helped the people who have to work with these documents every day, but no one will. They would be seen as "weak on security". So what happens is that inconveniences to powerful people get ignored, and everyone else has to deal with it at risk of their jobs and possibly their freedom. That's part of the problem in DC. Doing things that others can't with complete impunity.
...the FBI has also determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was "extremely careless" with his rifle.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
1) a private email server was not a proper place of custody
2) "extreme carelessness" == "gross negligence"
Intent is not required to be prosecuted under this statute.
"except for volume"
That's a pretty big difference. 1.7 Million documents vs 100. And Clinton's intent was, in fact, that the servers be both protected and private (hacking attempts and successes notwithstanding. If her intent wasn't to control the shit out of ever single email she sent or received she'd have put them on a government computer where others outside of her control would have had known access.
The reality is that she mishandled classified information - in exceedingly small amounts for someone in her position who probably touches hundreds of classified pieces of information every day. That mishandling was statutory - it did not follow the letter of the regulations which is intended to prevent accidental dissemination of the information to hostile parties. Instead, she put it on a server which was intentionally under her (nominally) complete control, with the intent of making sure that nobody every saw a single thing that she didn't approve. Given the paranoia of the woman, it was probably safer there than on the official servers.
This is the security equivalent of doing 67 in a 55. Most people are going to get a slap on the wrist, some people are going to get the book thrown at them, and some people who are connected or are good talkers are going to walk away with a warning. Snowden was doing 110 in a school zone, putting kill stickers on his windshield for every kid he hit. Some of those kids, no doubt, had it coming to them; but Snowden still didn't have the right to mow them down.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Nope.
The state department is not a part of the defense department, thus their information is not defense related UNTIL someone in the state department classifies it as such.
The source of the information is by definition unclassified UNLESS the sender knows ahead of time it is sensitive - in which case they won't use the internet.
Is there a way to read only comments from either people who support Clinton but aren't pleased by this news or people who oppose Clinton but find this reasonable? I'm sick of weeding through the ones that mostly say, "hooray for our side".
For any of the hundred thousand or so peons with security clearances for their minor unintentional transgressions.
Probably not, as even minor security violations tend to get people fired and prevent them from ever getting another clearance in the future.
Information coming out of the Secretary's interaction with foreign leaders and staff.
Slashdot in general is more reddit like these days... Lots of liberal opinions, lots of verbal attacks on those of us who might see some good in Trump, and so on.
For all of the haters out there, you have two choices this election: If you don't like what's happening here, you know who to vote for.
And for all of those who feel vomit in their throats when they think of voting for The Donald, please try contrasting this with how you feel supporting known criminals who flaunt the law, and who repeatedly show that they're above it.
Trump ain't perfect by any means, but he's our last chance at saving our once proud nation, like it or not.
Of course, if you prefer presidents who break the laws, politicians who meet in private to decide each others fates, while we the people get left out in the cold w/few jobs... Well you have the perfect candidate to vote for here. Don't complain though when your children have less than you, and when your children's children don't understand why the Constitution was ever written in the first place.
FBI director said so today.
She shared classified info with people who did not have clearances for the data. People like her lawyers, her email IT guy, and her buddy Sidney Blumenthal.
And further, no intent to distribute is needed. Only gross negligence in the care of classified data.
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Mr. Comey said.
Extremely careless == gross negligence.
This is just a case of the elites protecting one of their own. Some animals are more equal than others.
Military has always been held to higher standards....except the commander in chief
When Snowden and Private Manning were the hot topisc, all the cleared people I work with (myself included) were warned to *not* try to red the leaked documents, even at home or we could face termination from our jobs and loss of clearances.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
I'd rather be a standard full-of-shit AC than a dumb and blind full-of-shit non-AC with my head shoved firmly up my ass.
Did you know the FBI is comprised of mostly white gay Mormon men at its highest levels? It was in fact founded by a gay man who had infatuation with Mormons.
It's the personal extortion/god organization for the liberal, gay, and dehumanizing agenda . You might think this is fucking crazy, but it is indeed point in fact, true.
The USA should get rid of this homosexual organization who is , and always has been, above the United states law.
As for "no prosecutor would ever dare prosecute her".. How about the united states attorney fucking general? Oh that's right :)
Your list is a good example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, in that you come up with an excuse for the many cases of no reelection to justify your statement "whoever becomes president is almost certainly going to be re-elected in 2020".
In fact, of the presidents eligible for reelection in the last 50 years, four weren't reelected, five were. Makes it about fifty-fifty.
"30,000 work emails, 110 were classified, another 30,000 personal email none classified...peanuts." (Maxwell)
0.2% seems hardly gross negligence. Though to be fair a better metric would be the total number of classified emails she had to deal with. If it was 200, and she used her personal email for 110 of them, that seems a bit nonchalant.
No one has ever demonstrated how Clinton actually benefited from this arrangement, other than personal convenience. And no has ever demonstrated actual harm that came about from it. I'm certain that government is brimming with poor IT management choices that have resulted in potential breaches of security. It's practically guaranteed, given the rate that technology changes and the age of most senior government officials.
What would it say about the US if we started imprisoning top government officials for minor policy violations? That's what happens in deeply corrupt governments when forces within the government carry out vendettas again opposition. Not here, I say. As far as I can tell, she was a decent secretary of state and served her country in that capacity for several years. Prosecution over petty matters is no way to repay that kind of service.
If it were anyone other than Clinton, it probably wouldn't have been noticed (and if it were, might have resulted in a minor reprimand). But she's had a giant bullseye painted on her back for years, because Republicans always knew she'd be a candidate for president one day. This exercise has been a huge distraction from the actual issues in the election, which was probably the intention. I sincerely hope that we can now put this little sideshow behind us and start to focus on the candidates' ideas.
If Hillary Clinton had been a young male programmer who implemented a skunkwork hack to be able to BYOD so he could work more efficiently and not have to use the IT departments bad solution.
People here would utter praise.
Now she is getting alot of slack for doing what any respectable programmer would do, if forced to use bad software from the IT department.
Come one people stand up against the man who forces people to use bad equipment and software.
Just saying it like it are.
It's not like she had been the head of an agency that supports the foreign affairs activities of other U.S. Government entities critical to our safety and national defense, like the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security or something. Oh wait. Why isn't she going to jail?
Come on RoccamOccam,
You know Libertarians aren't serious about putitng foward real candidates with a chance to win.
Gov Johnson and Gov Weld only have 16 years of experience governing a US State. Neither have been elected simply because of their party machinery winning in a state they don't live and neither are a reality TV star who got rich with Daddy's money.
Gov Johnson only went from a solo handyman to creating and running the largest construction company in New Mexico. Pfft. It's not like he was married to a President or had a rich dad. Though I do give Weld props for going to an Ivy league law school.
Both Gov Johnson and Gov Weld balanced their state budgets. Unfortunately, those are uncessary skills when running for President. Clinton's experience as a US Senator and huge deficits of the GW Bush era and Trum's multiple bankruptcies are far more appriorate for our next President.
The Libertarians just aren't serious about winning.
that Edward Snowden was reckless in taking secret documents off a secure server and giving them to the press?
On the contrary; it would clear a path for Sanders to become the Democratic nominee, and in a Sanders vs. Trump election, Sanders would win.
Sanders is the geek's candidate -- another word for that is "Loser."
Except J. Edgar Hoover generally used his abuse of power for the good of the country. I know many have this feeling it was otherwise, mostly because this is what Hollywood teachers. He is famous for purging communists who were infiltrating the country, which actually was happening. There were many of these in Hollywood, much like today. They resent that. Also, he had societal rules like, no killing children in movies. Also, bad guys must be brought to justice at the end. I suppose you can celebrate having more grit in movies...much in the same way you can celebrate the resulting urban decay by moving to Detroit etc.
He also combated organized crime, Nazi infiltration, and well, making the FBI. The FBI was originally meant to be a police force filled with intelligent people, who used the most modern science and methods, to catch the worst criminals. Now, we have Hillary selling favors and state secrets, and they seem disinterested.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
And when Hillary gets elected, you'll get to see what real fascism actually looks like. Congratulations, asshole. Your team "won".
Since exposing secrets is apparently not a crime anymore, Snowden and other people who did this are free to come home, right?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Looks like Trump is going to need a new FBI director.
The Clinton crime family isn't just above the law, they are the law. Another Clinton presidency will only be further reaffirmation that America is run by a mafia. There is no line between the white collar class, the police state, the MIC, and organized crime. Nowhere is this more starkly visible than in Hillary Clinton.
By the way: Trump is stumbling now because he's doing it on cue - he's been a Clinton ally for decades. If he were really serious about getting into politics, he could start his own party and begin sweeping at the state level in a heartbeat. He'd own congress and the senate in under ten years. He won't go all in because he's a fake.
Keep that in mind when you consider what kind of ugliness you need to harness, in order to make headway with 'revolutionary' politics in America.
No more than any of a thousand senior execs, managers, engineers, sales drones, and even IT people who have engaged in "shadow IT" when the solutions offered under written policy didn't meet their needs.
The lesson here is not that Hillary is Satan. The lesson is that IT is a support organization, not a means unto itself. So if your users have a need, don't prattle on about policy, meet your user's needs. And if the big boss wants to use her iPhone or Blackberry, STFU about your policies, and work out a way to make it happen.
Imagine all the people...
Despite bias and tastes, both Trump and Sanders are true outsiders bot beholden to the machine, and either one has a real chance of shaking up the system. I do not agree at all with Sanders, but I do believe he is sincere. If Justice existed, and Sanders became the president, I would honestly support him. I can live with honest opposition. You can argue and debate, and have synthesis for real policy change. To me, this would be a step-up. I would like to imagine that the intellectually honest people in the forum could be the same way about trump. Either one would be a step-up.
Now, we are likely to get someone who is now shown to be literally above the law. Things will only grow worse from there.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Regarding: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
This is the statement of the FBI and I respect the validity finality of their recommendation that comes with this letter and the authority of the person making the recommendation.
If there is to be any debate against this outcome it shall be from a successful attack on one of the premises:
Perhaps a crowdsourcing effort can be made to find the above things. Such new evidence would question the soundness of this letters' finding. Would you like to be part of the search?
It is human nature to do what you can get away with so it should be no surprise that a government will devolve towards corruption until it is held in check. There has always been corruption in government, but we as an American people have never tolerated it - until now.
Are we as a society now willing to accept corruption as normal? Will we look the other way because the ends justify the means? We are headed in a very dangerous direction.
Look around the world. Once a society succumbs to corruption, it becomes utterly corrupt and never recovers!
So the head, the fucking head of the FBI, won't go after her. And says a stupid statement like "no reasonable prosecutor" as if his little three-letter agency is some backwoods hillbilly operation. What a bunch of fucking clowns.
Jesus fucking christ your country is a cesspool. And it's right in front of your face and nobody does anything about it. Oh wait, you'll spend 1hr every four years voting someone new in then part yourselves on the back...
You distinguish between extreme carelessness and gross negligence how, exactly?
And how does deliberately choosing to avoid using State's email platform, and instead running an unsecure system out of your house, and using that system to participate in dozens of message threads that include classified-at-the-time and top-secret-at-the-time information differ from willful mishandling? That's mis-handling by definition, and willful by definition.
And thank you for quoting the FBI director whose words exactly convey the manner in which Clinton exposed top secret information to hostile foreign governments. Her actions put that information on a platform that made is possible for such entities to see her home-hosted email. That's what "exposed" means. Like, when you take your hat off, your head is exposed. When you leave printed classified information out on a table in public, you're exposing it. That doesn't mean that we'll ever know if Russia, China, Korea, Iran, etc. stopped by to read your papers, only that through (as the FBI describes her actions) extreme carelessness, that information was available for access by those hostile actors. But sure, you just keep wishing that away. The more smug you sound, the more your wish will come true, right? Sure.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Win.
Oh fuck you, in no way should Hillary's problems here be blamed on IT.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Actually, the GOP didn't 'select' Trump., they hate him and wish he was not in the picture, other than donating money to one of their lackeys who didn't make the cut. Trump arose on his own without aid of the GOP. At least that's what many news outlets say, those that don't just call anyone who isn't voting for Hilary a GOP lackey.
My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
In comparison to our current narcissistic race-baiting chocolate-tinted proto-facist?
Everyone conveniently assumes that HRCs emails were troublesome because they weren't on a secure government server. Hello? Email secure? You know, the thing that's like printing your message on a hundred postcards and asking some random person on the street if they'll kindly deposit them in a nearby mailbox.
I don't think it's so much that the little guy is given less leeway than a bigwig, but rather the bigwigs can afford better lawyers/representatives who poke enough "doubt holes" into the case to derail it. It's why OJ got off.
It's indeed a crazy system we have, but nobody's found a better alternative that has been proven in practice.
They had to sift roughly 30k messages for this investigation; that's a lot of stuff. To have inspectors and auditors check every message real-time would be super-expensive, and probably slow down work.
Perhaps Secretary Powell and Clinton both realized you have to stretch the rules to get anything productive done under the "byzantine CYA rules".
Facing the choice of not getting anything done versus the risk getting your wrist slapped in public, the second seemed the least evil.
Those who have a lot of experience in the gov't and big orgs probably realize it's a careful balancing and act those who strictly follow the rules don't get anywhere, similar to how purely honest politicians don't get anywhere.
I know some PHB's who got awards for "getting it done" on projects with horrid security, horrid backups, horrid accessibility, horrid scaling, and bunches of other maintenance risks. They get their award, get promoted, and then dump their mutant orphan onto us poor techie grunts. By the time anyone in power realizes the originators took a bunch of cheap shortcuts, they are off doing other things in other places. If cornered, they'll say, "you have to be brave and forceful to push things through this stagnant bureaucracy". Perhaps there is some truth to it, although it seems they could have found better balance.
I am willing to view this email thing in a more nuanced way than merely "good versus bad", as the press and politicians try to portray it. Nuanced stories don't sell as well as dramatized ones. One thing I find about political issues is that the more you dig into it, the more nuanced something is. We are usually only looking at the tip of a complex iceberg.
Table-ized A.I.
"only" Gross negligence ? Do you know hard that is to prove? This case is miles, and miles away from gross negligence. Miles. Negligent? maybe. But Gross? No way. Gross requires the accused to not having taken any precautions. There is evidence that the email server she had might have been better than the one the state department IT could give her.
But you're right, defying Clinton is like defying the mob.
"Like" defying the mob?
Story I heard is that, since the mid 1920s, the Mafia had a major presence in Arkansa (starting with Hot Springs). It became a move-to site for some major ganagster organizations when things became too hot for them in New York. Eventually the whole state government became a Mafia operation, which it remains to this day. An Arkansas machine-politician governor would necessarily be a high official in organized crime.
It has a lower profile and less public reputation than the Chicago political machine (where Obama rose to the top), but is no less corrupt.
My take on the U.S. government is that it is firmly in the pockets of organized crime, and has been since at least the Nixon-Kennedy election (where both sides had solid Mafia connections - and the winning side consisted largely of the sons of a man who made his millions as a bootlegger during Prohibition.)
This would neatly explain otherwise-madness like the drug war (creating a lucrative black market, as Prohibition did with alcohol) and the gun laws (keeping the victims, and potential vigilante reformers, disarmed).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The statute in question - 18 U.S. Code  793 (f) - makes no mention of intent:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officerâ"
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
To be fair, that is still better than two clearly harmful choices.
Every working voter knows that this pattern of negligent dealing with company confidential matter, let alone national security information, would mean a quick show trial before the HR dragon, followed by the Walk Of Shame out the door with your pathetic little carton of personal effects.
That's cool and all, but how does it apply to this case? The records were in the state department the whole time. They were created there and stayed there. .
Hillary: Master, royalty, eminence, supremacy, aristocracy, nobility, gentry, upper class, elite, ruler.
Us: Peon, Peasant, Serf, Servant, Slave, drudge, laborer, gopher, unskilled (in the eyes of the elite), hick, rustic, boor, bumpkin, villain, hired hand, hayseed, rube, chattel, vassal, grunt, slogger, victim, menial, thrall, captive.
Bill and Hillary have enough dirt on many of the powerful ruling class to make sure anyone fool enough to challenge her would go down with her in flames.
Anyone not powerful would just disappear (die) if they were seen as an impediment to her money-making schemes.
Rules are made for the ruled, not the ruling class, to keep us out of their way and make sure we pay our tax.
Look at Billary's open marriage. Morals and ethics are for peons, not rulers. Do you think anything else in their behavior differs in any way from that?
And they really do not care that much about getting caught.
Let's face it. Hillary is not just a liar, she is a pathological liar. Just like Bill and Obama.
As far as they are concerned, it is not even lying if they are talking to peons.
Are you fool enough to disagree with any of this? Clearly you have not been paying attention, or even conscious.
wake up and hold your nose
I mean he should get a free pass too shouldn't he? After all, his intentions were pure and not for personal gain like Hillary.
What are you talking about? Whoever hides, conceals, or destroys any public document shall be banned from public office. Her emails are public documents.
One of the greatest advances of Western Civilization was the Magna Carta which effectively reversed the standard tyranny of human history.
Before the Magna Carta, most humans in all of history lived under "Rex Lex" (The King was the law). Anything the great leader said was law and all lived under the leader. Laws applied only to the peasants, and leaders and their cronies changed the laws on a whim to suit themselves, very rarely living under those laws themselves.
The Magna Carta established a reverse system: "Lex Rex" (the law was king). EVERYBODY was subject to the laws, even the king and his pals.
All of Western Civilization has been built upon this ever since and when things go bad in any Western nation, it's generally been tied to a failure to adhere to this guiding principle. The NAZIs ditched the idea completely. Richard Nixon tossed this basic principle. In any corruption in the West, you will find the elites not following the laws they apply to the average person.
Comey admits all this in his official statement whith this nugget:
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." - Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Just as Justice John Roberts had to imagine new words into Obamacare in order to deem it Constitutional (if you actually READ the Obamacare ruling, it's quite shockingly irrational), James Comey now imagines new words into the applicable laws in this case: The laws congress passed long ago governing what Hillary did explicitly require no "intent" for guilt (the penalty is for the act regardless of intent, to force government officials to be particularly mindful and careful) yet Comey partly justifies his actions based on questions of intent.... a clear avoidance of the plain-text of the law.
The rule of law in the USA is now dead.
Welcome to the "fundamental transformation" of America that Barack Obama promised.
If Trump is elected, Obama supporters will have no right to complain about ANYTHING he does with a "phone and a pen"...
Yep, yep... this man with "no intent" is going to prison for leaking classified material.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Libertarians pretty much want the 1300's back. I'm not a fscking caveman.
Table-ized A.I.
Why were they not using email encryption like GnuPG? With such encryption the server would be a non-issue.
Bernie was never serious. He gave her a complete pass on all this in that famous first faux-debate.
You call that "honest"????
Bernie knew his party had rigged their 2016 primary back in the summer of 2015 to guarantee Hillary as the nominee, yet he ran around pretending to run and raking-in tons of cash from his optimistic and gullible young supporters for a fight he never intended to actually wage, in a race he knew he could not win, for control of a party he himself spent decades claiming to not be a member of while caucusing and voting with them.
You call that "honest"????
Bernie not only never had a shot, AND KNEW IT, but he never even tried to change it. He did NOTHING in 215 when the rigging was underway and NOTHING in 2016 to actually try to get the scam un-rigged.... but he was happy to wallow in the adoration of the stupid and urge them to send him more of their money.
You call that "honest"????
He SAID all sorts of stuff against Wall Street banks, but he will endorse Hillary who is the most bought-by-Wall-Street politician in world history, secong to Barack Obama.
You call that "honest"????
He SAID all sorts of stuff about "income inequality", but he supports Obama and will endorse Hillary. "Income Inequality" has increased dramatically under Obama, second only to the previous huge spike, under Bill Clinton.
You call that "honest"????
Under Reagan, ALL demographic groups rose (which is why he was re-elected in a 49-state landslide victory in 1984). Under the Bushes, who are "establishment" Republicans, income inequality increased, but nothing like on the scale of Obama or Clinton.
When one is a child, it is appropriate to think and act like a child. When one grows up, however, it is time to look to facts and evidence and to make informed adult decisions based on facts. It's time to put Bernie back into the toybox. This November, the Choice is Lawless Hillary, or unpredictable Trump. Choose wisely, for you and your kids and their kids will inherit the results.
You say you hate Trump and do not plan to vote for him.... THAT is how the Clintons always "get away with it"
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." - John Stuart Mill
If your reaction to corruption on this scale is to sigh, and say "I'm too good to vote to change it", then you are looking-on and doing nothing when you HAD a choice to vote to force the rotten establishments of BOTH parties to WAKE UP and reform.
The Trumpster is FAR from my personal ideal candidate.... but there are good reasons while the elites in BOTH parties despise the guy and are throwing all the mud at him that they can including the most recent hyper-phoney "anti-semite" charge that he hates Jews because he used a 6-pointed star in an anti-Hillary tweet (hint: and ACTUAL "Star of David" uses a pair of overlayed triangles like on the Israeli flag, rather than a filled-in 6-pointed star like on nearly every law-enforcement badge and seal in the US). Trump pissed off all these same elites in the 90s when he violated the unwritten rules of the elites of Palm Beach Florida and opened his club to Jews and Blacks and then rubbed it in the face of the town council there by sending them a copy of the classic Hepburn, Tracy and Poitier flick "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner" (which highlights elites and their hypocrisies on race relations)
Actually, we live in 1300s now, with Government controlling all the serfs who are required to pay tribute to the king (and soon to be queen), who write laws they themselves don't have to obey. So, Strawman.
And you forgot "dirty water, pollution, Somalia, and tossing grandma off a cliff"
And Cavemen were long gone by 1300, by racist Homo sapiens who killed them all off. Give back Europe to the Homo neanderthalensis! They were here first!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Comey clearly admits to the legal quagmire:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." (more on this below)
Comey clearly stated that Hillary and her sycophant hacks have been boldly building a mountain of lies:
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
Comey admits that a different standard is being applied than he would apply to anybody else:
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
R.I.P. "rule of law" and "impartial justice"
The "fix" was in the moment Bill Clinton and Comey's Boss Loretta Lynch (hired by Clinton) "accidentally" met a few days ago aboard her government plane at the airport in Arizona, surrounded by FBI men telling people no cellphones and no cameras were allowed near the meet-up. If that meeting was just a happy casual chance encounter of old friends, why did the FBI (who along with Comey, work for Lynch) not want any photos getting out??????
You Obamabots and Hillary fans can keep supporting this crap and cheer from your high perches on the fantail of our sinking national Titanic, as you imagine that all this lawlessness and badness will only hurt the right-wingers you despise.... but you should be terrified that someday a politician you dislike will get into power and then use every single one of these evil precedents against you and your causes....
That's a great improvement over the other two
It was Clinton guy Sandy Burger who smuggled documents out of the National Archives to be hidden/destroyed (post 9-11 and probably dealing with the Clinton admin's handling of Bin Laden... but we will never know because he was only caught on his last visit).
General Petraeus allowed his biographer Paula Broadwell (herself an Army officer with a security clearance) access to classified docs. There was no allegation that Petraeus or Broadwell leaked those docs any further nor that they placed them in an unsecure location where others might gain access. Petraues was nailed by Obama's justice department for this and for the sexual affair with Broadwell with while legal for civilians is illegal under the UCMJ (the legal code that applies to military personnel)
In short: What Hillary did was FAR worse and was explicitly illegal in that the particular statute she violated carries no requirement of "intent" and makes even the unintentional exposure of such materials to third parties a felony. The fact that Comey, who works for Lynch, who was appointed first by Bill Clinton and later by Barack Obama and currently works for Obama and has been promised a job by Hillary has tried to pretend that Hillary should not be charged because of lack of proof of intent is proof-positive of massive political corruption at the DoJ
Extreme carelessness is not gross negligence. The former is often a component of the latter.
That's the biggy. Hilary would probably walk anyway - but whoever SENT the email to her private email address wouldn't.
Think about it, someone sends you some classified email by mistake, how is that fault ?. You are legally clean provided you don't send it on and delete it.
I wonder what names are on that list then ....
Man there is a lot of fucking idiots on this thread.
The real problem here is that conservative politicians and mouth pieces have been lying like little bitches every time they've opened their mouth for years, preying on their fucking inbred base that couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map, and now that their lies have caught up to them the only way they can deal with it is to blame some giant conspiracy... which is ok, because that's all the capacity their fucking shrunk, ignorant, worthless fucked up brains can muster on a good day.
If the conservative base had any desire in the world other than to be lied to by the fucked in the head conservative politicians they elect, and the riechwing talk radio numbnuts, they wouldn't be so bent out of shape when reality steps up and slaps them in the face.
This whole bullshit thread simply reinforces the obvious: republicans are nothing more than reality challenged whiny little bitches.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You distinguish between extreme carelessness and gross negligence how, exactly?
I use my eyes and ears. They're very distinct words, not something people would easily confuse, hardly a Mondegreen at all. Certainly not a plausible misreading.
I don't know about you, but I can use my brain and I don't feel a need to manufacture statements like you seem to do. It appears that I've got a sense of integrity that you don't possess or you'd refrain from your own deliberate misrepresentations. That tendency of yours actually costs you since you appear hysterical and unreasonable yourself.
Well, I suppose you might have some mental defect. Have you had other neurological difficulties, perhaps?
What are you talking about? Whoever hides, conceals, or destroys any public document shall be banned from public office. Her emails are public documents.
Well which is it? Are her emails public documents, or are they state secrets?
Are you saying my Trump University history textbook is wrong?
Table-ized A.I.
They don't even try to hide their criminality any more.
This is going to end badly.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The court has created so many new "Rights" that they are now ignoring what is actually found in the constitution as a "right" in order to support "rights" that aren't actually enumerated.
And as a Libertarian, my charge to the Court would be to support "rights" (not make them up) found in the Constitution first, and not come up with fancy legal reasoning to trump them with "new" rights not actually found in it. The recent rulings in favor of the state (cell phones/computers aren't "papers") clearly the Court doesn't really care about the actual Constitution. So, my view of the court is likely to be not exactly what you're expecting.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
1. The server was not a device approved for the storage of such classified materials (therefore it was a crime to use it thus)
2. The e-mails sent and recieved were via insecure links (thus a another crime)
3. The people running the server had no security clearance, but by virtue of running the server had full-access (another bunch of crimes)
4. The server also hid a mountain of evidence from lawsuits and FOIA requests, interfering with the judicial and legislative branches ability to have their rightful access (another pile of crimes)
5. Clinton and her team have told the courts under oath in the Judicial watch case that non of this was going on (more criminal acts),/p>
Need I go on? You brain-dead extreme partisan hacks are destroying the most-basic rule-of-law that underpins civil society.
I hated Nixon, but I guess there was really no "there" there, and no reason for the guy to resign.... he and all the people in his party should have just thumbed their noses at their critics and the laws; his party should have circled the wagons and defended his illegality no matter what.... THAT's the "Chicago way"... that's the Clinton/Obama/Progressive way. The Ends Justify the Means!
Ask yourself this, hyper-partisan monkey: What politician of either party will ever again submit to the rule-of-law if he/she can muster enough partisan support to just violate it in-your-face? Will ANY future president every resign? Will ANY future congress force a president of the same party to resign? Mussolini-like fascism is becoming the new normal in this country and the under-30 crowd should be very worried about what the country will be like in 30 more years.
No sensible prosecutor should pursue a politician simply because a batch email he sends goes to the wrong recipient. What should be in place is a checkbox in any donation form that the donor is a citizen of the USA, and therefore allowed to give to the recipient. The alternative is for the foreign friends of a candidate to fool his opponent into making the request, and then getting them charged.
Actually, your entire approach to deflecting attention away from Hillary's mammoth display of unethical, incompetent, hypocritical, lying behavior is to attempt to sound condescending as you trot out lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Don't like the way the FBI director used the word "exposed?" Quick! Tell someone they've got a mental defect. Don't like the fact that her blathering assurances that she never handled any email classified at the time, despite the fact that the FBI pointed out the untruth of that statement over a hundred times over? Quick! Say that the person pointing that out has no integrity! Which is hilarious, given who you're cheerleading for.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
and throws stuff like Net Neutrality out the window
Net Neutrality wouldn't be a problem if the artificial monopoly of the cable provider was tossed out the window.
But the only realistic way I could see out of that would be for the ISP to not be the owner of the transmission lines. And I can't see that happening anytime soon either.
So if your users have a need, don't prattle on about policy, meet your user's needs.
And what if one department's needs directly threatens another department's? What if one user's "needs" threatens the security of the company?
IT isn't there to just "meet needs" as if the answer to a user's every question is "yes, that's a good idea, we can do that."
00:32:33,039 --> 00:32:37,080
No. He poisoned the water
supply at KGB headquarters...
523
00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:40,120
with the Amazon
tree frog poison.
524
00:32:40,200 --> 00:32:44,160
He must have been wiping those
little tree humpers for years.
525
00:32:45,120 --> 00:32:49,160
Incapacitated 1600 people and
left with evey secret we had.
526
00:32:50,039 --> 00:32:53,080
The guy makes a fortune
selling information.
527
00:32:53,160 --> 00:32:56,000
He knows so much even
the US won't touch him.
"The investigation determined that 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information, including 8 chains containing information that was marked as top secret at the time, Director Comey said. " (Violated the law, check)
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," (Career suicide or a rule of law or practical in the courtroom reason?)
"All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information , or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct , or indications of disloyalty to the United States , or efforts to obstruct justice . We do not see those things here. (Career suicide or honest opinion?)"
I wonder how the same sort of balance sheet would look for Gen. Petraeus
If he's guilty, somehow, in a nation governed by laws Madam Secretary has to fit into the same system.
What's the argument to fit her in?
Actually, your entire approach to deflecting attention away from Hillary's mammoth display of unethical, incompetent, hypocritical, lying behavior is to attempt to sound condescending as you trot out lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Don't like the way the FBI director used the word "exposed?" Quick! Tell someone they've got a mental defect. Don't like the fact that her blathering assurances that she never handled any email classified at the time, despite the fact that the FBI pointed out the untruth of that statement over a hundred times over? Quick! Say that the person pointing that out has no integrity! Which is hilarious, given who you're cheerleading for.
You're the one who is making obviously false representations in this forum and now you're adding blatant hypocrisy to it, since you're exercised no reluctance in your use of ad hominem yourself.
Which is sad, because if your accusations had merit, you'd want to avoid appearing with the slightest amount of deceit on your own. It's way too late to claim an unintentional mistake, so it must have been on purpose.
Either you can't understand what you're doing wrong, or you simply don't have the integrity to avoid doing it.
So, mental defect that you can't comprehend the difference in actual words, or lack of integrity where you can't avoid your own misrepresentations? Which is it?
It's got to be one or the other. Are you mentally incompetent, or are you ethically compromised?
The idea of Clinton being exonerated really seems to be a personal tragedy to a lot of you. You furiously dig for any scrap or phrase or any citation that will support your cause that SHE could do it but nobody else could because she is the anointed or something. Some of you posting here claim to have a security clearance yourself say that.
I find the last paragraph in fairly insightful:
Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.
That really sums it up. Yes it isn't right, but people are trying to get their job done and sometimes the security rules just aren't serving the purpose.
You can argue that Hillary "gets away with it and nobody else does" all you want but it is equally valid to say Hillary gets investigated over it when nobody else does. You can say she was "careless" but what she was really careless about was not so much state secrets as giving her relentless opponents an opening to attack.
The only point that needs to be made now is that if the government wanted to prosecute her they would. The FBI has admitted she has been lying to us about her private server being used for convenience. The feds pulled up a law written in the 1700s to pressure Apple, is anyone here dumb enough to believe there are not plenty of laws they could pull up if the server belonged to a guy named Assange instead of Clinton? Now before any body start ranting fuk Trump and his fascist racist campaign. He belongs in freaking Zoo with all the other racist clowns. This whole thing just shows how corrupt the government is and how little hope we have in this election. Two crooks running for president of our great nation and there is little we can do about it. 'Murica fuk yea
There is a reasonable third option; its the Libertarian ticket. Gary Johnson is a former governor of New Mexico, and conforms to the standard of law abiding, reasonable politician, which neither Hillary nor Trump does.
You can break any law when your last name is Clinton. Unless you're Roger Clinton.
I suppose this is the FBI's way of ensuring their budget is increased after this election year.
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
On your first point, "consciously disregard" indeed seems pretty much "intent". I got "-1" total points for saying intent is required, but the "damaging" reply is merely using different words for "intent". (Yes, I am griping about mod points).
Maybe there's somehow a legal difference, but it's probably subtle and may not make much difference for us non-legal muggles nor juries.
Google:
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care."
Table-ized A.I.
Extremely careless == gross negligence.
Legally, not true. Literally, they certainly sound similar, but gross negligence has a very specific (non) meaning in law.
It's basically up to every step in the chain from investigation, through charging, through indictment, through prosecution to determine that they were or were not (often quite subjectively) "beyond" careless.
I don't think she was in this case. Stupid, yes. Criminally? Na.
If she were a regular employee of somewhere, sure, she'd lose her job. Maybe even get some probation. But she was the Secretary of State. Like it or not, there is definitely a higher barrier to prosecuting her for the way she handled State business than joe schmoe down in Accounting. This is actually a regular concept in *most* democracies.
I am in the military and deal with classified information daily. In order to gain access to secret systems we are required to go through annual training, and have very clear guidelines and restrictions on how information is to be handled. There is no excuse, we all received the training and signed a AUP, a minor incident not involving data being compromised results in a suspension of access and retraining. For us, gross negligence or intentionally violating regulations and guidelines like this would result in a nice multi-year all expenses paid vacation to Ft. Leavenworth. There are no justifiable excuses like "I didn't know" or "It wasn't intentional". The confidentiality part if the CIA tried is our primary concern, to the point where it is a PITA, but we understand the reasoning behind it. There is no excuse for something like this, and it is straight up insulting that we at the lower levels take such care, and have such severe consequences, but the higher ups in the State Department can get away with doing whatever they want with no consequences.
What? So stupid that they were overwhelmed by the intelligence people from the administration led by an idiot? That Clinton's (both B & H) statements from way before the war about Saddam where baseless?
And even after? "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors." [H Clinton].
P.S. did not vote for Bush, did not support the war. The blame for it all fall squarely on those who did support it.
Legally very true as the term usage is coming directly from the relevant statute. Specifically 18 USC. 798(f). When you obtain a clearance you sign a legally binding agreement that you will proactively protect the information you are entrusted with. Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Even if the transfer of the classified information, including 8 instances of TOP SECRET information from their respective classified networks to Hillary's private email account located on the Unclassified internet was entirely accidental (which it is not. You do not move classified information to unclassified networks, or to networks of a lower classification than the information holds.) it would still be negligence to not recognize that such information does not belong on that network and needs to be removed and the storage media turned in for destruction or classification and storage.
Extremely Careless does in fact equal Gross Negligence.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
The court has created so many new "Rights" that they are now ignoring what is actually found in the constitution as a "right" in order to support "rights" that aren't actually enumerated.
And as a Libertarian, my charge to the Court would be to support "rights" (not make them up) found in the Constitution first, and not come up with fancy legal reasoning to trump them with "new" rights not actually found in it. The recent rulings in favor of the state (cell phones/computers aren't "papers") clearly the Court doesn't really care about the actual Constitution. So, my view of the court is likely to be not exactly what you're expecting.
As a Libertarian, you have the wrong approach, because instead of defending "Rights" on their own substance, you fall back on a position that is prone to rampant abuse, namely the adhesion to the "Constitution" instead of the principles of Liberty.
Your view of the court is likely to be a flawed one, that is actually to the detriment of all of us.
What you should do, if you were an actual Libertarian, is dismiss anybody who relies on a Constitutional approach, in favor of someone who can make an argument for liberty and rights in their own words.
Besides? Riley was not decided how you think. It was even a unanimous decision. You don't look good when you get facts like that wrong.
Hey, look! An anonymous coward will talk about ANYTHING except the subject matter! Look over there! He's pretending to be upset about someone pointing out his callow rhetorical laziness, again in order to avoid addressing the actual evidence of his employer's reckless security behavior and public display of repeatedly lying about it. Quick! Talk about the person mentioning the facts! Anything to change the subject away from Hillary Clinton! We don't want to anger her if she becomes aware that one of her forum shills is too lazy to work off of her talking points.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It is already happening. Municipal based transmission ownership, to a COLO facility where you can order/purchase the services you want, from the vendor you like best. The fiber lines are the same as "streets" maintained by the municipality, and the services are open to any and all (think FedEx vs UPS vs USPS).
The fact is, once you get past the problem of the last mile, the monopoly goes away, Net Neutrality is a non issue, as the vendors will actually have to compete for you as a customer.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I wasn't referring to Riley. I was referring to the more recent ruling where it was decided that "computers" aren't "papers" (5th Amendment) and thus aren't subject to the 5th Amendment.
And as a Libertarian, I can argue the merits of Liberty without the use of the founding documents just fine. However, since the framing of the whole country was founded upon the Constitution, I use that as a LEGAL document that enshrines the very concept of what Liberty is into a framework of an absolute (until changed).
As a Libertarian, I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY purpose of government is to protect the Liberty of those that cannot defend themselves against the rule of the Mob. As such, should be limited to that Function alone. Imagine a system where Police didn't do anything except defend the Liberty of citizens minding their own business. Where Prosecutors actively defended citizens from criminals who subverted Liberty, not just prosecuted common crimes. Imagine a court system where LIBERTY is the guiding principle, not usurping the power of the people to govern themselves and giving that power to the Government to rule over us.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Having a deal with the Department of Justice is quite different from having such an arrangement with Congress, and as zany as it may sound, the DoJ deal may include a directive to invoke the 5th during any external inquiries. These things happen from time to time. -PCP
You mean this guy?
Pbbbbt..... A couple of two-term governors that cut taxes and turned budget deficits into surpluses? These idiots who want to get the government out of your bedroom? Who want to end foreign wars?
Please.....
Interesting how no one pays any attention to Congress while this election is going on. They continue to do nothing but serve themselves and their handlers to the best of their ability. We have the best Congress money can buy.
I hope no one was surprised!
Comey lied to Congress when testifying about Apple phones, saying he was only interested in the San Bernardino phone, when he really wanted Apple to do his bidding and give the FBI a key to all Apple phones. So, why should anyone expect him to be honest about prosecuting Traitor Hillary? It's obvious the Clinton's have the Democratic party in their pocket and have gotten incredibly wealthy parlaying their government positions into cash "donations" to the Clinton Foundation slush fund.
The FBI is obviously confused. FBI Directory Comey said in his briefing that the FBI could find no evidence that HRC's server had been hacked. Then why do (or did) the FBI have Gucifer extradited and imprisoned here in the US? I don't know whether it's do or did, since I heard he was found dead in his cell having committed suicide. Another HRC suicide?
A computer may beat me at Chess, but I always win at Kickboxing.
It seemed to me that the decision to not indite her was forced on him, and he made the statement as strong as he could under the circumstances. This is, after all, a corrupt Chicago administration. I know that if I had done half of what Clinton had done, I would have been marched into my bosses office and told I was fired. Then, I would have been marched into HR and told what to expect after the firing and to fill out the termination paper work. Afterwards, either the FBI would pick me up there, and I would see my computers at the trial, or I would have driven home to see all my computers being picked up and be arrested there. I would NEVER hold a security clearance again no matter how the trial went, and how sleazy my lawyer was. I've held both secret and special access clearences. This is treason, pure and simple.
I wasn't referring to Riley. I was referring to the more recent ruling where it was decided that "computers" aren't "papers" (5th Amendment) and thus aren't subject to the 5th Amendment.
You're making yourself look bad again. It's the Fourth Amendment, rather than the Fifth Amendment which refers to papers and searches, and no, as I said, the decision in Riley was clearly that they are covered.
I gave you an actual case. It was very clear. Now that you get even more confused and go onto the Fifth Amendment, I begin to doubt your reading even more. Perhaps this misleading story is what lead you astray?
In reality, the circumstances are quite different than a lot of the hysteria portrayed. There was a warrant, and it wasn't even the Supreme Court.
At most, you may be confusing some Fifth Amendment questions with regards to revealing passwords to encrypted computer, but even that does not mean there is no warrant issued.
And as a Libertarian, I can argue the merits of Liberty without the use of the founding documents just fine.
Then I suggest you do so, rather than rely on a false standard. As it goes, you're pretty poor on the particulars of actual discussion so far.
However, since the framing of the whole country was founded upon the Constitution, I use that as a LEGAL document that enshrines the very concept of what Liberty is into a framework of an absolute (until changed).
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong, as the Bill of Rights specifically states otherwise in the Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I can criticize the writers of the Constitution for many things, but no, it clearly states that the Constitution should not be construed as an absolute framework.
Again, your method is one prone to abuse.
As a Libertarian, I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY purpose of government is to protect the Liberty of those that cannot defend themselves against the rule of the Mob. As such, should be limited to that Function alone. Imagine a system where Police didn't do anything except defend the Liberty of citizens minding their own business. Where Prosecutors actively defended citizens from criminals who subverted Liberty, not just prosecuted common crimes. Imagine a court system where LIBERTY is the guiding principle, not usurping the power of the people to govern themselves and giving that power to the Government to rule over us.
Well, esteem your goals though you might, your approach is another matter. That approach, such as it is, is the wrong one for you to achieve these ends.
Because, you see, for liberty to be the cause across the land, it must reside in the individual heart, but you disavow that in your stated method of selection where instead of relying upon an assessment of rights by one's own judgment, you abjure it into a document written by men no longer living.
A recipe for disaster, as well demonstrated.
I understand what your saying and agree with much of it. I'm not sure how old you are, but we cannot survive another idiot peanut farmer like we had in 1977. The world is far to unstable and the threats too great to have another fool occupy the Oval Office. Besides, I don't like all the dead bodies generated by them that you'll never hear about to clean up the mess they make.
So, mentally incompetent or ethically compromised?
Which is it? You have to make a choice, it's one or the other.
Sad reading:
p. 122, Section III, Subsection "INSPECTOR GENERAL’S ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES", Subsubsection "Information and Security Management" http://www.state.gov/documents...
Why do we need more drama from her? Is it fair to America?
Bernie's bots are now Hillary's
It is already happening. Municipal based transmission ownership, to a COLO facility where you can order/purchase the services you want, from the vendor you like best. The fiber lines are the same as "streets" maintained by the municipality, and the services are open to any and all (think FedEx vs UPS vs USPS).
I love the idea, but if it catches on, expect the broadband providers and their lobbyists and their paid Congresscritters to fight back hard -- they've already been able to get municipal broadband banned in many states. There are two situations that could happen, each of which would be equally fought against:
1) The local/state government purchases the existing lines through eminent domain, existing broadband providers have to rent those lines like any other ISP. Expect this to get struck down with many a "government takeover" or "theft from a private company" and "government trying to destroy an industry" argument.
2) The local/state government installs alternative cables throughout the city, other ISPs could lease bandwidth while existing broadband providers use the lines they own. This can and would be struck down for the same reason why municipal broadband was outlawed in various states, under the idea that governments may not create organizations to compete with private business. So many some might allow this, but most business-friendly states wouldn't allow it.
Either is a big long-shot.
For anyone interested, here is a link to an article on the topic: http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Politicians have privilege; They will not be prosecuted;
They can commit crimes in the name of serving the country;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
The FBI describes Clinton's deliberate actions as "extreme carelessness" - which is deliberate hair-splitting designed to avoid the word "negligence" EXACTLY because that would demand criminal prosecution.
If any reporter has the balls to ask Comey to describe the difference between "extreme carelessness" and "negligence," it will be interesting to watch him squirm and dance.
I predict no reporter will do so.
So tell us what we want to know: who got a blow job?
I can't fathom why you're so overjoyed that the choice for our next President is still between a narcissistic race-baiting Dorito-tinted proto-facist and a vote-for-me-because-vagina self-enriching-at-the-publics-expense focus-polling-before-standing-for-anything unindicted felon.
Myself, I was hoping for a Democratic disqualification due to pending indictment, so we could get a reasonable third option.
To put it another way, even though you yourself can vote for anybody you want to for president, nevertheless you were dismayed that others might vote for people you find unacceptable, so you were hoping that would be prevented.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Yes, you can vote for whomever you wish, and I hope that everyone does. But the reality of the thing is that the two major parties get 95% of the votes; I'd like to see one of them nominate someone who isn't completely unqualified and totally naive to the damage they cause just by opening their mouth, or the most corrupt politician in three generations.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
A reasonable former federal prosecutor, Rudy Giuliani, strongly disagrees with Comey's "No reasonable prosecutor" bullcrap. http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
... of people prosecuted (and convicted) for mishandling classified.
She can run her own mail server, send her own correspondence outside of FOIA reach, unencrypted and in foreign countries where the sensitive information can leak, all of this knowingly against the policy, on multiple counts.
And it's not prosecutable.
So how much further would one have to break the law before getting prosecuted ?
"Net Neutrality wouldn't be a problem if the artificial monopoly of the cable provider was tossed out the window."
Yes, yes it would. There still are and still only would be a handful of major datacenters and so long as that is true net neutrality will be an issue. Net neutrality is about greed, publicly traded and large corporations are profit machines, people stop being people and start being a job title when they walk in the door and the only driving force or motive for anyone is profit. Doing away with regulation isn't going to solve anything, corporations and greedy individuals will screw the masses simply because they can and it MIGHT be profitable.