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.
I don't support Trump. But Hillary should be indicted. If not, that just show how broken the legal system is.
I don't even work for the government, much less top-secret info and assassination targets, and I would be fired if I used my personal email to do company business.
You forgot one:
6: Evidence was found that several statutes were violated.
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 They would get butt hurt and it might even hurt their career (and might get them fired and their clearance withdrawn) but federal prosecution for all practical purposes does not occur in this kind of situation.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.
Yep. See other examples like this navy reservist.
Key points: FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them. He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.
Or Petraeus who got 2 years probation along with a $100k fine. And that's just the tip of the iceburg for people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did.
But you're right, defying Clinton is like defying the mob. Ask this guy who just happened to "crush his own throat" right before testifying. Then there are all those other mysterious deaths, and so many of those.
Om, nomnomnom...
If the material was portion marked, that's prima facie intentional mishandling of classified material. It's not just negligence.
Bernie has not technically withdrawn yet. So seeing the last of Hillary would mean it would be Bernie vs Trump.
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.
A friend of a friend works in a rather sensitive area in Washington, I asked him once his opinion of this whole thing and his answer was rather telling: "If I ever brought my work home... I'd be in prison"
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I think some context needs to be made in this regard (government email servers). Bush 43rd had every staff member use a private email server to avoid breaking several laws they were suppose to be following but never got prosecuted either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Politicians can do whatever they want unless we hold them to the laws governing them. Doesn't matter which party they are in.
The problem is for the statutes she was accused of violating there is no distinction between intent and negligence. Merely being aware of the existence of her server was technically a violation of the statues if not reported let alone being an active participant in their use. Then of course their is the know cases of document destruction which itself violates several statues.
Comey even went so far as to say that anyone else in the same situation as Clinton would most likely face sanctions but that they weren't suggestion any against Clinton simply because "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
According to the statues there is no difference between negligence and intent so yes, except for volume, Clinton and Snowden were in violation of most of the same statues concerning classified materials. Snowden may have extra charges related to the means he used to extract the data and some actions he took afterward but the underling violations concerning the data itself are the same.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
On July 2 Lynch stated that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is recommending no indictment so none will occur.
Not only that, I have a clearance and I was briefed that I was not to look at any leaked emails I might happen to find online. If I did, I would violate my security clearance and suffer dire consequences (loss of security clearance up to prosecution). This is on both company and private computers. Your average uncleared person faces no such punishment.
What's ironic is I would be punished more harshly than her - when she was responsible for the mishandling the classified info in the first place.
Now the big question is:
Since she has an obvious pattern of mishandling classified info, will she have her security clearance revoked, and will they deny her one in the future?
(Posting as AC for obvious reasons)
If they charge her and rule that she can't have a security clearance, but she gets elected anyway or is already elected then they are going to be in a hell of a bind.
It doesn't work that way. The executive branch ultimately decides who does and doesn't get a clearance.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So intent is now needed to be prosecuted for a crime?
Mens rea is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
Trump supporters were previously Bush supporters, and Bush did the exact same damn thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He even refused to turn over e-mails under subpoena: "The White House stated it might have lost five million emails"
At least 5 different investigations were hampered by his private e-mail account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And Jeb did the same thing, too:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/je...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Or, like Scott Gration, who was forced to resign by Hillary partly because he ran his own mail server.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
30,000 work emails, 110 were classified, another 30,000 personal email none classified...peanuts. There is nothing there to prosecute on.
You guys need a new witchunt - quick! Is there more Benghazi inquires lined up? The first seven haven't turned up anything, but lucky #8 could be the one!
All hail her Grace, Queen Hillary of House Clinton, President of the US and of the Congress, Chosen of the Street, and Detested by the Realm.
I thought Petraeus intentionally gave access of clearly marked classified information to his reporter girlfriend. How is that the same thing? I looked at Nishimura's case and that was another blatant intentional misuse of clearly marked classified information.
No question, Hillary Clinton should not have operated a private email server as Secretary of Sate, but "people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did" is factually incorrect.
Greed is the root of all evil.
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?
I would agree to HRC getting whatever punishment GW got for doing the same thing. What was that again?
Mens rea is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
Incorrect. There are a number of strict liability crimes that have significant jail sentences. The most common of which is statutory rape. A number of crimes relating to classified documents are strict liability as well.
The corner of a round room
Except that none of that is true. His trial wasn't starting in 5 days and he wasn't scheduled to testify against Clinton at all.
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.
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?
Mens rea [wikipedia.org] is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
National security matters, such as those defined by espionage-related statutes, are specific exemptions to that concept. Mere negligence is enough to make you a felon. 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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Indeed. I have many friends with clearances, some quite elevated, and their hair is absolutely on fire over this. They'd all be, at the very least, beyond redemption and at the end of their careers if they'd done half of what Clinton did. And she's smiling and lying about it, which her supporters just LOVE.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
Not me, I'm doing a Bernie Sanders write-in. If enough people join me we won't have to deal with Trump or Clinton. With the two of them it's not even a case of the lesser of two evils.