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 They would get butt hurt and it might even hurt their career (and might get them fired and their clearance withdrawn) but federal prosecution for all practical purposes does not occur in this kind of situation.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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.