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.
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!!!
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.
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.
with her money she'll hire the best legal team out there and litigate the case until she dies of old age
Fine. I'd rather the corrupt bitch sit in a courtroom rather than the White House.
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.
the only people who seem to care about this case are trump supporters. his poll numbers are down which is why i'm seeing the memes on my facebook feed from trump supporters
I care about this because I used to be a DoD contractor and know that I would be in Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison already if I did the exact same thing.
No, it won't, because it's not likely to end up being a closely contested election. Trump is a fucking retard who can't even fundraise properly. Clinton's election machine so outguns Trump's that it's almost like Trump is a third party candidate, and with the GOP now pretty iffy on fully backing him, his goose is as good as cooked. Their aren't enough Mexican-hating white men out there to save Trump.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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?
So what did they find?
1. She and her aids were careless in handling classified information.
2. There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes.
3.110 emails in 52 separate chains had been determined to contain classified information “at the time they were sent or received.” Of those, he continued, eight included “Top Secret” information, while 36 chains had “Secret” information at the time it was received, while eight contained “Confidential” information, the lowest level of classification.
4. Participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
5. You or I would be in big trouble -"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"
So Questions:
1. Will she face ANY sanctions of any kind?
2. If WE would lose security clearance, will she?
3. Can someone be President if they are not cleared to see 90% of what crosses their desk?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"...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.
If DoJ prosecutors were reasonable, Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. Fuck this double standard.
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.
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.
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
Anonymous "they did it too!" excuse making on the Internet.
If they did, where's the FBI investigation? Where's the proof?
"They did it too" is not sufficient reason to exonerate anyone, but given evidence, enough reason to expand the scope of the probe. If you have any proof that "literally dozens of Republican senators and congressmen" have been playing fast and loose with classified secrets, name them and show that proof.
Otherwise, you're just a standard full-of-shit AC.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I've never had a clearance, so this is interesting to me. What could they possibly do to someone who accidentally takes papers home, transfers files somewhere, etc.? It seems to me like prisons would be full of "data leakers" if this were the case. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, so I assume those rules don't apply to contractors the same way they do actual federal employees.
I have heard that truly top secret life-or-death material (weapons designs, espionage info, etc.) is way more tightly controlled than someone's email...as in you can only access it from within a Faraday cage on a disconnected computer with a guard watching over the entrance. But it would be interesting to hear how someone with a TS clearance deals with daily work life. Are things just stamped "top secret" as a routine, kind of like how every corporate email, presentation, document, etc. is "company confidential" whether it's the lunch menu or product source code?
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.
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.
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.
...the FBI has also determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was "extremely careless" with his rifle.
"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?