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.
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.
It was obvious that they would never indict her. She's too big to jail.
Hopefully what the public remembers about this is that if an enlisted man did exactly what she did, he'd be in Leavenworth.
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.
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.
It was obvious that they would never indict her. She's too big to jail.
- true that. Maybe she needs to be broken up into a number of smaller Hillaries, each one just small enough that it can be jailed.
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:
- so while a crime was committed, no reasonable prosecutor would bring up such a case.
What Comey means by this is that no prosecutor in his right mind would attack Hillary regardless of what she does. She could kill a man on camera and no reasonable prosecutor would attack her, they would probably declare it a "victory for the women's movement".
You can't handle the truth.
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.
My poor American friends. Your choice of candidates comes down to one that is criminally negligent and the other who is a narcissistic psychopath. Good luck.
"...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.
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.
Are you aware that the only reason you gave to vote for Gary Johnson is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Despite their respective flaws, there are actually a lot of people who are worse than both of them.
Yes, I am acutely aware of that. If I suspected that Gary Johnson was worse than either Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't be making my suggestion.
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.