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!!!
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
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The republicans couldn't put up anyone their electorate liked better. The democrats couldn't put up someone that their overlords liked better. If they hadn't spent 50ish years setting election laws/rules to prevent other parties from rising up and challenging them then they probably both would have completely collapsed this year into smaller parties.
You forgot one:
6: Evidence was found that several statutes were violated.
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.
Meh, that one is at least understandable. Hillary Clinton led the Department of State, so she'd be more analogous to the CEO. If the CEO of your company insisted on doing everything through Gmail so he could use his phone, do you think he'd be fired? No, of course not, he's the CEO.
Apparently the same reasoning is being used by the FBI: peons are expected to be trained to know how to deal with classified information, Hillary Clinton isn't, and could conceptually have ordered anything declassified anyway, so therefore she's immune.
You can just bet that they're going to charge some poor Clinton staffer for carrying out Queen Hillary's demands, though.
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
It's not just Clinton though, this sort of thing is rife in the system. The difference between what happens to a low level analyst and someone at higher levels is several orders of magnitude in size, even before you add in the 'political ramifications' bit. Consider the difference between one person who leaks information because of a political agenda, and another who does the same. The first is a formerly faceless IT admin, the latter a General. The IT admin leaked information about questionable programs that involved potential spying on American citizens, with the intent to spark a conversation about those things. The latter leaked information proclaiming responsibility for an act of industrial espionage on another country that could have been considered an act of war, for motives I can only guess at - but happened to be a very high ranking individual, who even today hasn't been named or accused (though rumors have floated in the press). The first guy is in exile, the latter has suffered no public consequences at all (whomever they are).
I can really only think of two high ranking individuals who were punished at all, the first being General Petraeus, the second being former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. The punishment in both cases was a fine ($100k and $50k respectively) and two years' probation.
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.
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
What??? No... Pretty much every veteran that's ever handled classified materials understands this case and wants to watch her burn. I don't care that she's a woman, or a Democrat... and there is also no way I'm voting for that other ass-clown. I just hope Gary Johnson can get some real visibility before Nov, because I really don't want to have to imagine this country under either of the other two.
The law is there to control the poor, not the other way around.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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
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.
1. Will she face ANY sanctions of any kind?
She will be placed on double secret probation
2. If WE would lose security clearance, will she?
Elected officials are granted access to classified information even if their history would exclude an ordinary person. This happens with many members of congress with questionable pasts. I remember reading that Obama would not have been granted a TS clearance, due to his many associations with foreign nationals, drug use, and associations with domestic terrorists, had he been a regular person.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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
Maybe they'll get her next time. With the Clintons, there's always a next time.
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.
We're not electing a fund raiser. Campaign donations to me are a negative anyway. Those are lot of connected individuals that expect to get something back in exchange.
You mean, 20 years of being guilty, of being impeached, of committing crimes and not serving time....
Ya...and you want to elect that again.
Yay, for !@#$ for brainz!!!
And this is why we can't have nice things.
Bye!
Yes. Point #2 was in error.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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
A buddy of mine is former military and a reluctant Trump supporter (was Cruz). Even he agreed, basically if the Secretary of State says it's sufficiently unclassified enough for her to put it on a personal server, there aren't a lot of people who can disagree with her.
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.
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. If she meets the constitutional election criteria, the FBI shouldn't really be able to block it. She can't really serve as president without a de facto clearance. And they are open to serious reprisal if they do more than issue a stern warning to the president or presumptive president. The easiest play is to recommend nobody push for indictment.
And how is that a bad thing? The way I see it, someone convicted of manslaughter didn't "mean" to do it. They aren't pressing charges because.... Clinton didn't intend to violate the law? Yes, we're back to the oligarchy of the selected ones for whom the law doesn't apply.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
She is flying around with Obama in Air Force One. He would never allow her to actually get in trouble for something like this.
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. . . .
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. . . .
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.
Rod Blagojevich did nothing and got 14 years and yet his friends got off with much more.
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?
Drug use would only matter if he had continued using.
Good thing they don't give those people the codes to launch nuclear weapons or let them in on secrets that might hurt the US if they got into the wrong hands.
Thought exercise - what if General Petraeus (sp) ran for President, would he get national security briefings just like other candidates would? If he won the election would he magically get back his Security Clearance?
There is no justice when those in power are judged by a different set of rules.
Yeah, cuz Trump always plays fair!!
Yeah, or in the real world, CEOs do have to follow rules about these kinds of things due to accidental insider information disclosure.
I remember when the iPhone came out, the CEO of the Fortune-50 company I was working for wanted one. The VP of Corporate Information Security told him "that's nice - you can have your iPhone for your personal email and making phone calls and such, but corporate email is still going to be on this BlackBerry that you are still going to carry, because I don't like explaining things in SEC depositions."
Now that the security and encryption is far better on the iPhone, that's changed.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
It's not that it would be a bad thing to do that; it's that it would be an unreasonable thing.
Wait, you're still confused. Oh, now I get it: you're using a bland definition of "reasonable."
You need to think in terms of what that word means when someone like Vito Corleone says it. A prosecutor who did what you suggest wouldn't be reasonable; he wouldn't be protecting the interest of himself and his family.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Except that it wasn't "sufficiently unclassified enough" as there were things found that were Top Secret / SAP classified at the time of sending / receipt.
That lands you or me in jail. Not her.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Actually, the classification authority runs directly to the President, Congress and the Judicial are not part of that chain. The President is the final authority on classification. Now, the President delegates a lot of that authority, but that does not mean ANYONE can classify ANYTHING higher than the Presidents classification. It means exactly the opposite.
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
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?
Yes. By definition, the President is cleared for anything and everything. In practice, I suspect that "plausible deniability" is often invoked. And in any case, no possible human mind could contain, much less review and keep current on, everything. . . .
...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.
Trump insists that she return the statues.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I wish they would have more political recommendations /s
Twinstiq, game news
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.
Yep, all that money she gets from Wall Street and Saudi Arabia definitely make her better qualified to be President. /s
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
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.'
Only for some crimes. Mens rea is not a defense or a mitigating factor in all cases.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
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 "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?
Again, most likely because she was the Secretary of State. Has any Secretary of State in the history of the United States ever been jailed for mishandling secret documents?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I see that, in your knee-jerk hurry to post, you misspelled "Bush".
Time to get a new meme record, this one keeps skipping.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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 . . . .
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.
Except that narrative has no resemblance to what happened. It wasn't that the SoS IT guys "couldn't get it done" ... they were begging her to use the official system, warned her that no using it was a terrible idea, and had to dumb-down THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT'S SECURITY so that it wouldn't throw out incoming mail from her home-brew, private server. This was done entirely so that she could avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conducting her federal job, even as she leveraged that job to rake in millions of dollars from foreign governments for her family business, making her and Bill rich.
And no, the SoS doesn't get to "say" that something marked as top secret by another agency isn't really classified and thus just fine sitting on an unsecure, internet-connected server in her house.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
3. Can someone be President if they are not cleared to see 90% of what crosses their desk?
I'm no expert, but I'd imagine being president trumps the idea of "not having security clearance". Otherwise, some government bureaucrat could just deny candidates clearance and thereby exclude them from being elected into office.
Ahh, the old 'but the other guys did it too' trope. Because that somehow excuses this current wrongdoing.
Besides, you'll recall that Libby still has a felony conviction, the $250k fine over that mess, even with the commutation of jail time, which is nothing but political patronage. What punishment is Clinton going to get for knowingly and deliberately circumventing security on TOP SECRET information, with multiple counts. And no, there's an actual declassification process for information that doesn't start and stop with the decree of one Government official that something is declassified because she wants to use her fucking blackberry.
Nice try, sycophant. Go drink some more kool aid. Laws were broken. Specifically 18 USC 793 (f). And apparently your favorite horse in this race has now been declared above the law by no less than the Director of the FBI.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I'd be hard pressed to find another Secretary of State that had this kind of body of evidence to show such misconduct. Feel free to cite examples.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I doubt he was the head of his department. C'mon folks. Of course there are different rules for the Secretary of State vs. some functionary somewhere. No, she shouldn't have used a private server for a variety of reasons - but no, she didn't break the law and shouldn't be prosecuted. The standard in question was intention to disseminate classified material, and that wasn't proven. In fact that wasn't even hinted at - except by conspiracy theorists and outright Clinton haters. And, sadly, by a portion of the Bernie Sanders contingent who simply wanted the worst to be true so their guy could win - without actually getting enough votes to win. And no, the primary voting wasn't rigged either...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
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.
Again, do any of these allegations have any merit whatsoever, or is this just more "well the other guys did it, so if my guy does it it's okay amirite" horseshit?
Vague bullshit from anonymous cowards are exactly that, and will be treated as such. If you know of classified information that has been improperly handled by members of Congress, speak up with specifics or shut it.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Hi!
Former New Mexico resident here.
Gary Johnson is pretty much worthless.
I've held both military and contractor TS clearances. Handling rules are consistent between the two, with more dire warnings on the contractor side.
Also, there is really close care taken with marking a classification, at least for a working-level stiff like me. Increased handling costs, delays and confusion make over-classifying anything unlikely. At higher levels, on the other hand, it is used to hide information internally.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
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.
I don't know about you, but I'm not voting for a Fundraiser-in-Chief.
I'm also not voting for Trump, so keep any wiseacre cracks you might have in reserve to yourself. I just literally could not care less how good of a fundraiser someone is, and it doesn't come within a mile of my criteria for my endorsement for public office.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
That didn't work out so well for Jeb Bush though did it? The dirty secret is that commercials no longer buy elections. You can't buy an election by flooding the air waves anymore. The innumerable connections between people online are what steers elections these days. People listen to their friends not ads on cable networks.
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.
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.
I'll counter your Wikipedia link with another, which has been used increasingly often in contemporary legislation. In much of modern law, intent doesn't matter at all. You only see Mens rea in relation to old crimes like murder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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?
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.
Senators and Congressman (as well as Governors since that comes up a lot too) are not actually bound by the same rules of conduct or record retention laws as employees of the federal government which is all the SoS is. Elected officials have a lot more leeway in how they handle their internal office documentation.
That being said, the mishandling of classified materials, even by an elected official, can have repercussions but it's very hard to pin on them since they rarely do it directly and tend to use proxies (such as a friendly reporter) who aren't willing to reveal sources.
It's like letting off the bank robber because Mr. and Mrs. Smith got a mortgage from the same bank. Sure both parties got large sums of money from the same place but the rules in place and methods used to get that money were very different.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Habitual drug use for a TS is much more difficult to overcome even if the person has stopped. You have to convince the investigators you will not use again which is much more difficult for someone with Obama's drug use history.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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.
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.
So, in other words, she did it, we all know she did it--SHE knows she did it--but we're going to turn a blind eye to it. But don't get any ideas anyone, this is a special deal for Hillary!
From the Director's statements:
"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."
"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.
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
"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.
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.
And also does not apply. The standard here is gross negligence. Intent is not required.
"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.
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.
The secure email system is not like opening up a second version of Outlook on your PC, they are usually stand alone terminals that are specialized to do one thing, keep the information they are transmitting secure.
So in this case there were actually 3 email systems in play.
#1: Clintons private server with all kinds of security flaws. .gov email address) which while mostly secure, has internet access and is therefore not permitted for high level classified materials either.
#2: The standard State Department email system (the
#3: SIPRNet, the real secure servers which are not connected to the internet and are used for actual classified materials (including top secret).
Various agencies have had their own internal severs hacked but SIPRNet data has only been leaked by people with direct access to a connected terminal (Chelsea Manning).
One of the issues here is that SIPRNet data was found in some of Clinton's emails and the only way for that to happen was to have someone transcribe it from the secure terminal in her office to the standard State system.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Here's the thing...
There is a lot of stuff that we don't know.
A lot of assumptions are being made in remaining spaces.
The FBI has way more information about this whole thing than anyone else.
If the FBI doesn't think they have a case against Hillary... well, that sort of says a lot, doesn't it?
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
that Edward Snowden was reckless in taking secret documents off a secure server and giving them to the press?
There is a lot of stuff that we don't know.
While that's true, we DO know what the State Department's Inspector General has reported, and that's what I'm describing above.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
1. Will she face ANY sanctions of any kind?
For punishment, they will make her President. This episode shows her eminent qualifications.
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.
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.
No, the LAW in question speaks to whether or not classified material is exposed (made available, whether or not accessed by a third party) even through negligence. The FBI director just explained that she did EXACTLY that, but for political reasons (say, pressure on his boss during a 30 minute talk about grandchildren in a private plane the other day?), he chose to use the words "extreme carelessness" instead of "negligence" so that Clinton would have the political cover she wants. He couldn't exactly make the facts go away, so he made a judgement call to give her some wiggle room, since his bosses (Lynch, Obama) made it clear that's how it's going to be.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What are you talking about? Whoever hides, conceals, or destroys any public document shall be banned from public office. Her emails are public documents.
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.
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....
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
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.
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."
This is your tipping point? You don't have much perspective, do you?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
There's so much crazy in here.
I like that it can boiled down to "Hitler Clinton loves Jews."
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.
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.
If that was true, Bernie Sanders would be the nominee.
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.
I believe you're broadly right, but there is a catch: don't trust polls too much. When someone like Trump is on the ballot, you get a lot of enthusiastic supporters who will proudly proclaim their allegiance as a way to flip the bird. But you also get a bunch of smarter, educated people who back the buffoon for one reason or the other, but who will never admit to it in public, because doing so would be extremely damaging to their reputation in their normal circles. Polls don't reflect those people, but they can and do make a difference at the booth, where they can vote their mind.
Of course there are different rules for the Secretary of State vs. some functionary somewhere
Can you point out the example of said different rules? And explain why it's an "of course" thing? In a society that respects rule of law, rules generally apply to everybody.
You could have said the same thing about the primaries. Success on the GOP side was inversely proportional to money spent. Trump even blew off one of the big debates and it had no impact on the final result. Polling showed there was no way Trump could win the nomination, yet he did. We're seeing something different with this election. The voters are pissed. Having an outsider get the nomination from one of the two parties is huge. This isn't a conventional contest. He faces a battle for sure, but I wouldn't call it until the end.
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.
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.
First link disqualified for being a partisan piece of trash, proven by the quote:
For months, conservative media figures have attacked Clinton, baselessly accusing her of wrongdoing for receiving State Department emails on her private email account while secretary of state.
(emphasis theirs)
Clearly not "baseless" when the FBI director is in a live press conference saying that TS/SAP markings were in emails on a private server, and even used the phrase "extremely careless".
Second link also disqualified as showing the incidents during the tenure of Sec. Powell and Sec. Rice as being "up-classified", which means it was not classified information at the time of sending. Also, factually incorrect when talking about the current subject, Sec. Clinton, per the god damn Director of the FBI:
In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators.
Third link includes the reason for having the RNC-hosted email servers: the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits using government resources for political reasons. If they were conducting government business via these servers, then there should be a penalty, but it would be a different crime and a completely different statute than improper handling of classified material, which is what we're discussing here. So best case, it's off-topic. Worst case, it's "OMG They did it too so so it's okay amirite!" like I said.
Go away, blind partisan hack.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
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.....
Corney was clear that that was the sort of thing people did get fired for. There's a difference between that and a felony confiction.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Top election issues with the 2016 electorate include: economy and immigration, but I'm sure being able to properly fundraise is also right up there.
The laws I've seen people quoting say that negligently leaking classified information is criminal, as is intentionally mishandling it. I haven't seen any quotes about laws concerning negligently handling classified information in ways that do not result in a leak. Do you have a law handy that says that's criminal?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
For someone to be convicted of manslaughter, they need to have killed someone. For someone to be convicted of attempted murder, they need to have intended to kill someone. The FBI couldn't find any actual leak, and they couldn't find intent, so they couldn't find justification to prosecute.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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...
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
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.
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 for one welcome our new female overlords.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I doubt he was the head of his department. C'mon folks. Of course there are different rules for the Secretary of State vs. some functionary somewhere. No, she shouldn't have used a private server for a variety of reasons - but no, she didn't break the law and shouldn't be prosecuted. The standard in question was intention to disseminate classified material, and that wasn't proven. In fact that wasn't even hinted at - except by conspiracy theorists and outright Clinton haters. And, sadly, by a portion of the Bernie Sanders contingent who simply wanted the worst to be true so their guy could win - without actually getting enough votes to win. And no, the primary voting wasn't rigged either...
Indeed In fact, if the SofS were to designate various emails as secure or not secure, who has the authority to counter it?
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.
"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.
What Republican has run their own private email server for official business that contained classified information?
When you can point to any, then we can start the investigation.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I would expect that whoever leaked the classified information from the classified network will be the one who gets in trouble. Setting up an email server for someone is not illegal, doing it with knowledge of what she was intending might have been, but you would have to determine if it was generally known. Whitelisting her domain in the spam servers however should have been a HUGE tip off that she was breaking the federal laws around official records.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
https://epic.org/open_gov/eo_1...
Classification Authority is a title given to people, it is a word of art. The Secretary of State, while doing their job is considered an original classification authority. Therefore, as part of her job, Hillary should be able to identify and properly classify information that is considered classified. Her statement that nothing was classified, and the fact that there were paragraph markings indicating Confidential indicates that she didn't even pay attention to the standard training, let alone the extra training she would have gotten as Sec of State.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?