Slashdot Mirror
The FBI Recommends Not To Indict Hillary Clinton For Email Misconduct (theverge.com)
FBI Director James Comey says that his agency isn't recommending that the DOJ pursue charges against Hillary Clinton for setting up a private email server as Secretary of State. At a press conference on Tuesday, Comey added that while there is "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," they think that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." The Verge reports:The recommendation is the result of a painstaking investigation by the bureau, which uncovered a number of new details. The investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain classified information, including 8 chains contained information that was marked as top secret at the time, Director Comey said. Secretary Clinton used several different email servers and numerous mobile devices, and many of those servers were decommissioned and otherwise altered as they were replaced.
So intent is now needed to be prosecuted for a crime? Good to know. As long as I dont intend to commit that crime, I wont be prosecuted. I have never seen america so corrupt in my life. I am so disappointed in the FBI and ALL OF IT AGENTS that would allow this to happen.
FBI AGENTS: You have officially become a joke to the rest of the world. Dont expect any respect from any of us anymore.
The FBI was careful to point out that Hillary was "grossly negligent," and exposed classified and top-secret documents to hostile foreign powers, and mentions that people who do such things face punishment (as long as they're not Hillary Clinton). But he's leaving it up to Loretta Lynch to determine which punishment is appropriate. That's Loretta Lynch, fresh from her half hour "bumping into" Hillary's husband in her private plane the other day. Nothing to see here, just move along.
Oh, and if you're wondering about the FBI's sprawling, ongoing corruption investigation of Bill and Hillary's family business as it raked in millions of dollars from foreign government with business before her as Secretary of State, that's still in progress. Under Loretta Lynch's watch, of course.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The FBI indicated that they DID find classified material, with markings, in the emails that were on the server. But that it was there "without intent" whatever that means.
As someone with a clearance, one thing that gets drilled into your head through constant reminders is that carelessness with classified material is NOT an excuse. That if you accidentally leak classified information through simple negligence, you are as guilty as someone who does it intentionally.
Well, guess what. Clinton accidentally leaked classified information to third party governments through known negligence.
But she won't be charged.
This is just beyond bullshit for the FBI. We can only hope that Wikileaks steps up and really does have the evidence to prove the FBI is refusing to do their damned jobs.
From CNN's site:
No 'clear evidence' Clinton intended to violate laws.
Gee, I guess we could use that same statement on just about every rule we intend not to break. So much for rule of law.
It was obvious that they would never indict her. She's too big to jail.
Hopefully what the public remembers about this is that if an enlisted man did exactly what she did, he'd be in Leavenworth.
with her money she'll hire the best legal team out there and litigate the case until she dies of old age
Fine. I'd rather the corrupt bitch sit in a courtroom rather than the White House.
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.
Yes, the FBI director basically said, "She probably broke laws, was definitely extremely careless, but no one in their right mind is going to want to prosecute *her*.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I didn't know to what extent that they'd prosecute anyone else who wasn't someone in her lofty position, I might think they were trying to throw her in jail for jaywalking too.
I don't want to have a presidential candidate nixed for something relatively minor, but at the same time, I don't want them getting off scot free for something that would cause anyone else to be in fairly major trouble.
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.
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.
It was obvious that they would never indict her. She's too big to jail.
- true that. Maybe she needs to be broken up into a number of smaller Hillaries, each one just small enough that it can be jailed.
Comey added that while there is "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," they think that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." The Verge reports:
- so while a crime was committed, no reasonable prosecutor would bring up such a case.
What Comey means by this is that no prosecutor in his right mind would attack Hillary regardless of what she does. She could kill a man on camera and no reasonable prosecutor would attack her, they would probably declare it a "victory for the women's movement".
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
same thing with general petraeus. if it was a peon they would have gone to jail. he showed classified info to his mistress and got a slap on the wrist
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.
My poor American friends. Your choice of candidates comes down to one that is criminally negligent and the other who is a narcissistic psychopath. Good luck.
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.
At least tell us which candidate is which.
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.
If DoJ prosecutors were reasonable, Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. Fuck this double standard.
This ruling was rather obvious to not indict a Clinton, which we knew was going to happen, based on the mafia strongarm tactics of BOTH Clintons "volunteering" to meet with Lynch within the last week (yeeeeah, not suspicious at all). More importantly, this ruling also weakens an entire Nation since it now helps set a precedent for anyone accused of mishandling data classified at the highest levels.
Why punish anyone for mishandling classified data? If I were being accused, I would merely point to this entire Clinton case as my defense and wait for my slap on the wrist. Given the gravity of the violations the punishment should be devoid of any exceptions, and respectful of the black-and-white way that the government data handling policies are structured and written, which are applicable to anyone and everyone handling classified data. Her violations are black-and-white. The punishment should be too.
And we have the unmitigated gall to sit back and point at other governments and call them corrupt? That's a laugh.
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.
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.
Of course she gets away with it. The Clintons are running a vast worldwide criminal enterprise where money talks and even hints of prosecution would result in financial ruin and death threats. Clintons don't go to jail. Just wait and you'll hear nothing from the FBI career investigators---they've been silenced.
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
I think some context needs to be made in this regard (government email servers). Bush 43rd had every staff member use a private email server to avoid breaking several laws they were suppose to be following but never got prosecuted either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Politicians can do whatever they want unless we hold them to the laws governing them. Doesn't matter which party they are in.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Then vote for Gary Johnson. I know he's a (*gasp*) Libertarian. But, hell, it's time to overlook any of the relatively small issues that you may have with (*gasp*) Libertarians and start promoting someone who is not Hillary or Trump. He's the only candidate with even a small chance to save this election for everybody.
Please, don't lecture me on the nearly non-existent chance for a third-party candidacy. There has never been a presidential election like this, so you can't go by historical precedent.
I believe that Johnson will be on the ballot on all 50 states. If he can get just a bit of momentum, then he can get into the debates. If that happens, then who knows?
Talk about Johnson - push for articles about Johnson - do something!
Or, like Scott Gration, who was forced to resign by Hillary partly because he ran his own mail server.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The email server used under Bush 43 was an RNC email server established to allow gov't officials to handle party business of of gov't servers. Are you going to argue that RNC and DNC officials should conduct party business on Gov't servers? That is illegal, just as campaigning from your office is (Greyson did this from his office, Gore solicited donations from his VP office, etc) - politicians set up private offices near their official offices to conduct party/campaign business. If the RNC was wrong for having a private RNC email server, wouldn't the DNC be wrong to conduct party business on gov't servers? The issue as I recall was that the RNC 'lost' 2m emails, but everything died down when off-site backup tapes were found and no significant violations were found in the missing emails.
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.
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?
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
I would agree to HRC getting whatever punishment GW got for doing the same thing. What was that again?
Maybe she needs to be broken up into a number of smaller Hillaries, each one just small enough that it can be jailed.
There used to be a judicial process for that. Oh yeah.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
While you COULD put a domain filter on an email server, why would you want to ?
And it still doesn't explain how classified emails jumped the air-gap between the classified networks and the unclass network.
Well, other than it being a rather nasty PEBKAC problem . . .
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.
They're both corrupt jackasses. America is screwed either way - the only difference is how, in particular, they'll screw it up.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Well at least with an empty chair, there would be far less legislation enacted which almost always means a reduction in our rights and growth in the government.
The "lower-level staff member" who helped set up Clinton's email server assisted the FBI in their investigation in exchange for immunity against prosecution. He knew how serious a breach of protocol this was, and took steps to cover his ass.
There are a number of strict liability crimes that have significant jail sentences. The most common of which is statutory rape.
In United States v. Kantor, an actress deliberately misrepresented her age to appear in an erotic film. The Ninth Circuit used this as grounds to find the film's producer not guilty of child pornography. The result appears consistent with the unclean hands doctrine: someone guilty of forgery is unjustified in pressing charges on grounds of reliance on a forged document. (See "Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes" by Laurie L. Levinson.) Applying the logic of Kantor to statutory rape would raise the bar on statutory rape to negligence. Or in which post-Kantor cases has such a defense already been unsuccessfully applied?
Are you aware that the only reason you gave to vote for Gary Johnson is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Despite their respective flaws, there are actually a lot of people who are worse than both of them.
Yes, I am acutely aware of that. If I suspected that Gary Johnson was worse than either Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't be making my suggestion.
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 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...
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.
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
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.
...the FBI has also determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was "extremely careless" with his rifle.
"except for volume"
That's a pretty big difference. 1.7 Million documents vs 100. And Clinton's intent was, in fact, that the servers be both protected and private (hacking attempts and successes notwithstanding. If her intent wasn't to control the shit out of ever single email she sent or received she'd have put them on a government computer where others outside of her control would have had known access.
The reality is that she mishandled classified information - in exceedingly small amounts for someone in her position who probably touches hundreds of classified pieces of information every day. That mishandling was statutory - it did not follow the letter of the regulations which is intended to prevent accidental dissemination of the information to hostile parties. Instead, she put it on a server which was intentionally under her (nominally) complete control, with the intent of making sure that nobody every saw a single thing that she didn't approve. Given the paranoia of the woman, it was probably safer there than on the official servers.
This is the security equivalent of doing 67 in a 55. Most people are going to get a slap on the wrist, some people are going to get the book thrown at them, and some people who are connected or are good talkers are going to walk away with a warning. Snowden was doing 110 in a school zone, putting kill stickers on his windshield for every kid he hit. Some of those kids, no doubt, had it coming to them; but Snowden still didn't have the right to mow them down.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
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.
Not me, I'm doing a Bernie Sanders write-in. If enough people join me we won't have to deal with Trump or Clinton. With the two of them it's not even a case of the lesser of two evils.
A member of Australia's parliament tweeted a screenshot: https://twitter.com/TimWattsMP...