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.

30 of 1,010 comments (clear)

  1. Its official, the FBI has become a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Its official, the FBI has become a joke. by Zelucifer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mens rea is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.

      Incorrect. There are a number of strict liability crimes that have significant jail sentences. The most common of which is statutory rape. A number of crimes relating to classified documents are strict liability as well.

      --
      The corner of a round room
    2. Re:Its official, the FBI has become a joke. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mens rea [wikipedia.org] is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.

      National security matters, such as those defined by espionage-related statutes, are specific exemptions to that concept. Mere negligence is enough to make you a felon. The FBI describes Clinton's deliberate actions as "extreme carelessness" - which is deliberate hair-splitting designed to avoid the word "negligence" EXACTLY because that would demand criminal prosecution.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  2. Re:And she gets away with it... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:that's because clinton will outlawyer them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. I don't support Trump. by laserhead · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't support Trump. But Hillary should be indicted. If not, that just show how broken the legal system is.

  5. Re:I think this means Trump by jittles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:And she gets away with it... by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Suicide by politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Suicide by politician by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep. See other examples like this navy reservist.

      Key points: FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them. He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.

      Or Petraeus who got 2 years probation along with a $100k fine. And that's just the tip of the iceburg for people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did.

      But you're right, defying Clinton is like defying the mob. Ask this guy who just happened to "crush his own throat" right before testifying. Then there are all those other mysterious deaths, and so many of those.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Suicide by politician by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they indicted Clinton in any way, it could effectively clear the path for a Trump win, which will be a lot worse for society.

      On the contrary; it would clear a path for Sanders to become the Democratic nominee, and in a Sanders vs. Trump election, Sanders would win.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Suicide by politician by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "something bad could have happened but didn't"

      I'm assuming you have some evidence that "something bad did not happen"? So, what else have the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans let you in on? I mean, if they'd been reading her emails, that would qualify as "something bad", right?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Suicide by politician by Dare+nMc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't all of those articles support the Clinton decision? The lawyers in each of the cases basically say, the normal punishment: "almost always dealt with through what the military calls "nonjudicial punishment" or Captain's Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn't face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said."

      Petraeus was trading confidential information for considerations, nothing of the same was shown for Hillary. In both of the military examples the people were shown to have lost control of the information because those who shouldn't have had access, did access the information, that couldn't be shown for Clinton. For her another had access, but found no evidence anyone accessed any information they weren't allowed.

  8. Re:And she gets away with it... by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  9. At what point... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:So find an unreasonable one by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:And she gets away with it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:So find an unreasonable one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You forgot one:

    6: Evidence was found that several statutes were violated.

  13. Re:And she gets away with it... by internerdj · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least tell us which candidate is which.

  14. Prison for this not likely for anyone by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  15. sigh by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...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
  16. Incredibly Frustrating by 31415926535897 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. "No reasonable prosecutor" by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If DoJ prosecutors were reasonable, Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. Fuck this double standard.

  18. Re:Happens all the time in the private sector by Chris453 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you tell your CEO that he wasn't able to access his email from some unsecure consumer laptop on his private jet?

    Yes, because there are laws regarding what you can and more importantly CANNOT do in government that don't apply to the private sector. Besides being potentiality classified, official government emails are official records and have to be treated as such so that us lowly citizens can use the freedom of information requests to see them. Now that she got away with this, what is to stop the head of every government organization from breaking the law and keeping their email on their own servers? Servers they control and can wipe before evidence of other crimes can come to light.

  19. Laws are for little people by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:So find an unreasonable one by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"

  21. Re:No 'clear evidence' by Straif · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is for the statutes she was accused of violating there is no distinction between intent and negligence. Merely being aware of the existence of her server was technically a violation of the statues if not reported let alone being an active participant in their use. Then of course their is the know cases of document destruction which itself violates several statues.

    Comey even went so far as to say that anyone else in the same situation as Clinton would most likely face sanctions but that they weren't suggestion any against Clinton simply because "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  22. Re:Of course not. by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Informative

    On July 2 Lynch stated that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is recommending no indictment so none will occur.

  23. Re:And she gets away with it... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  24. Re:And she gets away with it... by RoccamOccam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.