FBI Releases Hillary Clinton Email Report (cnn.com)

The FBI released 58-pages documents on Friday detailing its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, and a summary of her interview with agents, providing the most thorough look yet at the probe that has dogged the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee. CNN reports: Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. Fallout from Clinton's use of a private email server continues to dog the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign, as her lead over her Republican counterpart Donald Trump has been cut in half since her post convention bounce last month, according to CNN's Poll of Polls released Thursday. Trump and other Republicans have stepped up their attacks connecting the emails to questions over whether Clinton gave preferential treatment to donors to her family's foundation. The bureau is making the information public in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, including from CNN. "Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure," the agency said in a statement. "We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter."

Comments

"could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

"could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information"

Funny, every one of us poor bastards who actually would go to jail over a classified release remembers the briefing distinctly. She, having had the statutory authority to determine what's classified or not with the stroke of a pen (Original Classification Authority) doesn't remember any of the training and couldn't be assed to declassify what she told her subordinates to email her. If she had any integrity, at all, she should shoot herself.

Re:"could not recall"

[sycodon]

I recall my training on confidential information when I entered the Defense Industry nearly thirty years ago. Hell, I remember the Food Safety course I took at age 17.

It's clear Hillary has some kind of Brain Injury issue going on.

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. She's either senile, incompetent or a pathological liar. Just what we need for the next president, yeah?

Re:"could not recall"

[meerling]

The way the government does things, I can see someone gaining that kind of lofty position not getting a briefing on it. It's very common for them to assume that their new boss already knows it, despite them not having come up through the ranks and subsequently having had the briefings, training, and general experience that everyone else already had.
(I've seen a similar thing happen with the officers in the military at every base I was ever at, except there you sometimes had the additional difficulty that they always assumed they knew more than everyone else of a lower rank, even if their knowledge of that sites operations were less than a slicksleeve in that had been there less than 2 weeks.)

Re:"could not recall"

[kenh]

It's heart-warming to know that she summoned the strength to attend briefings and meetings when she knew that as soon as she walked out the door she'd have no recollection of what was discussed... Apparently, the smartest, best prepared candidate for President never opted to take notes when she, as secretary of state, attended high-level meetings regarding the handling and disposition of national secrets/secure documents.

Unless, of course, she simply claims not to remember to help her avoid contradicting or incriminating herself under penalty of perjury...

Re:"could not recall"

[_Sharp'r_]

Yup. She's either senile, incompetent or a pathological liar.

I vote for "all of the above"...

Doesn't recognize what classified markings look like, doesn't remember any of her briefings on it, losing her blackberry dozens of times...

Does anyone actually believe all this stuff? She's been conveniently "forgetting" things for 25 years, going back to the Whitewater FBI investigation interviews. It's a bit much to believe she has the worst memory ever, but only when it comes to things which are potentially damaging to her criminally and politically.

Don't get me started on the fact that the FBI conveniently released all this damaging information as a Friday-Before-Holiday news avoidance dump.

Re:"could not recall"

[hsmith]

So, she is the most qualified human ever to walk the earth, but she is so incompetent that she didn't know she couldn't mishandle classified information? Adds up!

Re: "could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Please tell us what shit hole you do live in.

Re:"could not recall"

[Coren22]

Don't get me started on the fact that the FBI conveniently released all this damaging information as a Friday-Before-Holiday news avoidance dump.

Personally, I look at that as giving the media all the time it needs to go through the information before Tuesday.

I wonder when the State Department is going to release Hillary's training records to show she took the training.

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

This simply does not happen with that level of clearance.

Re:"could not recall"

[kwbauer]

Yes. She sustained this injury early in her life. It is called "I am better than you" syndrome AKA "I am not one of the little people" syndrome.

Re:"could not recall"

[magarity]

if Americans vote for trump it'll be simultaneously the saddest thing and the most fucking funny thing that has ever happened.

It will probably be more like when Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota except on a national level. Endless complaining by the establishment on both sides but not much coming of it by the end.

Re:"could not recall"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"It's a bit much to believe she has the worst memory ever, but only when it comes to things which are potentially damaging to her criminally and politically."

Actually, Narcissistic Personality Disorder combined with trauma-induced schizophrenia would produce *exactly* this effect.

Re:"could not recall"

[kwbauer]

As soon as Obama personally arranges for them to enter the Witness Protection Program?

Re: "could not recall"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"Ark in Kentucky, which many have noticed is landlocked"

Currently landlocked. Have you seen the latest AGW scare maps?

Re:"could not recall"

[myid]

I recall my training on confidential information when I entered the Defense Industry nearly thirty years ago. Hell, I remember the Food Safety course I took at age 17.

It's clear Hillary has some kind of Brain Injury issue going on.

According to this article,

Mrs. Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t remember if she was ever briefed on preserving records, but said it may have happened in 2012, after she fell and suffered a concussion and had a blood clot.

“Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received,” the agents wrote in their notes.

Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009. I doubt she got her briefing on preserving records in 2012.

Claiming that she can't remember things because of her concussion helps keep her out of legal trouble. However, it doesn't help her claim that her mind is healthy enough to be president. Well, maybe she'll say that her mind was messed up then, but that it's ok now.

Re:"could not recall"

[fahrbot-bot]

"It's a bit much to believe she has the worst memory ever, but only when it comes to things which are potentially damaging to her criminally and politically."

Actually, Narcissistic Personality Disorder combined with trauma-induced schizophrenia would produce *exactly* this effect.

Sounds about right, but what trauma did Trump experience? :-)

Re:"could not recall"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In that she mimics another very old person who was President for 8 years- Ronald Reagan. Of course, it turned out a couple of years later, he had a pretty good excuse.

Re: "could not recall"

[pixelpusher220]

In order... Worked for Reagan, GWB and Cheney

Re: "could not recall"

[jedidiah]

The dude in Shitsville, Wyoming probably has a pot to piss in which is probably more than we can say for the likes of you.

Escape from New York is itself the deranged ramblings of a very intolerant liberal who couldn't handle the fact that there are people that don't drink his particular brand of Kool-Aid.

My suggestion to you would be to not by such a hysterical ninny. It might help this Brexit thing from being less of a disaster.

Stay Calm and Carry On and all that nonsense.

Re: "could not recall"

[Rakarra]

Why would you laugh? Things will be horrible shit for just about everyone if Trump is elected. Think it's going to be like watching a reality show for the rest of the world?

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

"could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information"

Funny, every one of us poor bastards who actually would go to jail over a classified release remembers the briefing distinctly. She, having had the statutory authority to determine what's classified or not with the stroke of a pen (Original Classification Authority) doesn't remember any of the training and couldn't be assed to declassify what she told her subordinates to email her. If she had any integrity, at all, she should shoot herself.

Oh look another person rooting for the death of a presidential candidate. I'd really hate to be a secret service agent in these days and time. I know, as usual, this comment will probably get down modded to -1. Anything I write supporting Clinton tends to, but simply put the whole conversation about Hillary and Trump is so insanely biased as to be barely calculable.

You know what a hundred times more about Hillary than Trump? It is insane. There is a whole industry funded by the right to examine everything about Hillary that is obtainable to find the best bits that can be used to attack her. The very fact that she has survived such a storm is amazing. With Hillary they have to attack things that are years old. With Trump you can barely keep up with the crazy crap he said last week.

With Hillary they attack and attack and attack, but never give her accomplishments any credit. She did a decent job as a secretary of state. Her families foundation has saved countless lives. The health care she initially championed and Obama got in has no doubt saved countless others. The SCHIP program likely has saved countless more childrens lives.

What has Trump done that compares? His most significant accomplishment is being a very accomplishment con man. That seems to be the key to Trump Inc. His two most recent cons were making a lot of people believe that birther crap. (Where are the crack investigators you sent Mr. Trump?) The other one is making people believe that he would somehow fix their problems by a magic wall and then getting Mexico to pay for it. Both were truly audacious and impressive cons.

The wall would likely cost every Mexican taxpayer something like nine hundred dollars if you assume around 42 billion cost and 46.3 million taxpayers from Mexico.

It ain't gonna happen. The average salary in Mexico is $843 a month. mexico income. Do you really think they have the spare cash to help us? What's in it for them?

Even if they wanted to donate that kind of money, which they don't. They have $350 billion in debt. Why the hell would they increase that to around $400 billion just to help the US? The only way to get them to pay for the wall is to invade, and it would probably be cheaper just to pay for it ourselves.

Seriously? The very concept is ridiculous, yet people on slashdot want that for their leader? As trump might say. Sad.

Re:"could not recall"

[Kierthos]

I hate to break it to you, but something like 99% of politicians at state level and above have that same problem.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I even need the qualifier. I've met a couple city councilmen who thought they walked on water and that their feces was not odoriferous.

Re:"could not recall"

[jedidiah]

We're a Constitutional Republic with not too much power invested in the Executive and a notion of checks-and-balances. As long as that hasn't be perverted too much by previous administrations, it should all be good.

I would worry more about the Republicans in the House and Senate. Not that I want the Dems to have a rubber stamp either.

Re:"could not recall"

[Curunir_wolf]

It's clear Hillary has some kind of Brain Injury issue going on.

Yes, it was a pretty bad head trauma. The cover story was that she had a flu or something and fell over and banged her head, and that's why she was wearing those glasses. The coverup was necessary because the injury actually happened during a plane crash in Iran when she was headed to secret negotiations, which the State Department lied about, then covered up, then covered up the lie, then restored the video where they admitted the lie. It was lies all the way down.

There was also a Navy Seal killed during the crash. It must have been a fairly open secret among some folks at the State Department. When Hillary returned to work after a month-long recovery from the crash, officials at the Department gave her a crash helmet as a gift.

Re:"could not recall"

[Rinikusu]

Oddly enough, I don't and mine was less than 15 years ago.

Re:"could not recall"

[_Sharp'r_]

Oddly enough, I don't and mine was less than 15 years ago.

You recall at least having HAD the briefing, right? She supposedly couldn't even remember that much, despite having signed paperwork about the briefing.

Re:"could not recall"

[_Sharp'r_]

Her signed acknowledgement of taking the training is already publicly available.

Re: "could not recall"

[WindBourne]

She learned quite well from the GOP.

Re: "could not recall"

[WindBourne]

So, nixon, reagan, W, Cheney, Rover, etc.were mentally imbalanced as well? Not a one of them could recall a single thing about all their crimes?

Re: "could not recall"

[WindBourne]

You were obviously home schooled in the Bible belt.

Re:"could not recall"

[Tailhook]

We all know the plausible deniability angle. Yet we've heard definitive statements; "no classified emails." "The server was never hacked." (today we learn about logins from Tor exit nodes.) "No FOIA responsive emails we're deleted." (Thousands were.)

On one hand we're supposed to accept these unambiguous and informed claims, and on the other we're supposed to believe she — a professional lawyer going back to the Watergate investigation — was oblivious to her legal obligations. The appeal to ignorance is only plausible from a subject that is acting in good faith. That's not what we have here. It's all lies and she was lying to the FBI when she claimed ignorance.

The truth is her and Bill both know they can get away with things no one else can because they have the LEOs intimidated, the elites are banking one them and the electorate is bought and paid for. This is Rome and the Emperor does at he pleases.

Re: "could not recall"

[WindBourne]

Exactly.

Re:"could not recall"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Haven't heard Trump actually claim to have *forgotten* anything. His Modus Operandi is usually to claim that he CHOOSES to be an asshole who won't pay anybody what he owes them (due to something about not being satisfied with the work output while sending undocumented workers into homelessness when the subcontractor goes bankrupt).

Re:"could not recall"

[Verdatum]

This is the next thing to verify. If auditors can't find or don't bother to record a log of her completing required training, then if you ask me, she's off the hook, and some other people should be in really big trouble. But if they do find such a log, "I don't recall" doesn't particularly cut it for me; even if she was in a massively busy position that had her dealing with tons of important documents a day. That training is paramount importance.

Re:"could not recall"

[neoritter]

Okay, while I think Clinton has a problem here, you need better sourcing. Russia is known to push faulty stories.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

Fun fact, by the time you reach 60 years of age, in a high power posting like SecState, you have learned to filter - a lot, otherwise you'd be completely incapable of retaining any of the important stuff. Senility is already setting in, but if you've learned to cope with it, you've got a good repetoire of pat answers for the unimportant stuff. Maybe she remembers the briefing, maybe she was "multitasking" when it was given, in the greater scheme, it was one of a hundred such "important trainings."

We really should be considering people in their 40s and 50s for the office of President, electing a 70 year old just means the country will be run by his staff.

Re: "could not recall"

[neoritter]

Wait, is this the country that hid the fact that Muslim clerics in their country were molesting kids because they didn't want to offend Muslims in their country?

Fucking hilarious.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

We're not electing HC or DT, we're electing their staff, their group of advisers, speech writers, and policy makers - neither of them is competent to execute even 1% of the office on their own cognition.

Re: "could not recall"

[nwaack]

How are things in Shitsville, Wyoming

Boy, they sure grow douchebags big in London. If you're going to be such a flying dickwad at least have the balls to not post anonymously.

Re:"could not recall"

[ScentCone]

won't pay anybody what he owes them

Really? Thousands of vendors and contractors and thousands of employees for decade after decade and he's never paid a single one of them? Why do they keep going out of their way to compete to do more work for him? Really. Be specific.

Re:"could not recall"

[myid]

Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009. I doubt she got her briefing on preserving records in 2012.

Ok, I found it:

"I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures." -- Signed by H R Clinton 22-01-2009

Re: "could not recall"

[ScentCone]

Things will be horrible shit for just about everyone if Trump is elected.

Because things are going SO well thanks to Clinton's policies and advice when she was Secretary of State? I wonder how a couple million Syrian refugees feel about that. Or the people now living in that shining bastion of liberty and peace, Lybia. No doubt you're thinking of the nice people in Crimea or Ukraine who are just thrilled to living where USSR 2.0 is testing the waters. Or are you thinking of the people in Pacific Rim nations who ware watching China take over international waters? Or maybe your contemplating the sterling success of economies in Central and South America, where pandered-to lefty kleptocracies are causing more than their usual share of suffering? Yes, definitely - we need the US to do its level best to ensure there's more of the same. Great idea.

Re:"could not recall"

[ScentCone]

Cheny and Libby talking about who Plame was, between themselves, in completely irrelevant. Her name was inadvertently confirmed to a journalist by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. You know this, everyone knows this. It's public record and he's been very clear on how it came to pass. Why lie about it? What's that achieve? Who are you hoping falls for that? Please, do tell.

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

True story. I/We get a yearly briefing. It is pretty memorable because the FBI gives it. During the briefing, they threaten to kill you. I'm pretty sensitive to that kind of thing, so I tend to remember my _yearly_ training. It usually goes something like this:
"Does anyone know what type of crime 'leaking classified information' is considered?"
"Treason? Did I hear anyone say Treason?"
"Does anyone know the Statute of Limitation on Treason?"
"Trick Question! There is no SoL on Treason. If the Government catches it, they can prosecute any penalties for the crime."
"New question: Does anyone know the _maximum penalty_ for treason against the United States Government?"
"Trick Question! There is no maximum. The fine penalty is unlimited. The time penalty is unlimited time in prison or death. By law, we can take everything you own and kill you. Don't commit treason."
"Now, let's get down to business. The following people are the people that we, the FBI, caught this year. The following are their penalties."

I have "bullshit" level of clearance. A friend of mine has TS-SCI level clearance, so he gets a pee test every month and a special "you better not mutter things in your sleep" guy every time he gets anesthesia for the rest of his life. I CANNOT IMAGINE that they just "assume you had the training" at the Department of State level.

Re:"could not recall"

[Jfetjunky]

For the brief time I had access to confidential information, I was required to review the company training every year, and a DOD inspector would interview select candidates during their yearly inspection and grill them on handling practices as well as other things.

As an analogy, the company was small, and they specifically said that their computer systems were not capable of storing such info. That would be like I had started scanning documents into my computer. If I had I'd probably be in a federal "pound me in the ass" prison. You know, unless I was Secretary of State.

Re:"could not recall"

[amRadioHed]

He "forgets" plenty of stuff when convenient.

http://www.redstate.com/absent...

Re:"could not recall"

[Bing Tsher E]

Even a fart-bot can't get away with that kind of switcheroo. Nobody in this thread has been talking about Trump.

What smells funny?

Re: "could not recall"

[Bing Tsher E]

It's okay to make racist comments, as long is the racism is directed at white people.

Re:"could not recall"

[Zargg]

She can't even sign right, she did dd-mm-yyyy instead of mm-dd-yyyy!
Maybe she'll claim that makes it not valid...

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall my training on confidential information when I entered the Defense Industry nearly thirty years ago. Hell, I remember the Food Safety course I took at age 17.

It's clear Hillary has some kind of Brain Injury issue going on.

Anyone who would put themselves through the Presidential election process clearly has some brain injury going on. I mean, look at our two candidates.

Re:"could not recall"

[Enigma2175]

She can't even sign right, she did dd-mm-yyyy instead of mm-dd-yyyy!
Maybe she'll claim that makes it not valid...

Yes, she used one of the two logical ways to portray a date, the other being YYYY-MM-DD. The American habit of using MM-DD-YYYY is almost as annoying as refusing to use the metric system

Re: "could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

There two types of countries. Those that use the metric system and those that have been to the moon.

Re:"could not recall"

[Bartles]

It's called remittances to Mexico. 25 Billion a year. There's no reason we can't tax remittances at 50% for a few years to fund a wall. Or use seized drug cartel assets.

Re:"could not recall"

[myid]

The way the government does things, I can see someone gaining that kind of lofty position not getting a briefing on it.

On January 22, 2009, Clinton signed a statement that said that she had "received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information", and that she understood the procedures. You can see the signed statement here.

I'm not a fan of either Trump or Clinton. But Trump being president scares me less then Clinton being presideint. I'll keep an open mind until election day, though.

Re:"could not recall"

[myid]

Oops - "president", not "presideint".

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, writing the date the same way as you speak it?
"September 2nd, 2016" -> 09/02/2016 -> MM/DD/YYYY

You're wrong about there being two correct ways to write the date, though. YYYY-MM-DD is the only one.

Re: "could not recall"

[Kohath]

Things will be horrible shit for just about everyone if Trump is elected.

That's what they said about every politician ever. Why should we believe it this time? Things almost always turn out ok.

Re:"could not recall"

[Darinbob]

She's being presidential and repeating what Reagan said, "I don't recall".

Re: "could not recall"

[marquisdepolis]

That's called false equivalence. Just because things are bad doesn't mean things can't get worse. There's such a word as worse so that we can differentiate between degrees of bad.

Re: "could not recall"

[Bing Tsher E]

White people in general. And cut out the bullshit, you dog-whistled like a beagle trainer.

Re:"could not recall"

[Cederic]

Ok, tell me. What the fuck is with the 'drumpf' shit?

Seriously, it's not a word. It has no meaning. It's less insulting than Trump, which is an East Lincolnshire word for a fart.

I just don't get it.

Re:"could not recall"

[Cederic]

he gets a pee test every month

Yep, that's piss all right. Tastes like it too. Carry on.

Seriously, just refuse to work for cunts that force you to take urine tests. Tell them to fuck off - everybody does that, we can return to civilisation.

Re:"could not recall"

[Reziac]

This is true. And one critical mark of a good leader is the ability to surround themselves with competent staff.

The saga of Hillary's mail server is not a tale of competent staff.

Re: "could not recall"

[Reziac]

The Horrible Shit They Say Will Happen If Trump Is Elected is almost identical to the Horrible Shit They Said Would Happen If Reagan Was Elected. Somehow it kinda worked out to the exact opposite, funny thing that.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

I'm say to say that I don't feel we've got any kind of choice this cycle. HC at least has the DNC legacy crew, you might expect 4 more relatively boring years of big business slowly tightening their grip on power. DT would be a wildcard, with a history of gambling, bankruptcy and shoot-from-the-hip speechwriting... maybe appealing on some levels, but not what I want as a national figurehead. BS talked a great line, but I'm afraid if he won the office it would be Jimmy Carter 2.0. The rest of the Republican lineup were each more corrupt or inept than the previous. It just leaves me feeling like: can't we do better? Aren't there any business leaders who don't lead a reality TV show lifestyle who might be interested in the office? Aren't there any competent senators or governors between the age of 40 and 55 who might make a presentable candidate? Apparently not.

Re: "could not recall"

[Kohath]

Neither is believing storytelling about the future.

Re:"could not recall"

[ebvwfbw]

Of course you do. You were paying attention. She was probably texting and also trying to figure out how to take over the world at the same time. So how could she pay attention?

Not to say this excuses her. Put her in jail like anyone else.

Re:"could not recall"

[doccus]

Hmm .. Obama "Change you can believe in". Indeed. He sure changed a lot..he didn't lie.
But with Hillary.. :"Change you can be investigated in" .. And yup.. she's being investigated for her "changes' to her emails...
And so what about The Donald? "Change you can invest in" ?. If you've got a spare million..

Re:"could not recall"

[Reziac]

Well, from what I've heard from Trump, I'm good with him. Yeah, there's no filter between his brain and his mouth -- but he's notably willing to change his approach when he's said something silly, rather than sticking to it like it's already policy set in stone. And he's already made a point of reaching out to whomever he thinks he ought to. He's not afraid of making mistakes, nor of halting something shown not to work (unlike the Dems whose approach is "Duct tape didn't work? use more duct tape!")

And everything I've read from people who know him has boiled down to -- ignore the bluster, there's a good guy under it.

Also, this isn't a spur-of-the-moment thing with him; he's been eyeing it for over 20 years.

And more than anything else -- we NEED to put America first, or pretty soon there won't BE an America, not as we know it. (If it's so terrible, why does half the world want to come here??)

So that's my logic. I was not initially a Trump supporter, but he won me over.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

As long as 90% of his attention grabbing speech points are brushed off as "just kidding, we won't really do that", then, yeah, I'm fine with DT. But, it leaves you wondering what he really will do, and I'd rather not be "that country" on the world scene that everyone thinks is a threat to their sovereignty and security. Also, given his background, I'd expect even more blatant tax cuts and loopholes for the super wealthy and corporations than we already have. Not much different from any other candidate, when you get down to it.

Re:"could not recall"

[Reziac]

Well, it's not like the President actually has the power to do much without the cooperation of Congress. Obama wouldn't have gotten away with all those executive decrees if Congress really wanted to put a stop to it. And that includes tax changes. Trump can suggest and urge and harangue, but taxes are the province of Congress.

And frankly, tax cuts and regulatory relief are needed if we want business and manufacturing to stay in America, rather than continuing to flee to more profit-friendly countries, taking jobs and taxes (and the taxes paid by jobholders) with them. Remember that no business ever pays taxes -- because taxes are a cost of doing business, which is *always* added to the cost of the product. Sometimes profits are good and they can absorb it, but more often it's the struggling smaller business that suffers.

Re:"could not recall"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

He chooses the big bills, but yes. There's one group of Polish undocumented workers who have been waiting for their paychecks since 1983 because he wouldn't pay a subcontractor. He's been in court dozens of times over the problem with different subcontractors over the years. Five of his projects have gone bankrupt because of it.

Re:"could not recall"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thanks for showing me that, I'm going to use that link quite often.

Re:"could not recall"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True enough. The head trauma on the other hand....

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

I agree that retaining business is a big issue, but I don't think that cutting their taxes is the answer. You can cut their taxes to zero - subsidize them even, and they will still offshore due to labor cost differentials.

Right now, we've got loopholes that encourage the "offshoring of profits" which is just insanity in my book, not only do you lose the tax on the profits, but now the money is overseas and won't be brought back into the country unless it's "worth paying taxes on it first." Watching PC CEOs dance around describing that issue is pretty hilarious, but also just sick that our legislators have let the situation persist.

Re:"could not recall"

[lsatenstein]

"could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information"

Funny, every one of us poor bastards who actually would go to jail over a classified release remembers the briefing distinctly. She, having had the statutory authority to determine what's classified or not with the stroke of a pen (Original Classification Authority) doesn't remember any of the training and couldn't be assed to declassify what she told her subordinates to email her. If she had any integrity, at all, she should shoot herself.

As far as it relates to her job, she does have the right to determine if an email is classified or not classified. She is the official representative, and only reports to the President.

Re:"could not recall"

[Reziac]

Companies don't offshore profits due to loopholes; they offshore 'em due to high taxes that make this the obvious course -- you'd have to be stupid not to.

From a revenue standpoint it isn't a choice between high taxes and loopholes; it's a choice between low taxes and NO taxes, because collecting no tax at all is the consequence of high taxes.

We've made it cheaper to reorganize in China and export to the U.S. than it is to manufacture in the U.S. How does that benefit Americans or tax revenues?

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

Companies don't offshore profits due to loopholes; they offshore 'em due to high taxes that make this the obvious course

So, I think we're sort of on the same page here... but if the loopholes didn't exist, the profits wouldn't be offshored. What you're saying is that if taxes were lower, companies would just pay them instead of locking up their cash overseas. I think taxes would have to be very very low for corporations to do that instead of exploiting the offshoring option - if there's an option to hold money tax free, corporations are going to take it, even if the alternative tax is only something like 5%. They'll only pay that tax if there's a clear profitable advantage in doing so (pay 5% tax, make 110% return within 3 months).

Businesses rarely see (or even look) beyond near term returns. It is exceptionally rare for a corporation to look at society and say: "if we invest 20% of our profits in infrastructure and healthcare for these people, they will prosper and return more than that to us in profits 5 years from now." That's why we have taxes, to ensure that all competing businesses do make those investments and reap the future profits, or at least don't go down in bankruptcy because society has fallen apart and can't afford their goods or services anymore.

Re:"could not recall"

[Reziac]

" What you're saying is that if taxes were lower, companies would just pay them instead of locking up their cash overseas."

Well, yeah. Look at Ireland.

But regulatory costs are much higher than taxes, and that's become the real problem. Jamie Z used to have the saga of "Opening the DNA Lounge" online and he spent somewhere around $1 million just trying to get legal with the city of San Francisco. Costco figured out (and this is about square with my own estimate from when I was looking into making a part-time hire) that 70% of the cost of each lawful employee is payroll taxes, fees, insurance, workmans comp, and the like -- that $10/hour new hire is $30/hour in real costs. (Wouldn't you rather dump all the "benefits" and double your paycheck?)

"Businesses rarely see (or even look) beyond near term returns."

If they're publicly held, they can't, since by law their first obligation is to their shareholders. Blame the fact that Wall Street looks for short-term profits at the expense of long-term viability -- because if shareholders are not making a profit every quarter, they take their money elsewhere. (And that applies to everyone, not just the big-money shareholders.)

"That's why we have taxes, to ensure that all competing businesses do make those investments and reap the future profits, or at least don't go down in bankruptcy because society has fallen apart and can't afford their goods or services anymore."

No, we have taxes to run the government. And the level of taxation doesn't particularly jibe with whether the government "runs society" or not; mostly it jibes with spending, which may or may not be beneficial; roads and schools are a benefit to all, but there's all sorts of good evidence that welfare spending has been primarily harmful, having become a way of life rather than a safety net.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

Wouldn't you rather dump all the "benefits" and double your paycheck?

Sure, who wouldn't, and that's why it's a problem. If everyone got double the paycheck and no benefits, some would be a little better off and most would be worse. Ever pay COBRA? How about doing your own 401(k) matching and putting away your own social security savings? Now, how about the families who have the breadwinners killed or disabled, do they just become street people, or are we raising income tax to make up that social benefit? (Hint: they cost everyone more as street people, at least until they are killed.)

"Businesses rarely see (or even look) beyond near term returns."

If they're publicly held, they can't, since by law their first obligation is to their shareholders. Blame the fact that Wall Street looks for short-term profits at the expense of long-term viability

I do.

"That's why we have taxes, to ensure that all competing businesses do make those investments and reap the future profits, or at least don't go down in bankruptcy because society has fallen apart and can't afford their goods or services anymore."

No, we have taxes to run the government.

Well, I include in government:

1. Highways
2. Schools
3. Municipal water and sewer
4. Police
5. Fire
6. EMS
7. and healthcare (though the US does a crappy backhanded job of that)

And the level of taxation doesn't particularly jibe with whether the government "runs society" or not; mostly it jibes with spending, which may or may not be beneficial; roads and schools are a benefit to all, but there's all sorts of good evidence that welfare spending has been primarily harmful, having become a way of life rather than a safety net.

I think the current welfare system is a cluster* and needs to be revamped. I think it could be revamped as UBI, strip away all the "need based, stick our noses deep in your personal finances and make you account for every $5/week" and just acknowledge: live, eligible citizen - here's your check. If you make enough money to pay income tax, you can decline the checks and apply them towards your income tax responsibility. But, at any time, if you should need the money, you should be able to log on to a website and turn it on - deposited into your account... hourly even would be a possibility today, so when a junkie needs another fix, all they have to do is wait 6 hours or so and they can afford another one. You can go on and on about persons who are incapable of administering their own funds and restricting their funds towards housing and food, etc. etc. but, basically, kill the department of social security and all of their crap. Rehire 10% of them to administer UBI and let the 90% find meaning in their lives with the TSA or something equally befitting their disposition.

Re:"could not recall"

[Reziac]

Yeah, that's basically why I think UBI would be an improvement over the current welfare system. Yeah, we'd probably get more grasshoppers living off the sweat of the ants. But per the info from Finland, not having to run a huge and invasive welfare department would be a considerable savings to taxpayers. And the fact that it's not infinite (waste your UBI and starve, oh well) might retrain enough of the grasshoppers that we'd have a net gain in ants, too. Keep public medical and kill the entire rest of the welfare system, and I'd be on board with it.

I have more or less the same list of "what is gov't business" (not everything should be privatized; we've had that system before, we called it the dark ages) but we don't need the current system where a third of the economy gets eaten by one or another gov't function or requirement.

Also, I just read somewhere that Britain is cutting surgery benefits to the obese and smokers in an effort to cut back on runaway costs... so the bottom may be getting close on the socialzed medicine thing.

As to people who are too dumb to manage their own savings -- that's a relatively recent development. We need to stop assuming everyone is too stupid to run their own lives and needs Uncle Sam to do it for them.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

I just hit on that "hourly deposit of UBI" idea, and I think it could be a real winner for helping the hopeless/clueless to manage their funds. If UBI is $12K/yr, that's $1.37 per hour, or ~$33/day. Anybody who is flat broke, but has UBI, should have enough money for basic nutrition within 6 hours, kill all the specially handled SNAP, food banks, etc. No matter where they are, within 24 hours they can afford bus fare to somewhere that they can afford shelter for the night. It makes all people capable of being self-sufficient.

Yeah, $12K is on the high side, I don't think we could launch UBI at that rate, but in 2016 dollars, that would seem to be a good place for it to end up once it's fully implemented. Let $15K net be the tax starting point - once you earn $3K per year of your own money, income taxes start at 30% of everything over that $3K, so net $15K per person and down is zero income tax, zero paperwork. Earn $30K/year from your employer(s), pay back $8100 of UBI, and net $33,900. Earn $43K per year, and you are at break-even, net $43K per year - after taxes. Earn $75K per year, net $65,400K/yr effective tax rate 12.8%. Earn $129,000 per year, net $103,200 - effective tax rate 20%. I don't know if the 30% number is high or low, I'd advocate putting it wherever it would be revenue neutral with the current tax system, and keeping it flat - all the way up.

Children might become eligible for UBI upon completion of high school, or GED, or age 25 - whichever comes first. Would take a nice load off of families paying for university, or help kids that don't need college to get a real life started while they're only earning dirt.

Healthcare is a whole different kettle of fish - obesity is really expensive, we should do more to dis-incentivize it - in cave man days, if you were too fat you were too slow and got eaten, there's your incentive. Hopefully we can find something a little more humane for today.

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I disagree about the rest of the Republicans; Rubio and Kasich were relatively reasonable. Both were willing to compromise to get things done, which automatically makes them better than most of the House.

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I disagree, personally. I find knowing where in the year (i.e., month) coming first is more useful for me. I can understand why you'd want it to go in order of unit size, but I don't think it's actually any better.

Re: "could not recall"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Yes, but only because that's a special day to Americans; flipping the order makes it stand out more (and is more formal). Normally in English the way the AC said it is right.

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

This is incorrect. Giving aid or comfort to enemies of America is still treason, and you don't have to be at war to have enemies. It might be harder to convict someone of treason without being at war, but that also really depends on what they did.

Re: "could not recall"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

The UK is actually more obese than America, thank you very much. Also, the proportion of people living in poverty is only slightly higher in the US than in the UK. Prisons, sure, that's something America really needs to work on. And yes, the gun homicide rate is much higher in the US than it is in the UK. But the total *murder* rate is only 4x higher in the US, and more than half of that is gangs killing other gangs, which isn't representative of what the average citizen faces.

Re: "could not recall"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

There's this neat thing called the East Coast.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

I've met Rubio in person, before he was a Senator. He "wowed the crowd" at one of his "100 ideas" base-building exercises. Sounded like a great guy who really cared about us and our issues and like he might be able to make something happen. Then months went by, and nothing happened.

Rubio made positive change in absolutely NONE of his "100 ideas" - maybe he got a little education for himself about what the people want, but he did absolutely nothing to help any of us. Some (about 20) of the ideas did come to fruition, but no thanks to efforts on Rubio's part, they made progress without his help.

Rubio is a typical politician, making a buck for himself here and there in exchange for giving other people bigger money through laws he votes for or against. Check into his personal home sales after the 2008 real-estate bust, it's just one of many publically available stories about why Rubio isn't worthy to hold public office at any level.

Re:"could not recall"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

We are still talking about American politics, right? There are no good choices, just less bad ones. I mean hell, even Bernie Sanders bought a $600k beach house (his third house) after giving up his campaign. Rubio was one of the better GOP candidates, and personally I think he'd better than Trump, even if I don't like him all that much.

Re:"could not recall"

[JoeMerchant]

Good point, there are no good choices.

I wouldn't hold 3 houses against BS, or any candidate - even if one is a $600K beach house, which is probably pretty modest, as beach houses go.... Any candidate who is brazen enough to sell a house to a party interested in an up-coming vote (at any price, really, but) for double its current market value, and obviously then to reverse a previously held policy conviction and vote for their buyer's interests... that's what I wish our media would focus on, flog in the spotlight and get people to care about.

We have so many people in this world with time on their hands and little of value to do, more of them should objectively follow our elected leaders and hold them accountable for their actions, especially policy reversals, and drive the political system toward greater transparency. If you've put yourself in public office, affecting the lives of millions with the way you vote on issues, you shouldn't have privacy or secrecy in your personal business dealings, except in cases of extreme national security sensitivity, and that should be another drive: to reduce the need for that.

Congressmen's wives and even relatives/close friends engaged in insider trading, shady real-estate deals, development projects dependent on political action... I'd get behind Trump's slogan if it were "Make America Great, Finally," because - in truth - there was no golden era. Pre World War II was pretty bleak in so many ways. If I had to pick an era to call "Great" I'd go for the late 60s/early 70s, and those years were still stained with Vietnam, business as usual corruption, rampant lingering racism and prejudices, and an economy that more or less demanded dual income households to maintain "middle class" status - at least in my part of the country. Inflation was a serious economic problem in the late 70s, and division of wealth has been on greased skids to hell since 1980.

Or, we could all live like Hawaiians, ignore the political crap and just enjoy life for what it is - pretty good, overall.

Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[Anonymous Coward]

She either lied to the FBI, has dementia, or is an idiot. There's no fourth option. Only combinations of these three choices.

Re:Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[__aaclcg7560]

There's no fourth option. Only combinations of these three choices.

The combination of any three options is a fourth option. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Re:Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[The Grim Reefer]

She either lied to the FBI, has dementia, or is an idiot. There's no fourth option.

Option 4. She was kidnapped by aliens between her briefing and her interview and who we currently think is Hillary is a cleverly disguised replacement.

Option 5. Bill had her replaced with a Stepford wife type robot years ago and a few bits got flipped regarding the briefing.

See, there are lots more options. Just none of them are good... or plausible. Unless you believe the stories in the World Weekly News. But they're still not good options.

Re:Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[__aaclcg7560]

Thank god for pedantry! What are you: 12?

I'm a 47-year-old English Lit major who works in government IT.

Re:Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[__aaclcg7560]

Wow your life sucks.

Really? I haven't noticed.

Re:Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[__aaclcg7560]

Would you like fries with that degree - check

I have an A.A. degree in general education (1994) and an A.S. degree in computer programming (2007). I haven't worked a minimum wage job in 20+ years.

Government Worker - check

I'm two years into a five-year contract that's fully funded. If the Republicans shut down the government before or after the election, I'll still be working.

Complete Asshole - redundant

I wouldn't be working in I.T. if I wasn't a complete asshole.

Re:Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[MrDoh!]

"English Literature Major" It's ok, no need to worry about capitalization when working in Government.

Re:Dementia, Idiot, or Liar

[__aaclcg7560]

Don't you know I'm a GS-13?

Says the non-essential person who will get laid off when the Republicans shut down the government in the next four weeks. Don't worry. I'll take good care of your workstation while you're gone.

News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton revealed to be a lizard person reincarnation of Hitler that feasts on the entrails of the dissenting people she's killed and whose first act as President will be to enslave us all...

...and nothing happens to her.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

Man, I disagree with some of Hitler's social policies, but I voted for him anyway. I'm sure it'll be alright.

When I become Emperor

[ThatsNotPudding]

I will summarily execute any underlings that release awkward / bad news on a Friday. It will also apply to their families if Monday is a holiday.

I despise Trump nor a big fan of Hil, but Teams Red AND Blue have been guilty of this cowardice for decades now.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're voting for this woman, you're every bit the partisan idiot she was counting on you to be.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[DidgetMaster]

The problem with the 'convenience' argument is that it just doesn't hold water. Maybe if she had just set up a gmail account and used it, then convenience might sound plausible. Instead, she went to a lot of trouble to set up a private server and make sure everything flowed through it. If she is going to own up to anything close to the truth, it would be to admit is was about control. Control over what information got out to the public. Control over what information was given out when a subpoena or FOIA request came in.

Just wait until January 21 2017

[damn_registrars]

This report won't mean anything to whatever number of republicans remain in congress after Clinton is sworn in as POTUS on January 20. January 21 will begin with GOP members attempting to initiate impeachment hearings over the email server. It will be the endless series of Benghazi hearings and investigations all over again.

People who like the government to not get any meaningful work done should be able to rest easy. Those who would like to see something happen will be inevitably disappointed.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[Anonymous Coward]

> People who like the government to not get any meaningful work done should be able to rest easy.

Hitler got things done.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they be disappointed? The govt hasn't gotten any work done for a very long time.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of the front runners would be 'competent' presidents. But for different reasons. Trump seems like he would get the job done just because it is the right thing to do and he enjoys doing it. Hillary would do it because it brings her power and she has tons of shady connections to get things done.

The thing is scandal follows the Clintons. It clings to them. Why? Because it seems like *everything* they do is shady. Maybe legal, maybe not. When you have Bill Clinton saying 'house of cards is 99% accurate', and the makers of the show going 'yeah we based it on the clintons', you go WTF dude! She blames people for outing her dirty laundry. When the real story is that she has heaping mounds of toxic stuff of it. If she is elected. The email thing and Benghazi will blow over. But there will be 3 new things. Controversy follows them not because they are doing good things. But because they are enriching themselves with power and wealth. This is not their first rodeo.

Good example of what I am talking about. Trump is off talking to México's president? What is Hillary doing? She is off in the Hamptons raising money and consolidating power with 1%rs.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[Ungrounded Lightning]

January 21 will begin with GOP members attempting to initiate impeachment hearings ... People who like the government to not get any meaningful work done should be able to rest easy.

People who like the government to not get any meaningful work done are terrified of a Clinton presidency. The scenario goes like this:

In addition to increasing the current horde of left-wing judges at lower levels, with Souter dead and Thomas expected to retire after the election she gets to replace two conservative justices with her own appointees. This is expected to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for progressive policies.

Then she just needs to continue, and expand, the ignore-the-constitution, ignore-the-congress, rule-by-executive-order approach of the Obama administration (which is similar to things that were done on a much smaller scale during Bill's presidency).

Without the courts to call her on it, this could turn the country's infrastructure into a Soviet-style People's Republic. And by importing and/or legalizing additional hordes of Democratic voters she can lock it in for the foreseeable future. The result would be, within eight years, either such a conversion, or (when she gets to the "disarm the potential opposition with gun bans" stage), a second civil war (depending on how serious gun owners are about the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric.)

A new pro-Trump campaign slogan is starting to show up: "It's the Supreme Court, stupid!", while the Trump campaign is pushing a "This is the country's last chance." The above concern (along with Trump's brilliant move of publishing HIS short-list of Supreme Court candidates - all strict constitutionalists) is why a lot of people who might otherwise stay home or vote Libertarian plan to hold their noses and vote for Trump.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[damn_registrars]

People who like the government to not get any meaningful work done are terrified of a Clinton presidency.

Why? We didn't see anything useful done under the Obama Administration. If anything, the laws Obama has signed into law make him the most conservative president to date. The law most frequently associated with him was the largest handout to corporate America in the history of government, bar none. We have never had a republican president to date who would not have enthusiastically signed it into law.

with Souter dead

I presume you meant Scalia? I'm pretty sure David Souter would be surprised to learn that he's no longer alive.

and Thomas expected to retire after the election

Interesting speculation, there. Thomas is a conservative justice. Why would he retire right after the inauguration of President Clinton?

What you really should be afraid of, though - and based on your comment you have quite a bit of fear in you directed towards non-GOP politics - are these five words:
Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama
There is a very good chance this could happen soon. Then you literally can't get him out of Washington DC until he's ready to retire (or dies).

The result would be, within eight years, either such a conversion, or (when she gets to the "disarm the potential opposition with gun bans" stage), a second civil war (depending on how serious gun owners are about the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric.)

Unless the goal is to actually kill people, why would a civil war be necessary? Why not just secede? Any reasonable person can see our country is fracturing regardless (though some dispute how many countries it should be split into). Why not just carve out new countries and be done with it?

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[epine]

Without the courts to call her on it, this could turn the country's infrastructure into a Soviet-style People's Republic.

APL used to have a system variable called "quad CT" (and apparently still does, for a progressive value of the word "still") which stands for "comparison tolerance" and governs equality tests on floating-point numbers.

The default in 32-bit implementations of APLX is 1E-13, and in 64-bit implementation is 3E-15. It can be reset by assignment to a value between 0 and just less than 1.

What it didn't have (more's the pity) was quad BS: a system variable to govern English words such as "could".

In constructive conversation, this variable would normally be set at a conventional value such as 0.05 or 0.01 (representing a 5% and a 1% prospect, respectively).

Interestingly, the next most popular values are 10E-9 and 10E-12.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the same wall that has been being built since 93? When Bill Clinton started it?

Or the same policies that Mexico uses on its illegal population?

The only reason people dont like it is because it does not come from 'their team'.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[aralin]

Unless, of course, she will declare that half of the GOP lawmakers are Russian agents and asks the FBI to lock them up for investigations under some weird legal concept she makes up.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[cfalcon]

> so Dems will retake the Congress for 2 years

I think the Senate is likely. The House? Unlikely but possible.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[Bartles]

That's a big pile of Bullshit. The House of Representatives can impeach anyone for any reason they choose. Your information is wrong.

Re:Just wait until January 21 2017

[damn_registrars]

We have never had a republican president to date who would not have enthusiastically signed it into law.

How soon we forget Richard Nixon!

[referring to the ACA]

You're joking, right? The seriousness of an AC is always difficult to gauge, but I would have to presume you're joking on that comment. Considering how much of a capitalist idiot Nixon was, he would have jizzed from one end of the white house to the other at the opportunity to legally bind all US citizens to the for-profit insurance industry.

"I do not recollect"

[31415926535897]

See, she's not a malicious lawbreaker, she's a drooling moron. All hail our next Commander-in-Chief!

Seriously, if she can't recall basic instructions, how can she be trusted to lead the country?

[No, don't get me started on Trump. Please, everyone, vote 3rd party.]

Re:"I do not recollect"

[magarity]

Please, everyone, vote 3rd party.]

Third party voting is like the prisoner's dilemma in game theory. If everyone does it, it works out. If only some people do, those who don't win.

Re:"I do not recollect"

[American AC in Paris]

[No, don't get me started on Trump. Please, everyone, vote 3rd party.]

Sure, great! Which third party do you prefer--the one that just dropped homeopathy from their platform this year and whose nominee flew to the wrong city today, or the one that had the Iron-Cross-tattooed candidate performing a striptease at the podium during their convention?

(The moral of the story is that third parties are a special, highly-distilled breed of terrible, but we happily give them a pass because we all know they're hopeless yutzes doomed to failure.)

Re:"I do not recollect"

[Tablizer]

if she can't recall basic instructions [security rules lesson]...

Perhaps she never got any. It is the government; they do fsck up

Re:"I do not recollect"

[Reziac]

After watching the interview fragment with Gary Johnson that autopsy87 posted this week... I do believe you are correct. Killed any chance I'd ever vote for Johnson, even if I didn't grok spoiler-vote math.

Re:"I do not recollect"

[RespekMyAthorati]

Perhaps she never got any. It is the government; they do fsck up

Not when it comes to security, they don't.
All high-level federal employees are required by law to attend a security briefing annually.

Sociopath

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary is plainly a Sociopath. She has demonstrated no regard what-so-ever for the rule of law or the well being of anyone.

I bet Chelsea is afraid to let her hold her kid.

Re:Sociopath

[The Grim Reefer]

Hillary is plainly a Sociopath. She has demonstrated no regard what-so-ever for the rule of law or the well being of anyone.

Being a sociopath is practically a prerequisite for running for a federal office these days. Sadly, I'm fairly certain this is the worst presidential election with regards to choices of candidates that I can recall. I'm not sure about Ford, Carter and McCarthy in '76 as it's been a while and I tend to remember the good more so than the bad. I usually vote third party, but even those choices seem pretty bad to me this time around.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want a person that don't care about security or classified information running the country?
Not saying vote for Trump. But there has to be a better person then either of these two.

Dementia

[Anonymous Coward]

America clearly should not elect a president with such obvious memory problems.

Good thing we always hold

[rsilvergun]

Our political leaders accountable when they hide behind the flimsy excuse of "I don't recall" (*cough Reagan cough*). And I'll still take her over Mike Peance. At least she listened to Bernie and moved further left.

Re:Good thing we always hold

[mi]

At least she listened to Bernie and moved further left.

Towards Venezuela? Oh, wait, no, towards Cuba? No, sorry, towards North Korea?

What are the Left's success-stories exactly, again?

Re:Good thing we always hold

[fustakrakich]

What are the Left's success-stories exactly, again?

Appeasement and "compromise", with the "Right".

The "Left" is a phantasm, created and sustained by "hope".

Re:Good thing we always hold

[AaronW]

Norway and Sweden are quite successful with about the highest standards of living and the least corruption in the world. Denmark is way up there too. In terms of quality of life they beat the US handily in most metrics.

Re:Good thing we always hold

[ScentCone]

What are the Left's success-stories exactly, again?

Well, obviously places like peaceful, socialist Norway. You know, a place that would NEVER do anything a Trump-like person would like. Except, you know, realize they ALSO need to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...

Re:Good thing we always hold

[mi]

Norway and Sweden are quite successful [...] Denmark is way up there too

Are they? Compared to what? Unlike most of the rest of Europe, the three Scandinavian countries suffered no destruction in the two world wars. And yet, their per capita GDP is barely on par with Germany's — which was a total ruin in 1945. With the exception of Norway, which exports oil.

But, hey, Germany may be different — climate, culture, etc. Fortunately, history furnishes us no fewer than three clean experiments, three pairs of near-identical populations living under Capitalism and Socialism:

• Soviet Estonia vs. Finland;
• Eastern vs. Western Germany;
• South vs. North Korea.

It does not even have to be a Democracy — you can add:

• Cuba vs. Chile

to the list. The fourth pair were/are both run by dictators, but Chile's "dear leader" chose Capitalism and turned his country into Latin America's top economy, while the worker's paradise remains a basket case.

Nope, there are no success stories for Socialism — life in Scandinavia is decent despite it, not thanks to it. Oh, and they can't defend themselves against Russia either &mdash because maintaining a capable military is expensive and would've eaten into what meager GDP they have...

Re:Good thing we always hold

[Bartles]

Norway is not socialist. Neither is Sweden or Denmark. They are at most mixed economies, or social democracies.

Re:Good thing we always hold

[mi]

Certainly. Any statement about elements of an empty set is true...

Too important for jail

[ULTROS]

Jail is only for peons

Re:Too important for jail

[__aaclcg7560]

Very true in rural, conservative areas of the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/upshot/new-geography-of-prisons.html

Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the 'convenience' argument is that it just doesn't hold water. Maybe if she had just set up a gmail account and used it, then convenience might sound plausible. Instead, she went to a lot of trouble to set up a private server and make sure everything flowed through it. If she is going to own up to anything close to the truth, it would be to admit is was about control. Control over what information got out to the public. Control over what information was given out when a subpoena or FOIA request came in.

If it wasn't convenient why did Karl Rove and much of W's staff use a private e-mail server? And why aren't we trying to imprison him for "losing" 22 million e-mails from it?

Slap on the wrist for one results in a slap on the wrist for the next.

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[DaHat]

I know you like linking to that article, but apparently you've never read even the full intro.

The answer is quite simple: The Hatch Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[kqs]

You're correct, that's why they used that server for non-governmental emails.

So why did they use that server for governmental emails? And why, when they were being investigated, did they announce that they "lost" 22 million of the emails on that server? (These facts were mentioned in the article that you claimed the GP didn't read. I recommend reading more than just the intro next time.)

The Bush administration did the same thing as Clinton did. It's just as terrible in either case. The main difference is that the people who are convinced that this act makes Hillary evil are also convinced (like you) that Bush's actions were no big deal.

As for me, well, it means that I'm quite sure I would never hire Hillary to be a CSO.

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[AaronW]

Who knows, since 22M emails went missing, and with Rs in charge of congress there was no big investigation.

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[DaHat]

You're correct, that's why they used that server for non-governmental emails.

Thank you for conceding the underlying point, little you say beyond changes this basic fact.

So why did they use that server for governmental emails?

Dunno, I wasn't part of the administration.

And why, when they were being investigated,

Because at the time the Democrats were investigating everything under the sun in the administration.

did they announce that they "lost" 22 million of the emails on that server? (These facts were mentioned in the article that you claimed the GP didn't read. I recommend reading more than just the intro next time.)

Because as a non-government server, it isn't likely to have the same sort of retention mechanisms in place.

The Bush administration did the same thing as Clinton did.

False. Clinton setup the email server to skirt FOIA requests (ie break the law), the Bush administration did to avoid violating the Hatch Act.

It's just as terrible in either case.

How much classified information traversed the gwb43 server? We know know that at least one account on Clinton's server was breached: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Want to make up some more false equivalences?

The main difference is that the people who are convinced that this act makes Hillary evil are also convinced (like you) that Bush's actions were no big deal.

You again ignore the underlying intent of both operations, one was clearly criminal without mountains of evidence disproving every claim (never sent or received classified emails, etc), the other was not.

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[DaHat]

Who knows, since 22M emails went missing,

So the lack of evidence of criminal wrong doing by one group... excuses the criminal wrong doing by another person when clear evidence exists?

Not sure about that.

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[JDAustin]

Don't be an idiot troll. Those R related emails were later found. And the funny thing is, they were party related emails so they, by law, were not allowed on government systems.

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[kqs]

I'm sure you believe that Bush etc did nothing wrong and Clinton did nothing right. Which explains a lot about our politics. On the plus side, it's always easy for you to decide who is at fault at any given moment; not considering facts is a great time saver.

Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well?

[DaHat]

I'm sure you believe that Bush etc did nothing wrong and Clinton did nothing right.

I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about, despite a sincere belief... so I won't assist in your delusions anymore.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[kwbauer]

She supported her husband dropping bombs on a sovereign nation for the sole purpose of giving people something to talk about instead of his committing sexual harassment on federal property. Well, Hilary's own, most trusted, aid has made that claim anyway.

Re:She used "could not recall " at border

[pedantic bore]

If you can remember all your passwords, you aren't using strong, unique passwords for each of your accounts. Remembering passwords is what your keychain/lastpass/etc is for.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Kierthos]

Same goes if you're voting for Trump.

Is?

[TheSouthernDandy]

Call me when she questions the definition of "is". It is a proven Clinton strategy.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden is an American hero. You're too blind to see it. He called out illegal activity in our government. That's patriotism. That's courage.

Hillary, Obama, and Bush knew about it beforehand and did nothing to stop it. That's abuse of power.

Trump is so unhinged he gives national speeches full of made up numbers right after publicly lying about his conversation with the Mexican president. Only an idiot would believe a word out of that man's mouth without a team of fact-checkers. I hope Hillary trolls him into a screaming fit during the debates.

Johnson and Stein are the best choices we have today.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[fahrbot-bot]

If you're voting for this woman, you're every bit the partisan idiot she was counting on you to be.

And... if you're voting for Trump, you're just an idiot. So where does that leave us?

What a dilemma!

[mi]

could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information

So, either

• the abuela's memory is fading and she is unfit to be President; or
• she lied to the FBI (a federal crime) and is unfit to be President.

What a pickle... An entire jar of pickles!

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[jedidiah]

Ressurecting the old "You're pinko commies. NO, you're fascists." for the win!

Ex-Soviets were comparing Bernie to Breshnev.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Anonymous Coward]

So someone who risked his life, liberty and sacred honor so that people like could be made aware over the secret formation of stasi-like secret police used to spy on *you*, is as bad as one of the architects of the system who did it to you for personal gain? You are something else, sir.

As for proposals like "disbanding the IRS" you really should read past the bullet point summaries. Tax collection can be done just fine by the department of the treasury. Currently though, the IRS has it's own little militia which does not need to exist. Ideally, taxes should not be complicated enough to require 100,000s of accountants and auditors anyways.

And quite frankly, if the NSA abuses their power to create and hoard security vulnerabilities, create systems for managing MILLIONS of hacked computers, hacks allies and charities, forces the creation of backdoored hardware and software, use tax payer dollars to bribe companies to use the backdoored encryption standards that they themselves crafted and shut down the companies of those that refuse, create malware and regularly launch cyber-attacks against other countries (something the US pioneered - and something the US itself considers an act of war worthy of launching missiles if someone else did it to them), engage in smear campaigns and blackmail against individuals including US citizens, set up a surveillance system against it's own populace (which, if it isn't already being used for voter fraud, I'll be shocked), encourage foreign powers with whom they have data sharing agreements to spy on its own citizens (since all gathered intel all goes into the same global database accessible by all), and 100 other serious crimes, they deserve to be shuttered and replaced. Some things are corrupt enough they need to be burnt down to the ground and start afresh. If there's anything of value that's not criminally tainted, it can be passed off to the CIA. You should be ashamed that you'd let this criminal cabal just continue.

Hillary news break

[tripleevenfall]

The executive branch has announced that it has thoroughly investigated itself, and it's found that it did nothing wrong.

Re:Hillary news break

[Bing Tsher E]

They won't even do a Maoist style self-criticism.

Though they may have, internally.

Re:Hillary news break

[Cederic]

They haven't found anything yet

Given the top chap in the FBI stood in a press conference and went through some of the stuff they found, your credibility must be treated with derision.

Get out of here Trumpies

[110010001000]

"Cut her lead in half". Give me a break, she is trouncing Trump in the polls. She has a 5 point lead already. No matter how you spin it, she has the largest poll lead of any Presidential candidate at this point of the campaign in history.

Re:Get out of here Trumpies

[Kierthos]

Part of it depends on the poll methodology. I mean, if it's a "national poll", but it's around a thousand people polled, that's what, 25 people per state? (Of the last 10 polls listed on realclearpolitics.com, all but 1 of them polled 1500 people or less. Although, it should be noted that the poll from NBC that polled over 24,000 people had Clinton up by 4 points.)

It's easy to get results that are a little off. Hence the margin of error on polls.

The more important polls, at least from a certain standpoint, are the polls from the battleground states.

For Trump to win the Presidency, he not only has to carry every state that Romney won in 2012, he would have to flip Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

The polls from those states... aren't looking good for him. (Hell, Trump barely has any campaign presence in Florida, which is arguably the first or second most important battleground state.)

And hell, Trump is in danger of not even carrying some of the states that went for Romney.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Or somebody dies, mysteriously. I still wonder about JFK Jr's plane going down within two months of her grabbing the New York Senate Seat.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[skids]

I pretty much ignore any sentence that includes the three components of "only difference" "trump" and "clinton" because that's a sure sign the sentence is pure bullshit.

Timing Relevant?

[ytene]

Disclosure: I am not a US Citizen and have no real interest in US politics...

I'd like to ask the US readers about the timing of this publication. Specifically, given the proximity to a US Presidential vote in which the subject of the report, Mrs Clinton, is standing as a nominee, it would seem on the face of it that the timing of this release might be politically motivated.

If that's even a theory it doesn't seem to be getting much airtime. But I'm curious as to what our US readership might think. Is this a deliberately-timed event by a Republican-leaning FBI, or is this a genuine event released with the same sort of timing that we might expect other, similar investigative conclusions to be published?

One of the reasons I'm asking [in fact the main one] is that this kinda reminds me of the Kenneth Starr investigation into Bill Clinton, in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It wasn't that either investigation was inappropriate; nor I am disputing the outcome of either case. But you can't help thinking that the delivery is being done with maximum-damage in mind.

Am I imagining things?

As a non-US observer it's often difficult to understand the subtleties of what we're watching...

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[neoritter]

Leaves you an idiot, not voting for Hillary does not equal voting for Trump.

President Trump

[pesho]

Because of Hillary we are going to have president Trump. Reading through the articles it appears that her defense boils down to her being complete moron. She has hard time recalling anything (really she did not recall training, there must be a paper record if she took it), and she thought the common prefix for classified paragraphs, "(C)", was indicating alphabetized order (seems her version of the English alphabet consists of a single C letter repeated over and over again).

Re:President Trump

[Bartles]

Yes, but she is caliming not to recall significant events in her life, yet she had no problem recalling when she signed a form swearing that she has security training.

Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

Funny, every one of us poor bastards who actually would go to jail over a classified release remembers the briefing distinctly

Those who end up in jail over such things either somehow left an evidence trail that definitely indicates "intent", not merely carelessness, OR could not afford good lawyers. The wealthy are going to have better lawyers than us. That's life. (It's lopsided in socialistic and commie nations also, where connections are "cash".)

That being said, in my opinion it should NOT be the job of the executives (or equiv.) to micromanage usage and verification of classified info and related training. There should be a dedicated team to ensure training, along with signatures to prove such training was received, and constant monitoring of all communications to ensure classified info doesn't slip through; and if it does, initiate cleanup and investigation. (Executives would still be obligated to notify the team of all potential usages. All phone and email should probably be automatically saved for inspection.)

You WANT the top people to be able to focus on the big picture rather than the proverbial plumbing.

I'm NOT saying lack of such a team gets her off the hook, only that from an organizational management perspective, the system was broken and put too much burden-of-details on the top level. Classified material usage is too important to let busy executives self-monitor so often.

Both Donald and Hillary are spoiled by usually having "grunts" around to handle most details. Hillary was probably expecting somebody else to monitor email content* and verify server rules. Her assumptions were wrong and her bad habits were not corrected by anyone, and thus kept degenerating.

I bet it would happen to roughly 90% of typical politicians. I'd probably gradually slip also under the same circumstances. "If nobody has been complaining then nobody probably cares" is a common human foible that I've seen in every work-place I've been: big, small, public, private.

Walk a mile in Hillary's pumps.

* Some may suggest such is not possible if she uses her own server, but most of the time she probably copied at least one federal worker. (I've read it's hard to know because the State Dept. server had defective backups.)

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

the regulations she is subject to while serving do not require 'intent'.

Please give references to the EXACT text of such law(s). I've asked on /. multiple times, and all claimers have failed. Can you, Sir Anonymous, finally pull the sword out of the stone? [crowd gathers]

(One mentioned "gross negligence", but the common legal interpretation of that phrase is pretty much the same as "intent".)

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

18 U.S.C 793 (f)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

(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.

Comey used the words "extremely careless", which, in legal terms, is synonymous with "grossly negligent".

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

"intent" is not "gross negligence", as demonstrated by the separate specification of intent in 18 U.S.C 793 (a), 18 U.S.C 793 (b)

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

Comey used the words "extremely careless", which, in legal terms, is synonymous with "grossly negligent".

Case history often determines that. Do you have a law degree? And Comey is not a judge, juror, nor lawmaker. His statements are not necessarily legal declarations or conclusions.

"intent" is not "gross negligence", as demonstrated by ...

How does that paragraph set demonstrate that exactly? I don't see it.

(a) appears to cover "takes" and (b) appears to cover "copies".

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[RicktheBrick]

First they should encrypt all secrets. Second only approved devices should be able to be able to read those files. Third those devices should have a way for them to contact the government everyday so that they could be remotely destroyed if they had fallen in the wrong hands, Therefore Clinton should have only the ability to send encrypted files which could be read only by authorized personnel. Anything less than that is negligence by the government not by any individual.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Comey is an investigator, and is required to understand law as part of his job. His statements were legal declarations, of an investigatory agent, subject of course to an actual trial (which, we should have had). Comey, in fact, is a lawyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Insofar as the "intent" pagragraphs:
(a) mentions "intent"
(b) mentions "intent"

You made the assertion that "gross negligence" == "intent", which is obviously untrue. If it was true, they would not have needed to specify "gross negligence" from "intent".

For more detailed legal analysis, about "gross negligence", please see: http://scholarship.law.marquet...

It is basically a failure to excercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances, or a failure to use the care which an ordinarily prudent man would use under the circumstances.

If you cannot understand how "extreme carelessness" is "a failure to exercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances", you'll need to more carefully consult your english language dictionary.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

His statements were legal declarations

For the sake of argument, if that were true, then he did NOT say "gross negligence" when he COULD have, and knew the legal ramifications of NOT using it. Either way: colloquial or legal-mode, your argument is weak.

You made the assertion that "gross negligence" == "intent"

Not quite. Please re-read the original.

For more detailed legal analysis, about "gross negligence", please see...

Your own source:

"Some courts have held that gross negligence remains an inadvertent act, while others hold that the element of virtual intent must be present." [emph. added]

This implies it would be "up to the judge" whether intent is required. (I also checked other similar sources before, and generally some form of "intent" is required in most circumstances.)

Being the Clintons have the best lawyers, they'd probably hammer home the ambiguity, and ambiguity usually fails "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Comey used a synonym for "gross negligence", and it makes sense that he did so - the pressure on him to avoid an indictment was phenomenal, but he couldn't help but hold onto the last shred of integrity that he had by stating obliquely that indeed, she had committed a crime. Reminiscent of that POW that said one thing but blinked in code another.

(One mentioned "gross negligence", but the common legal interpretation of that phrase is pretty much the same as "intent".)

I re-read your statement. My disagreement stands - the common legal interpretation is not "pretty much the same as intent".

Although, I will agree that there are some specific cases where that legal interpretation is made. Here's a more recent cite, with some support for your position in specific states (showing some of the confusion across some courts): http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi...

As for "up to the judge", I'll defer to the SCOTUS (granting that some federal courts may on occasion disagree with each other). As per the original citation:

But it is interesting to note, in the Lockwood case, the United States Supreme Court modified its earlier decisions by refusing to reject degrees of care or diligence. Thus, if there is anything of a "Federal" rule, it is that there are no degrees of negligence, but that there are degrees of care.

More importantly, given that 18 U.S.C 793 specifically differentiates between "intent" and "gross negligence", it is difficult to assert that they are meant as synonyms.

That all being said, it's obvious there was "intent" (as in "intentional act"), given that creating a secret email server is an action that cannot be done accidentally. Whether or not it was intended to hurt the US (18 U.S.C 793 (a) (b)), or if it was simply an "intentional act" of gross negligence, lacking care (i.e., careless), then that fits 18 U.S.C 793 (f).

So regardless of ambiguity in lower court interpretation, Hillary fails on both counts - gross negligence, and intent.

Unintentional "gross negligence" would be something like, leaving your car unlocked and your secret blackberry laying on the seat in a bad neighborhood - a reasonable amount of care would have avoided the risk. Building your own private secret email server isn't something that happens through chance, or by accident - it is an intentional act, and in this case, a grossly negligent one.

Boy, it would've been nice to actually have this adjudicated in a court of law though, instead of having the process short circuited by secret meetings on tarmacs :)

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

but he couldn't help but hold onto the last shred of integrity

You are speculating about his internal mental computations.

As far as the legal meaning of "gross negligence", it appears it either requires intent, OR very very extreme carelessness. Without the details of the messages and who prepared them and why, we don't have enough ourselves (the public) to compute such a level carelessness.

Comey himself said that existing laws and case history applied to her actions and statements wouldn't qualify for a crime. I'm sure he consulted with legal experts before making that determination.

given that creating a secret [sic?] email server is an action that cannot be done accidentally.

Setting up the server BY ITSELF is not a crime. And whether the server is more of a security risk than the "regular" office server is something even IT folks debate (the State Dept. server WAS actually hacked). One would not expect Hillary to have such IT and data security knowledge. You can't convict her of not getting a degree in Computer Sci. That's silly.

I don't see where home-ness of the server is a legal issue. Classified info ending up on the wrong box is bad either way. It's not the box, but decisions that led up to putting info thru non-classified email systems.

Your reasoning is very round-about and speculative. It appears to me you are trying to force things to fit your political biases by applying guilty until proven innocence and guessing motivations.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

As far as the legal meaning of "gross negligence", it appears it either requires intent, OR very very extreme carelessness.

And I think we can both agree that ultimately, this should have been adjudicated in a court of law. There was clearly enough to bring charges.

Comey himself said that existing laws and case history applied to her actions and statements wouldn't qualify for a crime.

No, that's not what he said :) He was quite specific when he said that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case". It was definitely a crime, but in this case the "number of factors before bringing charges" obviously included the political pressure of the Obama administration :)

Setting up the server BY ITSELF is not a crime.

Of course not. Setting up the server BY ITSELF is an *intentional* act. Whether or not that intent was to harm the US (as per 18 U.S.C 793 (a) and (b)), or if it was simply "wantonness" (as per jurisdictions that require intention with gross negligence) that it was used in violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f), simply changes which paragraph she violated.

Comey clearly stated "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information". Given those potential violations, the case should have been brought to trial. It was not brought to trial because of political considerations, not legal ones.

Now, It seems to me a reasonable person would agree that final judgement would be rendered by a judge and jury. But it's manifestly unreasonable for you to assert that there was no possible criminal violation here.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

There was clearly enough to bring charges.

I find your reasoning very poor. One has to show either intent, or an extreme form of carelessness. You have not even come close to meeting that burden. I'm confident rational readers will agree with me.

it was used in violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f)

Again, the box means nothing here. It's not about the server. Having done the same thing on the (non-classified) office server would NOT change the legal situation. MOOT.

If she received those emails on gerbils it would be the same damned issue. It's not about the receiving device, but the fact the receiving device was not designed for classified info.

Run different receiving devices on the laws you cited, and see if changing the device changes which rule is activated.

Hint: it won't. You are just too stubborn to see that aspect.

But it's manifestly unreasonable for you to assert that there was no possible criminal violation here.

You are putting words in my mouth. I am only claiming your evidence SO FAR is weak. If you get real evidence, I may change my stance.

Re: Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

We discussed that already nearby. The receiving device doesn't make a difference, only the fact it's not intended to receive classified info. Box = Moot.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

One has to show either intent, or an extreme form of carelessness.

Secret servers are not setup unintentionally. Comey himself called out extreme carelessness.

Q.E.D.

Again, the box means nothing here. It's not about the server.

Yes, in fact, it is. It is grossly negligent to set up a secret server and transmit work-related information there, when your work-related emails can have various levels of classification.

If she received those emails on gerbils it would be the same damned issue.

Correct. If they had setup an insecure, secret, private gerbil delivery system for work-related information that could be classified, that would also demonstrate gross negligence.

I am only claiming your evidence SO FAR is weak.

No, you're not. You're claiming that the evidence doesn't matter, based on your semantic interpretation of "gross negligence" which is in contradiction to the SCOTUS application of it, and that there are possible legal arguments that may inject a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

Secret servers are not setup unintentionally.

Like you keep forgetting, a home server is NOT INHERENTLY riskier than the regular office email server. That should be fucking obvious and I don't understand why you are not getting it. It's frustrating.

And why do you keep calling it a "secret" server?

The proof is in the pudding even: the office server WAS hacked, while there's no evidence so her home server was (although there were attempts). But that's moot, courts wouldn't expect her to predict the future.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Like you keep forgetting, a home server is NOT INHERENTLY riskier than the regular office email server.

Of course it is. Besides the obvious physical security issues, having a home email server (literally in your home), is a technical nightmare when dealing with secure information.

Now, maybe if every email she ever sent was pgp encrypted, you might argue that insecure SMTP might be okay. But when you have a regular office email server that literally shuffles the emails from one side of l0 to the other side of l0, without ever exposing that to external network traversals, you by definition have an *inherently* more secure server.

This is why she sent an email to all of her staff warning them not to use personal email for business.

And why do you keep calling it a "secret" server?

Read the FBI report that was release - it was explicitly kept secret from the public.

The proof is in the pudding even: the office server WAS hacked, while there's no evidence so her home server was

Obligatory "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence" trope there.

Now, if you want to prosecute the State Dept. guys who were hacked for gross negligence as well, I'm happy to add them to the list of bad actors in government :) Let's face it, truly secure email is *not* rocket science here - I'm shocked they didn't actually encrypt every single message.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

It was definitely a crime, but in this case the "number of factors before bringing charges" obviously included the political pressure of the Obama administration :)

Side note: Comey invited Congress to look at related cases throughout history, long before Obama was born even.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

Gov't offices are not known for security either. There is no clear science or math saying a home server is less safe than a generic office server.

Further, she is not an IT expert and wouldn't be expected to know subtleties of networking, configuration, etc. She has admitted many times that she's not technically savvy.

Further 2, having am outside service was NOT against policy, for Powell had it. True, S.D. said she didn't get proper authorization from inside, but not getting it is not "gross" negligence, merely negligence.

it was explicitly kept secret from the public.

Please elaborate, and why it matters from a legal perspective.

Now, if you want to prosecute the State Dept. guys who were hacked for gross negligence as well, I'm happy to add them to the list of bad actors in government

That server was NOT INTENDED for classified info either. The people who should be prosecuted are those who put the classified info into regular office emails and then sent them to Hillary et al.

Yes, Hillary was careless, but generally the prosecutor has to show "intent". Historical cases where people were prosecuted for similar alleged crimes almost always had "intent" in them, long before the Obama administration. The few exceptions seem to be where the poor grunt had cheap lawyers.

If you want to argue the laws are not strong enough, that's fine, but I'm just looking at them as-is here because you claimed she was clearly guilty of them.

You are WRONG.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

https://www.justsecurity.org/w...

Now, you can argue that the list didn't include paragraph (f) in the indictment for the various defendants, but I have yet to find any list of cases where para (f) was considered by investigators.

Here's the money quote you might find interesting:

The problem, of course, is whether the solution might be worse than the dis- ease. Thus, as Professors Hal Edgar and Benno Schmidt lamented more than four decades ago, “the longer we looked [at the Espionage Act], the less we saw.”55 Instead, they concluded, “we have lived since World War I in a state of benign indeterminacy about the rules of law governing defense secrets.”56 If anything, such indeterminacy has only become more pronounced in the 41 years since— and, if recent events are any indication, increasingly less benign.

Now, your opinion may differ than mine, but I'm more sympathetic to whistleblowers with intent, than grossly negligent actors hiding private insecure servers.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Oh, another cite: http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Now, I get it, and so does the author, that the prosecution was under (d) and (e) - but you'll note they *explicitly* stated that even if those thresholds had not been met:

“Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.”

The fact that historically this kind of thing hasn't been prosecuted would have to be shown by a list of cases where charges were considered under (f), and then rejected, rather than saying "we've never prosecuted under (f)". Obviously, when a law is first written, it's never been used to prosecute anyone, so simply asserting that it hasn't been used isn't much of a defense.

I'd love to see any reference that shows the list of historical cases considered under (f) that were dropped in the same manner Clinton's case was dropped.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Further 2, having am outside service was NOT against policy, for Powell had it.

It was against policy after Powell's tenure. Stop trying to blame the black man.

said she didn't get proper authorization from inside, but not getting it is not "gross" negligence, merely negligence.

That should've been decided by a court of law, not a political appointee.

Please elaborate, and why it matters from a legal perspective.

Shame is an indicator of intent. If you are hiding something, you *know* that there's something sketchy about you doing it.

That server was NOT INTENDED for classified info either

It was her only email. She obviously intended to do work on it (which was grossly negligent). Her own words, as Secretary of State, could be classified upon her utterance - using an insecure server for work related material was grossly negligent.

Historical cases where people were prosecuted for similar alleged crimes almost always had "intent" in them, long before the Obama administration.

As per my other comment, the fact that people have historically been prosecuted under (d) and (e) paragraphs doesn't mean that (f) paragraph shouldn't be prosecuted. The burden of proof here is a list of cases where (f) was considered, but the charges were not referred for prosecution.

If you want to argue the laws are not strong enough, that's fine

On the contrary, I think the argument made on the other side is that the law is too strong, and since historically nobody was prosecuted under (f), nobody should. That's a perfectly fine argument if you can back it up with examples where people were considered for investigation under (f), but the case was dropped. Do you have a cite? I searched, but couldn't find any information on that.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

It was against policy after Powell's tenure.

No it wasn't.

Shame is an indicator of intent. If you are hiding something, you *know* that there's something sketchy about you doing it.

You are guessing out of your ass again. Describe EXACTLY what she did to CLEARLY indicate "hiding". If you want to convict somebody on "gross negligence", you can't use vague fuzzery.

There are generally 3 levels of "negligence" in the law, and the 3rd requires VERY STRONG actions. You only have fuzz.

It was her only email. She obviously intended to do work on it

I don't know what you are talking about. It appears you misread my statement, as usual. The "regular" office server she should have used for ordinary office correspondence was NOT designed for classified materials either. Wrong Box A is no more or less evil/illegal/bad than Wrong Box B. Wrong box is the wrong box, do you get it?

The home server has shit squat to do with the laws you cited.

You still didn't produce scientific proof (or anything remotely close) that a home server is riskier than a gov't server NOT designed for handling classified info, nor described why the judge should expect her to know your grand research. FAIL.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

As I mentioned elsewhere, there are generally 3 levels of "negligence" in federal law, and the highest, "gross negligence", requires extreme and clear actions, being the highest.

I haven't seen any specific activity(s) of Hillary's (so far made public) that comes close. Pick one of the top ones and let's go over it. If you cannot find a top one, then good luck.

Now maybe the FBI et al haven't revealed it yet, but why froth over guesses about what you cannot see?

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Describe EXACTLY what she did to CLEARLY indicate "hiding"

She used a secret, personal, insecure server to conduct State department business. She kept this fact hidden from the public, she did not go through the proper security channels for getting permission for it, and, to top it all off, the massive wipe of her emails happened *after* its exposure by the NYT report on it.

There are generally 3 levels of "negligence" in the law, and the 3rd requires VERY STRONG actions.

Agreed. And the actions she took were of the most extreme gross negligence.

If she had a problem with doing secure email herself, she should've had an aide handle all the electronics, through standard channels, and handed printouts or their own secure devices for her to peruse.

The "regular" office server she should have used for ordinary office correspondence was NOT designed for classified materials either.

The State Department runs an email system that handles classified material. What gives you the impression that it is not certified for that?

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

The top one - she specifically avoided using proper, State Department devices for business communications, and was grossly negligent in doing so. Any reasonable person in her position would've known that using private email for potentially classified material, was a violation of the laws they were trained on in classification.

The next one - she handed the job of combing through her emails to delete "personal" ones, which she should've known could have or did contain classified information, to un-vetted lawyers who did not have the clearance necessary for such work.

Your pick - which one would you like to expound on?

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Hey, let me ask you this as well - do you think that "grossly incompetent" and "grossly negligent" are the same thing?

Put another way, do you believe that someone can behave in a "grossly negligent" way, but because it is driven by gross incompetence sans "intent", it doesn't count as negligence?

I believe this was the defense made for Lois Lerner.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

she specifically avoided using proper, State Department devices for business communications, and was grossly negligent in doing so.

"Proper" hasn't been established. And there is absolutely ZERO evidence that "homing it" contributed to exposure of classified materials, and again again, it's not shown that she would be able to make a technical determination of which is "safer". If it's so dangerous, why was Powell allowed to do it earlier? Contradiction. "Gross" negligence would require very clear and precise knowledge, not your seemification crap.

Again, I still don't see how "the box" makes a difference. The box is not the key issue and not the key problem. I am very puzzled why you dwell on it; and you articulate your dwelling very poorly, using repetition instead of clarity.

Any reasonable person in her position would've known that using private email for potentially classified material, was a violation of the laws they were trained on in classification.

The law says NOTHING about home versus office servers.

which she should've known could have or did contain classified information

EXACTLY AND SPECIFICALLY *how* should she have known? Go through it step-by-step; use assembler language if you have to, for pete's sake. Fine, detailed, careful, steps; the kind the prosecution would have to use instead of vague cloudery-fogginess used by cheap pundits.

Details matter.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

do you think that "grossly incompetent" and "grossly negligent" are the same thing?

For one, it has a legal definition and case history already. Any colloquial comparisons don't matter much.

Second, Comey using phrases wouldn't mean much in an actual trial, rather specific details and evidence of the case would be given; the kind YOU refuse to supply. Unless it's of a technical nature, and thus requiring an expert witness, Comey's words would generally not be considered.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

she did not go through the proper security channels for getting permission for it

Okay, but that's not "clearly hiding" in my book, in part because it's indistinguishable from carelessness. Think about it. You've shown no "active" hiding.

She kept this fact hidden from the public

Public? Please elaborate. Her address wasn't a domain registered with the gov't, I'd note.

The State Department runs an email system that handles classified material. What gives you the impression that it is not certified for that?

The classified system is typically NOT called "email". You are correct that classified material should have gone through this unnamed system, but that's a different issue than general (unclassified) office email versus a home server.

Instead, you should be talking about systems designed for classified communication versus systems NOT designed for classified communication. The home-box thing has been a useless distraction.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Okay, but that's not "clearly hiding" in my book, in part because it's indistinguishable from carelessness.

I would agree, except for the signed affidavit that she executed after her security training. She actively disregarded her training.

Public? Please elaborate. Her address wasn't a domain registered with the gov't, I'd note.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

The classified system is typically NOT called "email". You are correct that classified material should have gone through this unnamed system, but that's a different issue than general (unclassified) office email versus a home server.

Which is even more evidence of gross negligence.

Instead, you should be talking about systems designed for classified communication versus systems NOT designed for classified communication.

I think we're on the same page here - Clinton, and much of the State department that communicated classified info on non-classified systems, should be prosecuted for gross negligence.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

it's not shown that she would be able to make a technical determination of which is "safer".

She specifically instructed her staff that business should not be done on personal email. She made that instruction because using State department communication tools was obviously "safer".

If it's so dangerous, why was Powell allowed to do it earlier?

Powell didn't run 100% of his business related email through a private email account, much less a private, secret, homebrew server. Apples and oranges, my friend.

"Gross" negligence would require very clear and precise knowledge, not your seemification crap.

So your defense against gross negligence is gross incompetence? So long as the party in question does not have clear and precise knowledge, they can behave in a grossly negligent way with no consequence?

The law says NOTHING about home versus office servers.

But any reasonable person in their position would know that a private, homebrew, secret server was less secure than an office server. You may defend with "any reasonable person is also uninformed and uneducated, and therefore gets a pass because it's all so technical", but that is belied by the fact that Clinton attested to understanding the proper handling of classified material. If you look at the FBI notes, she attests that she didn't understand the proper handling of classified material.

EXACTLY AND SPECIFICALLY *how* should she have known?

She was trained in the handling of classified materials, and attested to it. She should have recognized classification markings (such as ( c )), but claimed that she couldn't understand those markings. When observing those markings, instead of "trusting State Department Professionals", she should have taken them to task for violating the proper handling of classified materials.

I'll turn it around - how could she *not* have known that the Secretary of State, as a course of normal business, would communicate classified information with other State Department employees? She did 100% of her correspondence on her private secret email, how did she possibly expect that 0% of that would be classified?

This, dear friend, is clearly gross negligence or gross incompetence.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

You still haven't answered the question.

What do you think the legal difference is between "gross incompetence" and "gross negligence"?

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

I don't believe it matters. I'm not going to feed trolls. Show how and why it matters first.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

signed affidavit that she executed after her security training.

It doesn't say "training". It was something more like a briefing. AND it probably didn't cover server selection (or at least you haven't shown it has.)

Which is even more evidence of gross negligence.

One cannot judge without seeing the details of the circumstances: who sent it, why should she/they have known it was classified, etc. Again, details matter because it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

I am surprised there is not more investigation on the rest of the SD staff. GOP and co only focus on H because they have an agenda.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

It doesn't say "training". It was something more like a briefing.

Wouldn't it be grossly negligent if the Secretary of State didn't get training on the proper handling of classified information?

One cannot judge without seeing the details of the circumstances: who sent it, why should she/they have known it was classified, etc.

The circumstance is simple - the State Department has systems for sending unclassified and classified email, and Clinton never used either of those systems properly. You cannot expect to be the Secretary of State, and run all of your work emails on your own secret, private homebrew server, and not have classified data come across it. It is grossly negligent to believe that.

I am surprised there is not more investigation on the rest of the SD staff.

Totally agreed. The guys who told the State Department IT guys not to question Hillary's private server should be tried for violations as well.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

You don't believe it matters because there is no difference? Or you don't believe it matters because you don't think you're making an incompetence argument?

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

It won't matter in a real case.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

Wouldn't it be grossly negligent if the Secretary of State didn't get training on the proper handling of classified information?

Of her? No. She can't micromanage every detail; there's a lot of ground to cover. Have you ever worked with executives? I agree it's negligent that she wasn't more curious about it and verify if it's required, but that's only level #1 or #2 negligence.

and Clinton never used either of those systems properly.

Perhaps, but whether it's the Level #3 of "negligence" depends on the specifics and details, which you never provide. It's innocent until proven guilty. Say it over and over and maybe it will finally sink in with you.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

So, you're disowning your incompetence defence. Noted.

One would not expect Hillary to have such IT and data security knowledge. You can't convict her of not getting a degree in Computer Sci.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

I agree it's negligent that she wasn't more curious about it and verify if it's required, but that's only level #1 or #2 negligence.

And I disagree. It would've been great if a court had been able to actually make the final determination :)

Perhaps, but whether it's the Level #3 of "negligence" depends on the specifics and details, which you never provide.

I've been specific.

1) it is grossly negligent to be the head of the State Department and not know how to handle classified material.

Is your contention that the FBI interview notes are inaccurate in their recording of Clinton's statements?

2) it is grossly negligent to run all work related business for the Secretary of State through a private email unsuitable for classified information, knowing that the job of Secretary of State requires the discussion of classified material.

Is your contention that the thousands of actual classified emails found by the FBI aren't specific enough examples of that?

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. You have an odd writing style.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

I've been specific.

Bullshit.

it is grossly negligent to be the head of the State Department and not know how to handle classified material.

Again, the devil's in the details. If S.D. failed to give her proper training and subordinates failed to screen material, the failure is a GROUP EFFORT, and the blame may be spread out, diluted in a sense, so that it doesn't approach level 3. It's unrealistic for her to verify every word herself; she has to rely on team-work to get anything done.

Technically she may be obligated to "own" every word, but failure to screen every word doesn't qualify as level 3 because it's highly unrealistic for someone in her position to practically do so. She'd have her face in screens and databases all day: a very expensive clerical worker.

(In my original message, "Monitor Team", I pointed out there should be a dedicated monitor team to prevent repeated errors. The system is fucked up such that I don't entirely blame the staff. But that is different than a trial.)

2) it is grossly negligent to run all work related business for the Secretary of State through a private email unsuitable for classified information, knowing that the job of Secretary of State requires the discussion of classified material.

You are again making the "box error" here. It's blatantly obvious to me you are making a mental mistake on this. Your neurons are firing wrong. Home-ness of the server means shit; the reguar office email server was also NCES.

And she probably did use the secure system (which is not "email"). The problem is putting the wrong food into the wrong mouth, not the existence of the mouths.

The key issue is how classified info got into non-classified-email-systems (NCES) and if H "should have known" in a way that qualifies as level #3. A trial would probably have to take SPECIFIC messages (with sensitive parts substituted or blackened) and explain to the judge/jury how and why she "should have known", and if it qualifies for level 3.

That's the kind of detail we are missing. As a juror, that's the kind of info I'd want to see to ascertain negligence level, not summary words from Mr. Comey. You convict on details and specific actions, not summaries.

Details Matter. Grow some.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

If S.D. failed to give her proper training and subordinates failed to screen material, the failure is a GROUP EFFORT, and the blame may be spread out, diluted in a sense

That sounds like another sign of gross negligence - failing to give proper training is a specific responsibility of the leader, and the entire group's failed effort is the responsibility of that leader.

This sounds like you're arguing that incompetence is not negligence.

Technically she may be obligated to "own" every word, but failure to screen every word doesn't qualify as level 3 because it's highly unrealistic for someone in her position to practically do so

Forget technically, *legally* she's obligated. She attested to this fact.

Home-ness of the server means shit; the reguar office email server was also NCES.

Network location matters. The State Department servers were in a better security position than any homebrew secret server.

And she probably did use the secure system (which is not "email").

Pics or it didn't happen.

. A trial would probably have to take SPECIFIC messages (with sensitive parts substituted or blackened) and explain to the judge/jury how and why she "should have known", and if it qualifies for level 3.

No, you're truly missing the forest for the trees. The specific messages aren't the gross negligence, the abject disregard of policy, policy she herself insisted her subordinates follow, is the gross negligence. The specific messages (of which, the FBI has found tens of thousands classified at the time), even if argued down to "no, this really wasn't classified", doesn't obviate the responsibility to uphold the principles of security which she attested she was trained in.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Let me break it down for you:

1) you have used the incompetence defense

2) I asked you if you consider incompetence equivalent to negligence

3) you have blithely asserted it "doesn't matter"

If you wanted to continue with your incompetence defense, you should have answered in #3 "no, incompetence is distinctly different than negligence, and you cannot use Clinton's incompetence as an example of gross negligence". At that point, it would be very clear what our root cause of disagreement is. Instead, in a casebook example of cognitive dissonance, you seem to be unwilling to admit you're making an incompetence defense, while at the same time making it over and over again. It's like you want to let Clinton off the hook, but you don't want to assert she's incompetent.

Honestly, even if I didn't agree that incompetence was a valid defense, I'd still respect that line of argument as at least possibly viable.

I know, it's cliche, but either she was incompetent or she lied - neither is admirable, to be sure, but at least you could limit her legal exposure by insisting on incompetence.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

failing to give proper training is a specific responsibility of the leader

I find that silly and unrealistic. Is she in charge of the plumbing also? You probably wish she'd install Java updates herself.

Forget technically, *legally* she's obligated

Dept. policy by itself is not federal law. But even if it were, there are three levels of negligence, and legally being obligated does not BY ITSELF qualify for level 3.

The State Department servers were in a better security position than any homebrew secret server.

Your usage of the word "secret" is pundit-like spin, as already explained. And it wasn't "homebrew", but a commercial firm. You are double-spinning. Knock it off.

If an outside service is a "level 3 evil", why did S.D. allow it (at least for others)?

You have TWO hurdles here to justify level 3: explaining to the judge/jury why it's "very bad" YET had been allowed in the past.

Second, that Hillary should have known the difference, being she is NOT an IT expert. It's perfectly reasonable that she reasoned that if it were allowed in the past, it cannot be "super bad".

Pics or it didn't happen [use of classified message system]

Before we delve into that, why does it matter for such a court case? I don't want to waste time debating moot stuff.

the abject disregard of policy,

For one, policy is not law. Second, she may not have known about specific policies or their implementation details. I agree she "should have known" and asked around more, but not knowing is not necessarily level 3.

Perhaps I'm injecting my personal experience from the work world into this. The CEO is not expected to micromanage many of such details, and have expert assistants to guide them. They are supposed to be focusing on the big picture, NOT auditing security and verifying Java security updates.

But "injecting my personal experience" is what juries often do, for good or bad. It's partly why we have juries: to supply a "community view" of the law rather than let only bureaucrats make the judgement.

I agree she was careless, but because following the letter of the policy is unrealistic and doesn't fit industry practice per CEO's, I would NOT rank her mistakes at level 3 (barring new info about the details of what actually happened).

Technically making the CEO in charge of plumbing may make them technically guilty of violating policy if an old pipe breaks, but not necessarily be realistic. To me, it would have to be a realistic rule to qualify as level 3.

In summary: being technically obligated by itself does not qualify for level 3. And department policy is not by itself federal law.

If you follow the letter of ANY policy manual, a good many CEO's or equiv would probably be in jail.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

Is she in charge of the plumbing also?

If she manages to lose classified information by flushing it down the toilet, yes :)

Dept. policy by itself is not federal law

But failure to abide by department policy, that you insist others follow, is by definition gross negligence. You've just told your kid not to play in the street. Then you go and play in the street. Your prior warning shows you *know* this to be a reckless act, and your choice to engage in this reckless act shows callous and wanton disregard for risk - the definition of gross negligence.

Before we delve into that, why does it matter for such a court case?

Because if Clinton exclusively used her secret, insecure homebrew server for department correspondence, it shows gross negligence. If you can prove she actively used secured classified email, and segregated her work, you could possibly argue that her lapses were simply minor bad judgement. If you can't, and she used her personal email for everything, by definition, that's gross negligence.

Second, she may not have known about specific policies or their implementation details.

She attested that she did, and in fact warned others to abide by specific policies. It seems you're arguing perhaps temporary incompetence?

The CEO is not expected to micromanage many of such details, and have expert assistants to guide them.

Exactly. There never should have been a micromanaged, secret, private homebrew email server. She should have simply deferred to the expert assistants at State to get her secure communications and secure devices. Instead, in a grossly negligent manner, she actually micromanaged when she should have delegated. She had no business demanding a private insecure server, much less conducting official business on it.

Hell, she could have had expert assistants deal with the devices, and simply read them out loud to her - anything, except micromanage the detail of work communications in such a way that opened up the door to violations of law in handling of classified materials.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

But failure to abide by department policy, that you insist others follow, is by definition gross negligence.

You are making phrase-rules up. And, where is this "insisting" documented?

Because if Clinton exclusively used her secret, insecure homebrew server for department correspondence,

You lie: it was neither secret nor home brew.

She attested that she did

References, please.

She should have simply deferred to the expert assistants at State to get her secure communications and secure devices.

Even if she used the regular office email server (not meant for classified stuff), those who put the classified info on it would STILL be in violation. Putting the wrong stuff on the wrong box A is not legalistically different than putting it on the wrong box B because the laws say shit about box type.

The "homeness" of the server doesn't change anything of significance. I'm tired of arguing that with you, I find you dense and repetitive.

She had no business demanding a private insecure server,

Only Colin can? It wasn't "gross negligence" when he used AOL? But if it's not AOL then BAM! it's suddenly switches to gross negligence? BoggleLogic.

How exactly is the prosecutor going to argue that her private server is a jillion times more evil/bad/leaky than AOL *and* that she should have known?

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

You are making phrase-rules up. And, where is this "insisting" documented?

She was given several opportunities to get a state department issued blackberry, and she refused. The FBI report lays it out.

You lie: it was neither secret nor home brew.

You misunderstand - she kept it a secret from the public, and it was a custom setup built at her home without the oversight of the department.

Even if she used the regular office email server (not meant for classified stuff), those who put the classified info on it would STILL be in violation.

Then we agree - both Clinton, and those who put classified material into networks inappropriate, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm tired of arguing that with you, I find you dense and repetitive.

Is it because you don't understand the difference in security between network locations protected by a VPN and an official state department IT staff? I repeat myself because you continue to fail to understand some real basics here about network security.

Only Colin can? It wasn't "gross negligence" when he used AOL?

If you can find any classified material in Colin's email, then he should be prosecuted too.

The difference here is that Clinton sent classified material, thousands of times, and to this day insists that it was legit because there were no massive TOP SECRET headers - when by attesting to her training, she knows that material can be classified even if unmarked.

This smells like another incompetence defense...

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

She was given several opportunities to get a state department issued blackberry, and she refused.

You are contradicting yourself; you said her home server was "secret". But if it's secret, why would SD being trying to "correct" that situation? you cannot correct what you don't know about. And you still didn't address the "insisting others" question.

and it was a custom setup built at her home without the oversight of the department.

Being "custom" does NOT make it "home-brew". If I hire a professional to customize my car, it's NOT a home-brew job. It's only home-brew if I do it myself. I'd bet a paycheck 80% of English speakers would agree with me on that.

And, being set up without "oversight" does NOT by itself make it "secret". You are being fast and loose with words. I don't know whether it's drama-queening, or just having an outlier interpretation of English.

Is it because you don't understand the difference in security between network locations protected by a VPN and an official state department IT staff? I repeat myself because you continue to fail to understand some real basics here about network security.

1. I'm not on trial, Hillary is. "Should have known" applies to her, not me.

2. Hillary is not expected to be an IT expert.

3. If an outside service is so "grossly" bad, why was Colin allowed it?

4. You've offered no clear evidence about the configuration of either servers DURING her time at SD.

5. The "official state department staff" are known screw-ups.

6. There are many ways to foul up VPN etc. also (assuming it was even in place). Gov't employees are not known for carefulness.

If you can find any classified material in Colin's email, then he should be prosecuted too.

If Colin had received or sent classified on the "regular" office email system (not the classified message system, but SD's regular unclassified email system), would you consider that "Gross Negligence" on his part?

when by attesting to her training, she knows that material can be classified even if unmarked.

For one, there's no evidence so far she actually received training, only a briefing (oddly called "indoctrination" on the form).

Second, like I already carefully explained, it's unrealistic for her to check every fact in every email: that's time-consuming grunt work. Perhaps the policy technically held her to that (because policy writers are mass CYA-ers), but unrealistic technicalities don't qualify for "gross" negligence, ONLY minor negligence; and I'm pretty sure a jury of typical normal people will agree. I'd bet a paycheck on it.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

You are contradicting yourself; you said her home server was "secret".

There's no contradiction. She kept her homebrew, insecure server secret from the public, and refused to use SD approved devices offered to her. It's literally in the FBI report.

If I hire a professional to customize my car, it's NOT a home-brew job. It's only home-brew if I do it myself.

If you hire a company, maybe. If you hire a private contractor, that's home-brew. Home brew means not setup by a corporate IT team, following established corporate IT guidelines.

And, being set up without "oversight" does NOT by itself make it "secret".

Being setup without oversight is definitely gross negligence.

Hillary is not expected to be an IT expert.

But she decided to micromanage her communications devices instead of following State department procedures.

If an outside service is so "grossly" bad, why was Colin allowed it?

Colin did not communicate classified materials.

You've offered no clear evidence about the configuration of either servers DURING her time at SD.

See the FBI report. It literally was running without secure transport for months. It literally had RDP open access to the world. If you don't understand these things, I can explain network topologies further to you.

Gov't employees are not known for carefulness.

Sure, but avoiding proper oversight and policy compliance, especially when you insist others comply, is simply gross negligence.

For one, there's no evidence so far she actually received training

Arguing incompetence again? :)

Second, like I already carefully explained, it's unrealistic for her to check every fact in every email: that's time-consuming grunt work.

Wrong. It is entirely realistic for her to understand the difference between classified and unclassified information, in every utterance she makes. Any time she saw classified information on her unclassified email, she should have reported it. This is *literally* the obligation of having a clearance level.

As for your paycheck, I would have loved to have given a court the opportunity to adjudicate our bet :)

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

Addendum:

Re: "Clinton sent classified material, thousands of times..."

Thousands? Your drama slip is showing again.

Re:Monitor Team? [Re:"could not recall"]

[hsthompson69]

http://www.politico.com/story/...

"In the new set of about 1,700 messages, an additional 23 emails were classified at the middle tier, “secret,” bringing the total number of “secret” messages to 65, according to a State Department tally. In the latest, final batch, 238 messages were deemed “confidential,” lifting that total to 2,028, an official said."

Loony Site

[bigsexyjoe]

I'm not a Clinton supporter and I don't think you have to trust her or the main stream media. But that is a wacko right wing site.
http://www.eutimes.net/2016/08...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E...

Re:Loony Site

[Bing Tsher E]

Rational Wiki?

Is that a wiki that deals mostly in fractions? I can't find the page on improper fractions.

Re:Loony Site

[vandelais]

Rational Wiki?

Is that a wiki that deals mostly in fractions? I can't find the page on improper fractions.

That is reciprocal nonsense.

"already" vs. "remaining"

[SuperKendall]

Trump actually goes and meets with international leaders. Hillary will not even meet with our own press... as someone snarked recently Trump has now had more press conferences with the leader of Mexico than Hillary has had with our own press.

As for the five point lead (which you may want to re-check) that has been falling and will continue to fall as we get closer to the election.

The term "October Surprise" did not come about because things in earlier months influenced the elections as much... much more and worse news about Clinton has been held back, and you will see a wave of shit unlike anything you have ever seen before come October. All of which you can enjoy chewing on, Clinton Online PR Manager #40765 .

Ironically you are correct, but not how you think

[SuperKendall]

I'd like to ask the US readers about the timing of this publication.

The timing is very meaningful.

Specifically, given the proximity to a US Presidential vote in which the subject of the report, Mrs Clinton, is standing as a nominee, it would seem on the face of it that the timing of this release might be politically motivated.

It is - it was released the Friday before labor day, the time when all the worst news is released because most reporters have gone on vacation, and most people are not paying attention to news.

The timing of this being released today, means this is more very terrible new for Clinton and it is being buried as much as is possible so as few people as possible see it.

Is this a deliberately-timed event by a Republican-leaning FBI,

The FBI is Democrat leaning, as you can tell by them letting a felony slide for Clinton. The FBI said she committed a felony, but they thought it was too inconvenient to prosecute her.

Ask anyone who has ever works with classified material. They would be in jail, for a long time, if they had done just once what Clinton did with great regularity.

Washington Times Cred [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

According to this article [washingtontimes.com], ...

Sorry, but Washington Times is known for political bias and spin. My advice is either find and quote the original source of their info, or ignore them. You might as well cite a tabloid (which they arguably are).

Re:Washington Times Cred [Re:"could not recall"]

[Bing Tsher E]

Half your audience is wondering why you misspelled 'Post.'

Hence, there really isn't anything unclear or confusing here.

Re:Washington Times Cred [Re:"could not recall"]

[Xenographic]

No, the Washington Post is too busy holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC that their own lawyers forbade them to.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Markers [Re:"could not recall"]

[Tablizer]

Doesn't recognize what classified markings look like ...

By some accounts, it's merely a "C." -- two characters. Comey estimated there were 3 such messages found, per question from a Senator (IIRC).

And it wasn't clear whether the content itself had classified facts, or that the markers by themselves were left in. In other words, presence of markers and presence of classified material in the same given message are not necessarily the same thing.

3 messages with "C." out of roughly 40,000? Would you catch them? Be honest.

Maybe she thought somebody mis-typed "H. C.", her initials :-)

I agree she was careless, but that's not a reason to exaggerate or accuse-without-details yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't mirror her carelessness in YOUR claims.

'I cannot recall' saying I cannot recall

[TiggertheMad]

Honestly, if you cannot read between the lines here, stop voting.

When a politician (from either party) says 'I cannot recall' while being questioned under oath, it means, 'I will neither conform or deny your question because I am under oath'. Saying nothing of substance give investigators and prosecutors no ammo for perjury charges, which could be filed even if a primary charge gets thrown out of court. Furthermore, Pleading the fifth just makes you look guilty even if you had nothing to do with whatever it is that is being investigated. Saying you cannot recall is a solid legal dodge, and ANY politician with good legal council will use it if you try to push them into a corner.

If you want to hate on Hillary, go ahead. But try to stick to actual character flaws and not tried and true legal tactics to avoid perjury charges. She remembers every bit of it, but she is playing defense so the Hilary witch hunters cannot nail her on tangential charges.

Re:'I cannot recall' saying I cannot recall

[Bing Tsher E]

Translation of fancy language: She is avoiding disclosure of the truth.

Re:'I cannot recall' saying I cannot recall

[breagerey]

pretty sure if there'd been a band of people looking to take my head for the last 20 odd years I'd answer just about everything with "I don't recall"

Re:'I cannot recall' saying I cannot recall

[WindBourne]

uh, as a guy who has only voted 3x for a GOP or Dem in 12 elections, and has open said that he will not vote for either of the 2 criminals, well, it sounds like you are the one that should stop voting.

Re:'I cannot recall' saying I cannot recall

[Tesen]

pretty sure if there'd been a band of people looking to take my head for the last 20 odd years I'd answer just about everything with "I don't recall"

Yup I would agree. There has been massive attempts by opponents to bring down the Clinton's. The problem here is the public in general see these attempts to bring them down and pin charges on them and ultimately assume they MUST be guilty of something. 20 years is a long time to accuse two people of murdering people, committing fraud, committing crimes against the USA and yet NOTHING of substance has been proven. The Clinton's are not perfect and in fact are far from it, but I am so sick of hearing, "Corrupt Hillary" from the Trump who a) never provides a shred of evidence, b) totally and utterly refuses to address any of the accusations against him other than hyperbole and delusional ego. I have GRAVE concerns over both Hillary and Trump's mental state (more so of Trump's, he appears unable to control himself) and I consider this election not to be about either of them, but their running mates.

Lastly, pleading the 5th does not mean you are hiding anything, claiming you do not remember does not mean you are hiding anything. The American public has been so brain washed to believe you are GUILTY! GUILTY! I hear it all the time at work and in my personal life, "Well, if he/she were innocent, the police would not have arrested them." so on and so forth. Innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country has been swapped with, "he said, she said." and might be fine for civil cases, but criminal is a different kettle of fish.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[MrDoh!]

Twitter revolution!

That's it - I'm going Libertarian

[erp_consultant]

Hillary is clearly a lying, deceptive, corrupt, sociopath dirt bag. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican I just don't see how it can be viewed any other way. Trump is just a buffoon. A carnival barker. An embarrassment.

Neither one of them deserves my vote. So what to do? I suppose I could just stay home and not bother to vote but that seems unpatriotic to me. People fought and died for my right to vote so the least I can do is exercise that right. So I'm voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate. He hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of winning but that is not the point. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of those two shit sandwiches so at least I can cast a vote for Johnson with a clear conscience.

Re:That's it - I'm going Libertarian

[Reziac]

Watch this first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ignore Drew if you like. Just pay attention to Johnson.

Interesting Timing

[Hutz]

Am I the only one suspicious of the timing? Friday before Labor Day weekend, with a Hurricane hitting Florida to boot. I can't think of a better way to bury something. I thought the FBI wasn't supposed to be partisan.

I assume when someone asks Hillary next week, the response will be, "that's old news".

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Xenographic]

Who in their right mind is voting for either one of them?

I wouldn't be surprised if Harambe was more popular than either of them. This election is already a joke, so...

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[hsthompson69]

The critical difference for me is that the media is behind Hillary, and will let her get away with anything.

On the other hand, the media hates Trump, and will hold his feet to the fire for *everything*.

I want a president that the media hates, so that they can't just break laws, magically make new ones with executive orders, and engage in wholesale corruption with no consequences.

Trump 2016.

That's a bit like

[rsilvergun]

saying you're gonna burn your house down because the drapes don't match. Yeah, Hilary doesn't measure up as a progressive. But she's still progress.

Now, If you weren't going to vote for her anyway, carry on. What I'm taking about is Dems who are flirting with Libertarianism. The trouble with the Libertarians is best summed up by the phrase "Gov't small enough to drown in a bath tub". That's great if you're a white, heterosexual christian male rockin' a college degree. I'm guessing odds are good lots of folks here are. But ask a Black woman in the south how "Separate but Equal" worked out for them sometime. It wasn't states rights and freedom that made apartheid go away in the states. It was the US Federal government. It was the Majority of Americans deciding, against the wishes of the people of the South, that it was wrong.

When you see folks like Johnson and the two Rands talking about small gov't that's really want they want. A gov't small enough to get away with the God awful crap they want to do. If you're an American think about that picture of the 13 colonies as a cut up snake. Same thing.

Re:That's a bit like

[erp_consultant]

"Yeah, Hilary doesn't measure up as a progressive. But she's still progress." - Progress? You mean like the last 50 years of progressive programs that have gotten the underclass of America absolutely nowhere? The kind of progress that has gutted once proud cities like Detroit and Baltimore? The kind of progress that has created a permanent underclass completely dependent on government handouts and devoid of any self worth? That kind of progress?

I hate to be the one to break the news but those program are not working. They may be well meaning but they are ineffective. For some people, appearing to care about the poor is all that matters. Actually doing something about it....well, that's someone else's problem.

Hillary doesn't measure up as a progressive? Buddy, she doesn't even measure up as a human being. She is a lying sack of shit. She is completely and thoroughly corrupt. She conspired to sandbag Bernie Sanders, who had more popular support than her by the way. I wouldn't vote her dog catcher, never mind president.

And before you think I'm some sort of Trump surrogate - don't bother. I'm not voting for him either. And I'm not anti-women either. I'd love to see a female president. But not Hillary. Not in a million years.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[TimSSG]

Finally a post I can agree with 100 percent. Tim S.

The critical difference for me is that the media is behind Hillary, and will let her get away with anything.

On the other hand, the media hates Trump, and will hold his feet to the fire for *everything*.

I want a president that the media hates, so that they can't just break laws, magically make new ones with executive orders, and engage in wholesale corruption with no consequences.

Trump 2016.

Re:Ironically you are correct, but not how you thi

[bug_hunter]

> Ask anyone who has ever works with classified material. They would be in jail, for a long time, if they had done just once what Clinton did with great regularity.
Really, because Condolezza Rice and Colin Powel are still at large:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

Martha Stewart calls you a liar...

[SuperKendall]

Wow, your OWN LINK points out that neither of them did, in fact, ever send classified material in private email. The Condi rice one says that her STAFF may have...

For the Clinton shill, no lie is too outrageous, because someone will fall for it, right??

Plus - they didn't lie to the FBI about it outright when asked. Ask Martha Stewart how that normally goes.

There are several reasons why Clinton should at least have served the time Martha Stewart did, just from what we knew before, never mind the super obvious lying she does in the FBI interviews just released.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[guises]

Are you... talking about Trump? The context makes it seem like you're talking about Clinton, but the email thing is not a social policy. It's Trump's social policies which have gotten him in trouble, and people have been saying exactly what you said when they've come out in support of him.

Re: Complete List of things Could not Recall

[chaboud]

Just a note on black holes: mass escapes black holes via Hawking radiation...

I can't speak to the rest of the post, but, you know, don't diss on black holes.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

I thought being a dedicated hawk and war monger who has endorsed the deaths of thousands of Americans and destabilized the middle east further constitutes worse social policy than hurting people's feelings.

Re:Could not recall briefings because of concusion

[guises]

What conversation are you having here? What does any of that have to do with emails?

Insufficient.

[Timothy2.0]

> She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton.

Insufficient. I've never received any briefing or training with respect to not murdering anyone, yet I'm expected to abide by the statutes that exist relating to such a topic. It sounds like she's trying to argue that ignorance of the law is an excuse not to follow it.

Hillary's memory

[Winkkin]

Can we get a poly-graph on those answers? No?! Thought so!

Re:Go on YouTube and look at the stuff from the '8

[Reziac]

I was already of voting age when it was going down, so yeah, I remember how Reagan was itching to start WW3 and we all needed to flee to Canada and there'd be back-alley abortions everywhere and $EveryOtherLeftwingBogeyman was trotted out, just in case they'd missed whatever they thought would scare voters. Funny, none of it came to pass. So yeah, now I recognise the tone and the motivation, and don't believe a word of it. If anything, Trump is a lot less likely to run around toppling other governments and handing out nukes to unstable powers, if only from enlightened self-interest.

Re:Two points

[pixelpusher220]

"I don't recall" - an excuse with a long and storied history of exploitation by political strategies

Hillary Clinton - largely derided for her penchant using political calculus before doing *anything*

But somehow her use of this means she has mental deficiencies?

you can't have it both ways...