Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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.
Man, I disagree with some of Hitler's social policies, but I voted for him anyway. I'm sure it'll be alright.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
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.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
Thank god for pedantry! What are you: 12?
I'm a 47-year-old English Lit major who works in government IT.
The executive branch has announced that it has thoroughly investigated itself, and it's found that it did nothing wrong.
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...
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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).
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
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.
18 U.S.C 793 (f)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
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)
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...
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.
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.
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:
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 :)
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.
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 :)
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.
Secret servers are not setup unintentionally. Comey himself called out extreme carelessness.
Q.E.D.
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.
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.
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.