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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
One may have to change the existing language to fix up OO in a nice way. That could mean breaking some existing apps.
As far as the drunk comment, I've resisted insulting you when I felt like it, and I hope you return the favor. Else, I'd be happy to insult you in retaliation.
I said "real world" for a reason. I've seen plenty of "lab" examples to illustrate how great they allegedly are, but not actual, practical examples of things people would need to actually do in real apps at real orgs.
Without those, so far I have to conclude lambdas are a solution looking for a problem.
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.
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.
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.
Gates was a skilled poker player. His using one monopoly to gain another, and pricing and bundling the right way at the right time to kill nascent competitors is poker-like.
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.
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.
Such images are much more useful if combined with multiple instrument types to know the context. For example, image a spot that you also can beam radar off of, and image in multiple wavelengths to see different layers and estimate chemical composition (spectrography).
But of course all that requires a bigger payload, especially when sufficiently padded against Jupiter's unforgiving radiation.
Imaging of clouds is also more useful if one can take time-lapse images. But Juno's orbit is not well-suited for that.
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.
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".
Slashdot Mirror
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.
Public? Please elaborate. Her address wasn't a domain registered with the gov't, I'd note.
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.
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.
"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.
The law says NOTHING about home versus office servers.
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.
Boss: "Take down those damned thieves now!"
Grunt: "But sir, they are..."
Boss: "Don't give me flack, takem down!"
Grunt: "Yes, sir."
I've seen driveling drivers
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?
No it wasn't.
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.
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.
Define "insecure server". It was not clearly worse nor clearly better than the regular office server she should have been using.
One may have to change the existing language to fix up OO in a nice way. That could mean breaking some existing apps.
As far as the drunk comment, I've resisted insulting you when I felt like it, and I hope you return the favor. Else, I'd be happy to insult you in retaliation.
I said "real world" for a reason. I've seen plenty of "lab" examples to illustrate how great they allegedly are, but not actual, practical examples of things people would need to actually do in real apps at real orgs.
Without those, so far I have to conclude lambdas are a solution looking for a problem.
That's why Cobol Lives
Why does it matter? Advice is advice and she could have always changed her approach upon getting new info.
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.
Please elaborate, and why it matters from a legal perspective.
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.
Side note: Comey invited Congress to look at related cases throughout history, long before Obama was born even.
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.
Gates was a skilled poker player. His using one monopoly to gain another, and pricing and bundling the right way at the right time to kill nascent competitors is poker-like.
Rats, you guessed my password!
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.
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.
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.
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.
One side of me says let Darwinism work its magic, but another side doesn't want to share roads with a guy having an IQ of 25.
Such images are much more useful if combined with multiple instrument types to know the context. For example, image a spot that you also can beam radar off of, and image in multiple wavelengths to see different layers and estimate chemical composition (spectrography).
But of course all that requires a bigger payload, especially when sufficiently padded against Jupiter's unforgiving radiation.
Imaging of clouds is also more useful if one can take time-lapse images. But Juno's orbit is not well-suited for that.
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.
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.
To me it sounds like Darth Vader stuck in a jet engine, especially the middle part.
Actually, Pioneer 11 did it first in the mid 1970's
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.
Not quite. Please re-read the original.
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".