Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 26 2016, @04:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the where-did-THOSE-come-from? dept.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investigation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

The FBI's year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton's work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among "tens of thousands" of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton's lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.

Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.

In a statement after a hearing at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group was pleased that Boasberg rejected the department's proposal to begin releasing documents weekly on Oct. 14, ordering it instead to prioritize Clinton's emails and to return to court Sept. 22 with a new plan.

"We're pleased the court accelerated the State Department's timing," Fitton said. "We're trying to work with the State Department here, but let's be clear: They have slow-walked and stonewalled the release of these records. They've had many of them since July 25 ... and not one record has yet been released, and we don't understand why that's the case."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:23AM (#393365)

    Trying to give yourself legitimacy by argumentum ad populum

    Nah, there's just little point in reposting the obvious AGAIN, unless to smack down the harpies who ignore facts they don't like.

    Facts such as:
    1a. FBI director James Comey stating that Hillary's unclassified email server(s) had 110 known-classified-when-sent emails [youtube.com]
    1b. As a clearance-holder, Hillary committed a felony by not properly reporting the classified emails she received under 18 USC 793 (f) [cornell.edu]
    2a. FBI director James Comey described Hillary's conduct as "extremely careless [youtube.com]", synonymous with "gross neglegence"
    2b. "Gross negligence" is the legal term for the federal felony [cornell.edu] in regards to clearance holders mishandling classified info in an extremely careless manner

    At this point, it's just a simple game of "Shillary's copy-and-paste whack-a-mole".

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Informative=5, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday August 26 2016, @06:48AM

    by Dr Spin (5239) on Friday August 26 2016, @06:48AM (#393375)

    So she had 45,000 emails - unclear whether she wrote these or just received them though - and 110 were supposedly "classified".

    Aside from people looking for a political assassination, is there evidence that any of these actually contained information that was
    likely to do actual harm? Governments have a tendency to use the term "classified" for all sorts of stuff, like
    canteen menus, and this MIGHT represent quotes of headers of documents whose contents was not even there.
    It also MIGHT present stuff sent to her.

    45,000 emails is about 110 a day for a year - she might have read all of them, maybe, but she sure did not send them.
    Could you send 110 emails a day?

    I am not American, and dont know anything about her, but as an outsider, this looks like a load of bull. If she actually sent
    an email endangering the military or something, the charge would be "endangering lives" or something, not "accidentally
    pressing [send] without deleting the auto-inserted quote" - and if she was sent something classified to her personal email,
    then the person who sent it should be charged with "being a moron in high office" - that should be a good way of purging
    the civil service of idiots (might lead to a lack of staff though).

    --
    Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:05AM (#393380)

      I am not American, and dont know anything about her

      ... you don't know even the basics about the segregation of US classified computer networks, you have no knowledge of the US bureaucracy's love for copious amounts of email, and you didn't bother to read my fairly short post [soylentnews.org]. *whack!*

      Laws in the USA are a schizoid mess, though in this case there isn't any realistic wiggle room based on FBI Director James Comey's own words (which I'd helpfully linked for you using the youtube links prepped to start playing right at the appropriate point in time), and the appropriate law on the books (which was also directly linked to).

      The US normies have said among themselves for years that there is no longer any Rule of Law in the USA, but now we're getting our faces rubbed in hard evidence. The same was true of the NSA/fedgov mass spying until Edward Snowden decided someone needed to do something about all the illegal fedgov activity - and that he had to be the specific someone.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 26 2016, @11:57AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday August 26 2016, @11:57AM (#393439) Homepage
      45000 was over 4 years, wasn't it? That's 30-something a day (closer to 50 if you subtract holidays and weekends).
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by Pherenikos on Friday August 26 2016, @03:01PM

      by Pherenikos (1113) on Friday August 26 2016, @03:01PM (#393513)

      Considering she was Secretary of State for 4 years, that's about 31 emails a day, which really isn't that much, many of us get at least this many if not more. And 110 classified emails is one every two weeks.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:08PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @04:08PM (#393541) Journal

      It only takes mishandling ONE classified document to make you GUILTY.

      Her server, her responsibility. If classified documents crossed her server, she is responsible. That pretty much ends the debate.

      Now, if you want a scenario in which classified emails crossed her server, and she WAS NOT GUILTY, I've got it.

      An associate mailed the classified document TO HER, and she promptly reported him for violating security protocols. That is pretty much the only case in which SHE WOULD NOT BE CULPABLE!

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:27AM (#393384)

    Clearly, you are not a lawyer. If you were, you might grasp that the entire classification system and the rules for handling classified information is entirely under the discretion and authority of the President. While Federal laws can and do prescribe punishments for breaking the rules, the rules themselves are flexible and are often updated by executive order from the President. Here's the tricky part -- As Secretary of State, Clinton was acting under the authority of the President with the power to classify and de-classify any documents that originated within the office of the Secretary of State. She's also receiving documents from other Secretaries who also have the authority to de-classify information originating within their own departments before sending to her private e-mail server. This classifying/de-classifying doesn't have to be a formal process -- it can be on a whim. Presidents have disclosed classified information on LIVE TV before, but can't be prosecuted b/c clearly they gave themselves the authority to disclose the information -- and that authority sits solely with their office.

    The reason the FBI didn't choose to prosecute is because the criteria for successful prosecution is so high as to be practically impossible. They'd have to find something that was either sent by her that was classified by a separate office and have that office confirm it was classified at the time, or they'd have to nail down specifically which classified documents were received by her, prove she knew they existed and not reported. Anyone they put on the stand to corroborate that info could easily lie and the case thrown out.

    There are lengthy legal opinions online that delve into the precedents of the requirements of the allegations you make, and the bar is set very high to begin with -- but especially so for a member of the President's Cabinet who has delegated authority from the President regarding the very creation, handling, and de-classifying of information. Any average Joe would be screwed, but her authority as Secretary makes it very difficult to prosecute as she or any other Secretary could simply explain they de-classified info immediately before sending it. As it wasn't classified at the time, there was no need to report the transgression. As Secretary of State, nearly all the classified intel would have been from her office and/or the Secretary of Defense. I'd be willing to bet former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta (who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff), would be willing to go to bat for Clinton and say whatever might have come from his office to Hillary's server was de-classified by himself personally before sending. Likewise for others. It'd be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Not going to happen.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday August 26 2016, @02:18PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday August 26 2016, @02:18PM (#393486)

      So let me get this straight. You're saying...

      A) Anybody in the executive branch who screws up in regards to classified communications can have it swept under the rug by Obama saying "eh, whatever." (although I suppose this is technically true of anybody committing any crime via pardon)
      B) It's too much work to prove Hillary screwed up so forget the whole thing.

      I'm getting real tired of hearing people in positions of authority claiming it's too much effort to do the job they're elected/paid for.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by DECbot on Friday August 26 2016, @02:47PM

      by DECbot (832) on Friday August 26 2016, @02:47PM (#393504) Journal

      I completely agree with your assessment. Clinton cannot be nailed for having classified material as she has the authority to determine what is classified and the connections to ensure she won't be caught with classified materials.

      However, where she might be in hot water is the Federal Records Act. She has a responsibility to Congress to keep documents created during her tenure and turn over those documents to Congress. This of course includes email. Using a private email address for official government business is in direct violation of that act. Hillary argues that precedence allowed her to use a private email address as previous Secretaries of the State used private corporate addresses. However, my thought differs on a few counts.

      1. Scope! Previous Secretaries used a private account only for themselves. Any emails to or from government address are compliant with the Records Act as they will be recorded. Hillary provided email accounts to her close staffers for "convenience." Convenience how? Email is fairly convenient as is, so what makes a Clinton supplied email address more convenient? Likely to circumvent the Federal Records Act, it would be very convenient tool to circumvent the law. She is providing support to her inner cabinet to circumvent the law as they are now able to have internal discussions of official business of the State department without compliance to Congress. This is different than deferred Executive authority. Hillary does not have authority from Congress to circumvent the Records Act as the president is not able to differ that authority to her.
      2. Intent! Hillary intended to circumvent the law and created a private server to control the conversation, tone, and legacy of her tenure.
      3. Incompetence! Hillary's server did not meet the minimum security, redundancy, administration, and archival requirements of the federal government. Her predecessors email may not meet the security requirements, but they likely met the redundancy, administration, and perhaps even the archival requirements. It is very rare when professional incompetence saves you from the letter of the law.
      4. Litigate! Perhaps the previous Secretaries of State should be investigated/prosecuted too.

      Americans feel that she has violated the law in regards to classified records. If she had less authority than Secretary of State, she would be breaking the law. Comely is correct that you can prosecute as she has the authority to declassify any State department document on her server, and has the friends to declassify any non-State department document on her server. However, there should be a probe into how she complied with the Records Act. Turning over documents at the end of her tenure does not ensure that she is in compliance. Where are the logs of the emails received? There should be a count of the number of incoming emails and the number of out going emails. Do these numbers remotely match the number of emails turned over to Congress? And was there audits of the server during her tenure to ensure that logs aren't being tampered and emails are periodically and adequately archived? If she had an exception to use a private server for government work, these metrics would need to be in place during her tenure to ensure compliance to the law. Anything less is gross or willful negligence of the law and should be easily prosecuted.

      --
      cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:11PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @04:11PM (#393544) Journal

      You entirely skip over one important detail. Not all those classified documents originated from the State Department. State has no authority to declassify documents that originate from Justice, Army, Navy, or any other agency with authority to classify documents.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:26PM (#393448)

    > FBI director James Comey stating that Hillary's unclassified email server(s) had 110 known-classified-when-sent emails

    That's misleading as fuck. The information in the emails was classified. None of it was marked classified. She didn't originate it, she received it from unclassified sources. Where's the investigation of who leaked it to the people outside of the government that sent it to her?

    > As a clearance-holder, Hillary committed a felony by not properly reporting the classified emails she received under 18 USC 793 (f)

    Key phrase from your own citation "has reason to believe." The information was not marked. It was sent to her by people outside of the government. She had no reason to believe it was classified.

    > 2a. FBI director James Comey described Hillary's conduct as "extremely careless", synonymous with "gross neglegence"
    > "Gross negligence" is the legal term for the federal felony

    Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
    You are literally putting words in his mouth to suit your agenda.

    > At this point, it's just a simple game of "Shillary's copy-and-paste whack-a-mole".

    Wow. You actually admit to blindly copy-pasting something you don't even understand.
    You know what? I am completely unsurprised.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 26 2016, @01:11PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @01:11PM (#393456) Journal

      Key phrase from your own citation "has reason to believe." The information was not marked. It was sent to her by people outside of the government. She had no reason to believe it was classified.

      Sad to see people excuse felony-level criminal negligence on such flimsy grounds. And there's still the matter of why Clinton used a private email server.

      Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.

      He did.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:34PM (#393465)

        And there's still the matter of why Clinton used a private email server.

        Colin Powell, the previous Secretary of State, advised her to. [nbcnews.com]

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:20PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @04:20PM (#393550) Journal

          Powell came out soon after, and said, "You're not pinning that on me!" Powell reminded us that the lying bitch lies.

          http://www.drudge.com/news/202478/colin-powell-dont-pin-hillarys-email [drudge.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:05PM (#393659)

            That's a creative interpretation. Of course she is trying to pin it on him. He said "here's a bunch of reasons to do it" but he didn't literally tell her to do it. His own office confirmed that he did it. That's the kind of legalism practically everyone with power uses to avoid bad press - if you can't deny the accusation, deny some other accusation and hope nobody reads very carefully.

            A spokeswoman for Powell's office issued a statement following the Times' story: "General Powell has no recollection of the dinner conversation. He did write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of his personal AOL email account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department."

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:40PM (#393670)

              he didn't literally tell her to do it

              If I tell you to rob the Kwik-E-Mart and you do, then you are still the one responsible for the robbery. (I may be charged as an accessory to the crime, but that would be in addition to your own criminal charges.)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:43PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:43PM (#393675)

                And if using a private email server were an actual crime and not just retrospective bad choice your analogy would mean something.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @10:03PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @10:03PM (#393704)

                  Using a private, unclassified email server to send, receive, and store classified information is a crime.

                  Thanks for playing, tho.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:09PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:09PM (#393730)

                    > Thanks for playing, tho.

                    Proceed with your recursion. [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @02:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @02:56PM (#393510)

        > Sad to see people excuse felony-level criminal negligence on such flimsy grounds.

        WTF? Are you so blinded by partisanship that you choose to deny the language of the statute?

        >> Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
        >
        > He did.

        If he actually said "gross negligence" why did the AC not quote that?
        Tell you what, you can make a fool of me: just link to proof he actually said "gross negligence."
        Come on man, you are so confident he said it, what's stopping you from rubbing it in my face?
        Oh yeah... You don't live in the real world, that's why.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:02PM (#393567)

          The more I [soylentnews.org] have the misfortune to learn about the US legal system, the more I learn how far it departs from reality.

          USian normies mostly operate on the basis of observable reality: the "sun comes up", work needs doing, bills need paying, etc. Hillary Clinton, like most high-level politicians and lawyers, appears to live life as if it were entirely contained within a courtroom, a courtroom where "reality" is whatever bullcrap the lawyer can get the judge to sign off on (assuming the judge(s) weren't already bought [wethepeoplefoundation.org]).

          If he actually said "gross negligence" why did the AC not quote that?
          Tell you what, you can make a fool of me: just link to proof he actually said "gross negligence."

          - Gross negligence defined: "carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others [...] [thefreedictionary.com]". Comey's exact words to describe Hillary Clinton and cronies' conduct in regards to their handling of classified information was "extremely careless [youtube.com]".
          - SECRET classified information is defined as information whose improper release would cause "serious damage" to national security, and only gets more dire on the Top Secret and Special Access Program [youtube.com] classification levels (such as was found on Hillary's unclassfied email server(s).)
          - Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in her mishandling of classified information that, at minimum, could cause "serious damage" to US national security. Ergo, Hillary Clinton feloniously violated federal law. It seems only proper to get her (and related parties) in front of a judge to have one of them swift, impartial trials.

          In response to the previously tried-and-true "Baffle Them With Bullshit" approach continuously flung in our direction, we normies are, by and large, loudly echoing the old saying "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. [youtube.com]"

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:09PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:09PM (#393661)

            > Comey's exact words to describe Hillary Clinton and cronies' conduct in regards to their handling of classified information was "extremely careless".

            You wrote all that crap, trying to baffle us with bullshit but still all it boils down to is that comey deliberately avoided the term "gross negligence."

            Comey didn't say what you wanted him to say, so he must have meant what you wanted him to say.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @09:03PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @09:03PM (#393683)

              It's still not raining.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:53AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:53AM (#393789) Journal

              but still all it boils down to is that comey deliberately avoided the term "gross negligence."

              While simultaneously outlining the acts and behavior that constituted said gross negligence. It doesn't matter that Clinton committed multiple felonies. The FBI wouldn't get anywhere with the case in a hostile administration that would sabotage or destroy any such effort to bring Clinton to justice.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:18PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @04:18PM (#393548) Journal

      Since you were never qualified to handle secret documents, it's easy for you to make excuses for someone who is incompetent to handle them.

      Bottom line - whether or not she committed the felonies which we all know she committed, SHE IS INCOMPETENT!!

      I use that word as a military person uses the word. She may grasp concepts, but she cannot apply them in an effective manner. "Effective" means, working as designed. In Shrillary's case, secret documents have become public knowledge. INCOMPETENT. Do you understand that word?

      Now, do you want to vote for a president who has PROVEN HER INCOMPETENCE?

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday August 26 2016, @05:46PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:46PM (#393598)

      That's misleading as fuck. The information in the emails was classified. None of it was marked classified.

      That isn't what the Director of the FBI said in his testimony to Congress. He admitted under oath that Mrs. Clinton did send documents marked classified at the time she sent them. Which in a sane world would have lead to the followup question of "So tell us again why you choose not to recommend charges if you admit that you know beyond any doubt that a felony was committed?"

      Bitch had stuff classified at Top Secret: SAP: NOFORN on that unsecured Microsoft Exchange Server. That level is so secret that no foreigner may see it, not even a friendly head of state like the British Prime Minister or French President. There are probably levels of secret above that but even the existence of it is secret. Basically the only secrets the bitch didn't have on that thing was fucking dead alien level stuff. This batch apparently has stuff so hot that State is 'releasing' some of them to Congress with the entire message body redacted. They are telling this to Congressmen with full clearances on Intelligence and other committees who are supposed to be in the oversight loop on the darkest most black bag stuff the government does.

      To prevent FOIA requests that would expose her corruption with the Pay for Play between her, State and the Clinton Foundation she put our important secrets on a crappy Windows box and now Julian Assange gets to decide whether they get splashed around the world. She should get a fair trial, a blindfold, a cigarette and a brick wall. Instead we are waiting to see if half the country is so debased as to make her POTUS.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:27PM (#393667)

        That isn't what the Director of the FBI said in his testimony to Congress. He admitted under oath that Mrs. Clinton did send documents marked classified at the time she sent them.

        Again with the misleading.

        What he said was that there were three line items marked with marked (C) for confidential, the lowest level of classification. All three of which were appointments from her phone schedule, which are only classified for diplomatic reasons in case she ends up not actually making the phone call then nobody is embarrassed she bailed on a scheduled call with a foreign official. After the call is made, they are always declassified because the fact the call happened is not considered classified.

        Comey said two of those items were mismarked, the calls had taken place, the appointments had been declassified, somebody just forgot to remove the (C). He made no comment on the 3rd item but given it that was her schedule, declassifying them was entirely her decision. And frankly, the fact the she was scheduled to make a phone call and didn't actually make it, is about the weakest tea imaginable.

        > Bitch had stuff classified at Top Secret: SAP: NOFORN

        Maybe so. But it was (a) unmarked (b) sent to her by someone from outside the government who did not have a clearance in the first place. She had no reason to believe it was classified in the first place.

        BTW, your breathless enthusiasm reveals that you know nothing about classification. Its not "SAP: NOFORN." "NOFORN" is not a kind of SAP, its a modifier that can be applied to any level of classification, including confidential. FOUO (for official use only) is another frequently modifier.

        But, lock that bitch up, amirite!?!!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:46PM (#394217)

          Again with the misleading. What he said was that there were three line items marked with marked (C) for confidential, the lowest level of classification

          This is one of the biggest reasons why Hillary is so disliked. She's acting like lawyer-speak is something which dictates reality, akin to a kid being told not to "be caught with her hand in the cookie jar", only to be caught using tongs to get a cookie and smugly stating, "I didn't use my HANDS!"

          Normal people who operate on the principles of observable reality know that mishandling classified information and perjury are the key problems, not whether or not the mishandled classified info was marked as such on Hillary's unclassified email server. (Those of us who have handled classified data before know that its markings are irrelevant in terms of how to handle it when contrasted with the data's actual classification, and the strict marking instructions are meant precisely to help prevent accidents like disclosure. Quibbling about the markings is almost entirely irrelevant when the removal of said markings was done by Hillary and/or her pals, Hillary was still required to report said mishandled classified data, and her failure to do so was a federal crime.)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:30PM (#393463)

    "Gross negligence" is the legal term for

    That makes it important that Comey didn't say "gross negligence" then. "Oh he meant 'gross negligence' when he said 'extremely careless', therefore..." is called a "straw man argument".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:51PM (#393531)

    Please name one person, literally one person, who was prosecuted for gross negligence with handling classified information.

    We can find numerous people who (for better or worse) were prosecuted for intentional distribution of classified information. We can find numerous examples of people losing security clearances for gross negligence with handling classified information (and lost a job or whatever as a result).

    However, to the best of my knowledge, it is unprecedented for somebody to be criminally prosecuted for a mistake with handling classified information... which is exactly like the FBI said.

    If you know an example, I'd love to hear it. I dislike Hillary and would love to add criminal mishandling of classified information to her laundry list of problems... but I can't do so in good faith. Can you?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:06PM (#393571)

      Please name one person, literally one person, who was prosecuted for gross negligence with handling classified information.

      Irrelevant. Even granting you your point for purposes of the argument, new laws would be pointless if they were not enforced due to such "enforcement being unprecidented", as new laws would be by definition.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:26PM (#393618)

      J.J. Smith [politico.com]. Pled out to two other felonies.

      If Clinton would accept a plea deal that included pleading guilty to a lesser felony in mishandling classified information, that would be fine by me. She wouldn't even have to serve prison time as far as I'm concerned, the admission of felony guilt would be sufficient for my purposes.

      I'd love to know if we've ever had a President who was actually convicted of a felony before.