Even as a European*, I find this of interest, because of the level of corruption it shows.
Headline: "Clinton Was 'Extremely Careless' With Email But Should Not Be Charged".
In his statement, Comey said that the FBI's investigation had found 110 emails on Clinton's servers that had contained classified information when they were sent or received, of which eight contained material at the highest classification level of "top secret." Noting that this information was being stored on "unclassified personal servers" less secure even than commercial services like Gmail and that Clinton's use of the private account was widely known, Comey said it was "possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." Said Comey: "Any reasonable person should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that kind of information."
So: The FBI knows that she mishandled classified information. When you receive your security clearance, you are informed of the rules and the penalties for breaking them. Storing Secret, much less Top Secret information on a civilian server outside the control of the government violates those rules.
Yet, she will not be prosecuted. She was just "careless", no big deal. Laws are for the little people.
*Full disclosure: I used to be American, but turned in my passport some years ago. Various reasons, not least of which are the US tax policies. But the politics (The Shrub, Obama, and now...possibly Hillary!) - it's like a banana republic, only with nukes.
Related Stories
FBI Director James Comey Sacked
The Washington Post reports that:
FBI Director James B. Comey has been dismissed by the president [...] a startling move that officials said stemmed from a conclusion by Justice Department officials that he had mishandled the probe of Hillary Clinton's emails.
Previously:
Clinton Told FBI She Relied on Others' Judgment on Classified Material
FBI Recommends No Prosecution for Clinton
F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump
President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey:
President Trump has fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, the White House said Tuesday.
[...] Under the F.B.I.'s normal rules of succession, Mr. Comey's deputy, Andrew G. McCabe, a career F.B.I. officer, becomes acting director. The White House said the search for a new director will begin immediately.
I never liked Comey (see this cluster of stories), but I doubt there will ever be an FBI Director I like.
Related:
We're Stuck With Comey
Earlier in the day...
FBI Director Comey Misstated Huma Abedin Evidence at Last Week's Hearing
James Comey has been asked by President Trump to stay on as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Comey is three years into a ten-year term.
News at NYT (which broke the story), USA Today, Washington Post, CNN, and The Hill.
Here's the bulk of our extensive past coverage of FBI Director Comey's career (oldest first):
2014:
FBI Director Concerned about Encryption on Smartphones
F.B.I. Director Calls "Dark" Devices a Hindrance to Crime Solving
To FBI Director Comey: You Reap What You Sow!
2015:
F.B.I. Has No Doubt that North Korea Attacked Sony, says Director
FBI Chief Links Video Scrutiny of Police to Rise in Violent Crime
2016:
Apple Ordered by Judge to Help Decrypt San Bernadino Shooter's phone
FBI Unable to Decrypt California Terrorists' Cell Phone
FBI vs. Apple Encryption Fight Continues
New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone
Apple Lawyer and FBI Director Appear Before Congress
FBI Error Locked San Bernardino Attacker's iPhone
FBI's iPhone Hack Only Works on 5C and Older
Washington Post: The FBI Paid "Gray Hat(s)", Not Cellebrite, for iPhone Unlock
FBI Director Blames 'Viral Video Effect' for Spike in Violent Crime
FBI Recommends No Prosecution for Clinton
FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:00PM
If you don't mind a not yet former American asking: Where did you choose to expat to, and did you go through formal renunciation of your US citizenship? If so did they charge absurd amounts of money to do so like they do today?
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:19PM
How do they charge you money for renouncing your citizenship? Or do you mean the deferred taxes from not having to mark-to-market your investments every year, instead simply doing so when you sell assets?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:27PM
'Renouncing US Citizenship'
There are two different ways to renounce, one is 'when you join another country or do certain things that would trigger automatic revocation' and the other is 'Immediate renounciation... after visiting us twice with a 3 month 'change your mind period' in between.'
Both require you to visit an embassy on foreign soil in order to do so.
The fees were 500/2500, but I think they went up either this year or last year and are intended to go up again at least a couple more times over the next few years. Web searches are your friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:35AM
Those are just the fees for moving your dossier from the "cold files" to the "warm files".
(Score: 1) by mathdan on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:35PM
Administrative Processing of Formal Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship [federalregister.gov]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by legont on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:05AM
You still have to pay the US taxes for the rest of your life; just saying...
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @04:13AM
You might be confusing the odd scenario right now where if you are a US citizen, but not a resident you have to pay US taxes even if you haven't resided in the US in a decade. There's also the catch that if the IRS can levy taxes on anything created while a US citizen. So if you know your company is going to go public next year and you renounce, they can still levy taxes on your revenue from the IPO. Even though the profits are new, the source - the company - was created when you were a US citizen. But once you renounce and begin your new life, that new life is completely independent of the US.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:01PM
Yup, laws are for the little people.
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
Can any Americans here let us know how that defence goes for you the next time you're defending a speeding fine?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:05PM
I was called cynical for saying this would be the outcome. Unfortunatly I am still cynical.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:31AM
You're also not wrong, so you've got that going for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:07PM
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
I'd stick with lack of intent, if intent was explicitly required by the law in question.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:17PM
Did not Trump predict this all along [breitbart.com]
There were also allegedly several high level FBI agents ready to resign if this outcome occurred.
There you have it folks...
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:57PM
I believe Trump also predicted a future terrorist attack a few months ago, and then the Orlando shooting happened. Captain Obvious ≠ Nostradamus.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:16AM
Writing vague shit that could be interpreted in a million different ways isn't too impressive either.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:33PM
There were also allegedly several high level FBI agents ready to resign
Well then. Now we'll see how accurate "allegedly" is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:43AM
Clarification... there was no intent to remain employed.
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:31PM
I'm not a Trump fan, but maybe the best thing for the US is if Bernie Sanders re-enters the race as an independent. Then Trump will surely win, and Hillary can go to jail. Maybe all that will send the United States to rock bottom a little faster and they can then get on with rebuilding a country they can be proud of again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:01PM
Trump can "go over it" all he wants to, to the extent that the law allows him to do so. HE still cannot bring charges himself against her. Best he could do would be to appoint an AG who as quid-pro-quo of being nominated will go after her.
Oh, and do we really want officials appointed who have quid-pro-quo understandings, or would we rather have an appointment where it is promised that the case will be studied again?
(And, BTW, I'm still in the camp saying this is corruption at its' finest. I just see no need to stack corruption on top of corruption.)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:28PM
Intent is something that is supposed to be decided by a jury, or by a judge if she waives the right to a jury.
Saying she had no intent is pretty crazy.
While her daughter's husband was running a hedge fund betting on Greece, Hillary sent him info about Greece that came from spying on German leadership. That very obviously puts sources at risk. How can you not see that this is intentional transfer of classified materials to an unauthorized person?
Getting info about near-future drone strikes, and then approving or denying them, is pretty obviously classified. Are we supposed to believe she didn't intend to regularly perform this activity via her personal server and Blackberry? Perhaps she approved drone strikes by accident.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:57PM
It looks like they're gutting that regulation as well. Recently the former governer of Virginia was let off the hook for accepting massive bribes because rolexes, expensive cars and paying off credit card debt aren't bribes.
Apparently, this statute doesn't apply if you're rich either. This isn't a case where a few emails got accidentally forwarded to a non-work account or a 3rd party moved the server someplace that it wasn't supposed to be. If any of that had happened, I'd at least understand them opting not to seek an indictment, but we already have more than enough evidence about the situation to know that she's guilty. The top secret documents on that unapproved server alone numbered nearly 2 dozen, not to mention the thousands and thousands of other classified documents.
How can we even pretend like we have a right to prosecute Snowden when such a blatant violation is ignored because the person being investigated is powerful? Snowden is a hero and ought to have the charges dropped. Not to mention Assange that's likely only being persecuted because the US leaned on the Swedes to do something about it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:48AM
More to the point, if Hillary is being let off the hook for this, then why the fuck is Snowden being crucified?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:39AM
Ruling class vs working class. That's the only reason we'll never get.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:12PM
Well, for one, Snowden violated the statute (because he acted with intent), and according to the FBI, Clinton didn't. That said, I hope Snowden is pardoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by quintessence on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:09AM
Intent is something that is supposed to be decided by a jury, or by a judge if she waives the right to a jury.
Not exactly.
Mens rea is, at least by my reading, was she aware of the law beyond a reasonable doubt. And then did she intend to subvert it.
Love her or hate her, this particular aspect of law is worth fighting for as there are thousands sent to prison for violation where mens rea isn't present, and it is a miscarriage of justice.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:13AM
If she wasn't aware of the law, then as Secretary of State she was criminally negligent. There's all sorts of regulations about training on exactly this subject that you have to go through to hold any kind of security clearance, much less something at that level.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:38AM
Maybe true enough, but then those points should be brought up and argued instead of blithely stating she broke the law and that's the end of it.
What I'm saying is the full extent of due process should be afforded to even Clinton, otherwise clamoring for justice in this instance is just hollow.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:01AM
Maybe true enough, but then those points should be brought up and argued instead of blithely stating she broke the law and that's the end of it.
What I'm saying is the full extent of due process should be afforded to even Clinton, otherwise clamoring for justice in this instance is just hollow.
The full extent of due process is not being used because these crimes are being brushed off. This is the other side of injustice, letting the guilty go free on spurious basis that they wouldn't use for anyone who wasn't part of the political elite.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:54AM
We know she's guilty, the evidence is already out there that she broke the law.
She hasn't been afforded due process here, they skipped the process where they air the evidence they're using because they didn't feel like prosecuting her. There's ample evidence in reports already public that she retained dozens of top secret emails on an unsecured, insecure, unauthorized and secret server. That alone would have ensured that they'd at least go for an indictment if she weren't so well connected.
Now that they've opted to not go for an indictment, I'd be very surprised if private files don't start getting leaked to the press and that's not even including the ones that Assange has already announced he was going to leak.
There's something inherently fishy when they start handing out immunity deals and dedicating that many agents to an investigation and then decide that they don't have enough to go on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:42AM
Incompetence becomes a crime, at some point. There are plenty of officers who have been charged with incompetence, and had their careers ruined, even if they didn't go to prison.
In this case, we are going to reward an incompetent nitwit by sending her to the White House? Preposterous.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:49PM
No. No. No. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse for a crime, nor is actual knowledge of a law ever a requirement for a violation to be found. The mens rea (intent requirement) refers either to the conduct elements of the crime or to some explicitly stated "specific intent" element given in the statute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:45AM
Exactly right. The executive branch is now judge, jury, and exhonerator.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:30AM
Oops, meant to swipe right.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:23AM
She doesn't want to waive the right to a jury, but nobody could find any peers to make one
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:52PM
She chose the location of the server knowing that there would be classified materials sent to it and she was repeatedly warned that she couldn't do that. I'm not sure how much more intent they could have.
I'm not willing to vote for somebody that doesn't know or care about securing classified documents. I can't imagine that I'm the only one that refuses to vote for a known felon. Not to mention all the other things that are wrong with her as a candidate, the violations of retention policy on work related emails. The massive destruction of evidence and the inability to win an open primary.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:13AM
She chose the location of the server knowing that there would be classified materials sent to it and she was repeatedly warned that she couldn't do that. I'm not sure how much more intent they could have.
Facts not in evidence.
How in the world did you come to believe that she knew ahead of time that there would be classified material sent to it?
And if that was true, then she would have been just as 'guilty' regardless of what email system she used since both her server and the dept of state's servers are public facing systems because that's how email works.
99% of the arguments about this issue fail to rise above frothing of the mouth.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:48AM
You seem to have a poor grasp of the facts of life. She occupied an office which routinely processes classified data. Routinely - that means, all the time. And, she INSISTED that her work emails go to an unsecured server in her own possession. The reason given, that security was inconvenient for her.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:59AM
As Runaway said, by the nature of her job people were going to be sending sensitive and classified documents to the email she used for work. She opted to commingle personal and professional correspondence on an unapproved of computer. If she genuinely didn't expect to have any classified materials sent to that address, then she's the most incompetent individual to ever hold office in the US or anywhere else.
That's sort of like a Wall Street broker being shocked that people are sending sensitive trade information to his work address. It would be more shocking if nobody were sending it to there.
But, even worse is the fact that when those emails started to show up that she didn't remedy the situation. A genuine mistake is one thing, but this continued for quite some time and there are literally tens of thousands of emails that are unaccounted for because she deleted them and had the servers wiped.
Not to mention the fact that she apparently retained these emails for years after the point where she left office when she was supposed to surrender all of them upon leaving service.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:58AM
I came to believe that Hillary knew ahead of time that then-known classified material would be sent to her nonsecure system because Hillary herself demanded exactly that be done.
Check the facts for yourself: via wikileaks [wikileaks.org], tho feel free to browse the official gov release site as well:
Hillary wanted her "TPs" (presumably Talking Points), but folks trying to send the classified info were having trouble getting a secure FAX setup to work. Hillary's response?
That instruction is in direct contradiction with the Non-Disclosure Agreement required for access to classified information and also meets the criteria for violating the federal laws regarding the proper handling of such then-known classified information.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:59AM
>intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location
Wasn't she told off by one of the people she was emailing, that she was storing sensitive information in an insecure server? She clearly had intent to retain these materials at an unauthorized location.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:48AM
Not more than one year even if prosecuted? That's a slap on the wrist.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:20PM
laws have ALWAYS been for little people.
but its obvious that this witch hunt is 100% partisan, as the summary kind of implies. the repubs have nothing 'good' on her so they use this.
bush: he created wars and tortured people. he got off 100% scot free. he was a monster but everyone gave him a pass and nothing happened to him, after doing so many monstorous things.
if all you have is 'info sec' on hillary, that's damned weaksauce, guys. everyone who is not wearing red can see that.
give it up and find something real to hunt someone over. the more you attack someone for petty bullshit, the less we want to support you (I'm talking to you, red-shirts).
most of us just can't get worked up about email security, especially when there are so many OTHER MEANINGFUL things to go after someone for.
the pettiness of the R's is pathetic. but keep fucking that chicken. you won't increase your numbers with these petty attacks.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:38PM
While I agree with the general concept of Bush getting prison time, just like Clinton and hundreds of others, don't even pretend he started any of those things. He was just a figurehead for real powers influencing public opinion, performing psyops, and manipulating businesses and the military to their own eventual gains (whether financial or political or something else is an exercise for the reader.)
The real charges they should all be up on is treason, failure to uphold their sworn oath to the constitution and country, insider trading, corruption, corporate graft, leaking intelligence secrets (because lets be honest, they all have done it, directly or indirectly.) There might be others but those are enough to get them hanged or put in prison for the rest of their lives. But since both law enforcement and the judicial branch are in collusion, and both can be influenced by the legislative bodies, nothing will happen unless the people do something to remind them who they answer to, and what the consequences are of not fairly enforcing the laws against all. If the people are unwilling to do that, then it is their own fault when the people in charge consider themselves special, because the people are in that case tacitly implying they are through their inability to exert pressure upon their elected officials and legal enforcement bodies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:43PM
You yourself are obviously 100% partisan.
What character flaw in Hillary would convince you to vote for Trump? Would having a witness killed do the job? How about drone strikes?
I'm thinking there is nothing she could do that would make you vote for Trump. It doesn't matter if she eats raw brains right out of screaming little kids. You'd still fail to vote for Trump.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:54PM
So the only non-Hillary option in your eyes is to vote for Trump?
You might want to remove your partisan glasses when you visit this site. Either that or don't set-up a false dichotomy.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:58AM
You forget that this is nothing more than a spectator sport to most, so all that matters is cheering on and eventually backing the winning team.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:33PM
You mean like this? U.N. Official 'Accidentally' Crushes Own Throat Right Before Testifying Against Hillary Clinton [zerohedge.com] Not to mention the long string of corpses under mysterious conditions from the first Clinton administration.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:54AM
Yeah, but, doesn't that happen all the time? I'm sure I've read of lots of people who crush their own throats. /sarcasm
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Informative) by Newander on Wednesday July 06 2016, @02:58PM
Except that's not true. [snopes.com] The Republicans have been trying to smear the Clintons since '92 and the only thing that has stuck is that he had an affair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:45PM
And lied about it. It must be contagious, or business as usual being a politician.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:44PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mth on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:55PM
but its obvious that this witch hunt is 100% partisan, as the summary kind of implies. the repubs have nothing 'good' on her so they use this.
FYI, I am not an American and I have no particular fondness for either major US party.
bush: he created wars and tortured people. he got off 100% scot free. he was a monster but everyone gave him a pass and nothing happened to him, after doing so many monstorous things.
True, but how is that relevant? Two wrongs don't make a right.
if all you have is 'info sec' on hillary, that's damned weaksauce, guys. everyone who is not wearing red can see that.
She shouldn't have used her own server for government e-mail even if it were the most secure server in the world. She either knew that or should have known that but did it anyway. The fact that the server was poorly secured only makes a bad situation worse.
Maybe what she did is not enough to send her to jail, but any party with integrity wouldn't pick someone like that as their candidate.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:53AM
but any party with integrity wouldn't pick someone like that as their candidate.
I'll pay you one bitcoin if you find me ONE poltician who is spotless and clean, to your 'integrity' standards.
I feel quite safe that my bitcoin is not going to land in your pocket.
save the 'integrity' bullshit, I'm not a spring chicken, I've lived more than 5 decades and I know how life works.
we elect politicans TO LIE AND DO BAD THINGS, hoping that it will land on our side on not the opposition. sorry if that ruins your disney tv storybook view of the world, but at the levels these people are at 100.0% of them are crooks. no one else could GET the job, much less keep it very long.
grow up, guys. we live in a highly corrupt world and the lone ranger ain't gonna come ridin' up to save the say. we have shit and we'll get shit. sometimes its red shit and sometimes its blue shit.
but if they are a politician with any amount of power, just one guess how they GOT that power. go ahead, look it up. its spelled with a C and ends with orruption. every single one of our 'elected leaders' is a sociopath. and we badly need a reboot since small tweaks are not going to get us to where we want.
when you have rich and powerful playing that ballgame, you seriously expect them to follow RULES?
again, when you were born? yesterday?
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:35AM
There are spots and there is Black Square.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:28AM
... but 3 lefts do.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:32PM
... but 3 lefts do.
Ironically, only if those three lefts are equivalent to 3 right angles.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 5, Funny) by linkdude64 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:47AM
Have you read any of those emails? They have recommendations from Hillary stating that the overthrow of Libyan and Syrian governments is in the best interests of Israel.
As our chief diplomat, Hillary used all of her power to:
1) Fund the little-known rebels who are now called ISIS
2) Destroy the stability of that region MUCH worse than Bush ever did...
3) ...So much so, in fact, that it caused a global refugee crisis potentially leading to the destruction of the European Union.
Every woman raped in Cologne, and every women raped and molested by Bill who was silenced can give Hillary Clinton a big fat thank you.
"Just infosec bro. She had no criminal intent bro."
Try reading those emails sometime.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:57AM
I'll read the emails the minute the lincoln private communicatons are release, jefferson, washington, etc.
then go more modern and look at the last 20 or 30 years of politicians.
it sure would be interesting to read what THEIR private thoughts are!
you got one glimpse of the real world and now you're on a tirade. look around a bit more before you assume its just one person or party.
we have fundamental problems with authority and power figures in this country. and it happens to BOTH PARTIES.
that said, I still can't get worked up on emails that we see, since we don't have equiv 'private' emails from the other sons of bitches that we 'elected' (or who stole office).
show me a spotless record for bush and cheney and bush1. until you can show your guys are spotless, I could care less about your little 'we lost, waaaaah!' whining.
politicians lie and break rules and mostly get away with it. to think otherwise is to be a denialist (or troll).
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:25AM
Feh, I don't care about the private, i.e. non-governmental thoughts of politicians are. (The conduct of past politicians is also irrelevant when determining whether or not a crime has been committed.) I care about when the politicians commit crimes such as treason, fraud, etc., and then expect to go unpunished. Either we have the Rule of Law, where all are equally accountable, or we have Natural Law [constitution.org] which politicians and their supporters cannot seem to stomach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:26AM
So your strategy is to make heavy use of red herrings? Nice try. I happen to think that pretty much all politicians should be in prison, including Clinton. But the fact that other politicians aren't going to prison doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't either.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:37AM
Bush committed war crimes and should be in jail.
Hillary Clinton committed war crimes and should be in jail.
Donald Trump has committed no felonies, funded no mass-murders, started no civil wars, provided no weapons to known war criminals, overthrown no 3rd world governments, and has destroyed no international commonwealths, in his life, ever. Unlike Hillary Clinton. PERIOD.
Who exactly do you want to be in power again???
(Score: 1) by Chrontius on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:58AM
Strictly speaking, she funded the little-known rebels who were crushed by ISIS.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 06 2016, @04:02PM
but its obvious that this witch hunt is 100% partisan
You think her retinue of yes-(wo)men are going to do it instead? Most such prosecutions are going to be partisan because that's who has the incentive to do it. And really, if political enemies don't have the balls to take down someone who breaks the laws egregiously, then who will?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:26PM
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
Since there are people currently in prison who broke the same laws with no 'intent' it is pointless excuse making for why Mrs. Clinton is to be treated special. Most damning is the fact intent is not even an element in several of the crimes Comey stood there and told the world he was convinced she committed. Your intent does not matter, incompetence does not matter, being drunk doesn't matter, being under alien mind control beams does not matter. If you commit the act you are subject to the penalty. She sent information she knew to be classified across an insecure system. She ordered her subordinates to remove the classified markings and send documents to her insecure system. She retained classified information after leaving government service.
But yea, my posting history shows I knew there couldn't be any other decision, the only question was whether Comey recommended charges and Lynch decided against or if Comey would disgrace himself to save her for future service. Now we know.
We all knew there could never be charges filed because Obama would have been left with only bad options. He could swear under oath that his Sec State was a mere figurehead and all Foreign Policy was being done out of the White House by political hacks, thus he never once emailed his Secretary of State. Or he could admit he did communicate with her by email and so utterly incompetent that he couldn't figure out that clintonemail.com wasn't a government server. All of the valid addresses would have .gov or .mil endings but he was too dumb to realize that. That would have been his best defense. Could you imagine somebody with an ego the size of Obama, better speechwriter than his speechwriters, better at policy than his policy advisers, forced to swear under oath that he is an idiot? Actually telling the truth would not even be considered, of course. He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:42PM
Yeshhhs, shssuck it downnnn!
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:26AM
I agree with your comment, there were never going to be charges filed, but then:
He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
I am of the view that it makes no difference whether Obama is a Democrat or a Republican, the point here is not partisan.
The US political system is controlled by an elite for their own purposes, and the Democrat and Republican flags are just for show. If it had been a Republican in this position, the outcome would have been the same.
In the unlikely event charges arise, and convictions are achieved the President will be pardoning people soon, so there's that, after all Bill pardoned his brother for cocaine possession and George HW pardoned pretty much everyone for the Iran contra thing.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:18AM
Yea, Scooter Libby having his life turned inside out was exactly like what happened to Clinton, Sandy "Pants Burgler" Berger, etc. The special council knew within days who leaked Plame's name because Richard Armitage confessed to him, but he was ordered to get Cheney and by damn he was going to get him or somebody close in a perp walk.
Both parties ARE corrupt and dealing dirty for their own benefit and their super rich class. But to say they are treated the same is simply a factual error.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:26AM
Damn it, I usually try to avoid flamewars on this site.
I should have known from your posting history.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:01AM
your comment bears repeating:
The US political system is controlled by an elite for their own purposes, and the Democrat and Republican flags are just for show.
the only thing I'd add to that is: the R guys are more 'christ-y', or think they are, than the rest. they think they have 'god' on their side and they won't listen to reason.
but when it comes to payoffs and lies, they both do equally 'well' since that's part of the JOB. there's a reason no good person gets that job. a good person would not last a week in any of those jobs.
and THAT is the problem!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:46PM
Is it possible that the Christ-y bits are just for show as well, to appeal to a particular group who will then vote that way, thinking that they will make a difference?
I don't know because I don't live in the US, but it looks like that from the outside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @11:24AM
He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
This explains a lot about you. You're one of the dipshits who for some insane reason has decided that it's your religious duty to God that will get you in heaven to vote Republican.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:27PM
Actually telling the truth would not even be considered, of course. He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
Obama always tells the truth when you listen to him speak backwards. [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:39AM
Depends. Were you speeding while rich?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:19AM
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
Can any Americans here let us know how that defence goes for you the next time you're defending a speeding fine?
It doesn't apply to speeding fines since those are not criminal.
Reckless driving can be criminal but, as the name implies, requires intent.
FWIW, american law has two related concepts "mens rea" (guilty mind - aka intent) and "strict liability" (intent does not matter).
One example of mens rea is the different between murder and manslaughter.
One example of strict liability is the possession of child porn, it doesn't matter how you came to have it, simply having it is illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:29AM
One example of strict liability is the possession of child porn, it doesn't matter how you came to have it, simply having it is illegal.
Which is highly unjust because:
1) Computers--especially ones connected to the Internet--are insecure, thereby allowing pretty much anyone to potentially plant data on your computer.
2) That is government censorship, which is always wrong and unconstitutional regardless of what our treacherous courts have ruled. Regardless of how disgusting the material itself is, government censorship is far worse.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:51PM
Possession of child porn does not appear to be a strict liability offense, though some sentencing enhancements are. See http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Chapter_02.pdf [ussc.gov]
Strict liability offenses are supposed to be things like parking tickets. The 800-pound gorilla of an exception is statutory rape, which may be what confused you.
Additionally, strict liability offenses with penalties significantly more serious than parking tickets are absolutely terrifying for reasons that should be obvious, but that's neither here nor there.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:02PM
..in a presidential candidate. I like them "extremely careless" just like my surgeons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:25PM
Don't forget your chainsaw-juggling fire-spitting one-legged clowns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:30PM
I'd take the clown over the megalomaniac
(Score: 5, Informative) by SanityCheck on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:55AM
Vote trump, and you get 2 in 1!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:02PM
1. Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:31PM
It's like Americans today have never read Animal Farm. Truthfully, every president we've had since Reagan has been the icon of a pig from this book.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:47PM
It's funny you bring this up. Ok, actually it's not.
When this was required reading in high school, I couldn't help but read the book thinking yep, yep, this is exactly like the American government. Exactly, without any error. Nothing is awry here, this is exactly how things are. Yep, yep.
Only after we'd finished reading the book and the teacher started comparing this to communism did I start going, "Hey, wait a minute.. that's not right. This is the _American_ government, and this book is _clearly_ a reflection on the United States. Why else would it be required reading for American students?" Throughout that whole discussion, this shit-talk Russia had no sway whatsoever, and I still feel that Animal Farm completely and correctly represents the American government. I have no feelings one way or another about whether or not it represents any other government, but it so _perfectly_ captures the American system that they really need not be considered.
Throughout the entire reading of the book, I had no idea that they were slamming Communism until the teacher specifically brought that up as a talking point. Of course, I wrinkled my brow, and went to myself, 'The US isn't communist..'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:11PM
I believe specifically Orwell meant to slam the Russian Revolution [wikipedia.org]. See the article about Animal Farm [wikipedia.org].
Not disagreeing with your impression.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by redneckmother on Wednesday July 06 2016, @04:16AM
And there, you have it.
"Four legs good, two legs BETTER."
Meanwhile, the wise old horse goes to the glue factory.
In many ways, both systems have the same faults.
It's past time for people to step back and think about things from outside the popular/published context.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:10AM
The end result may be the same, but the route is different. Animal Farm is commentary on the subversion of the communist ideals to impose a totalitarian state. During the Russian Revolution, power was initially devolved to Soviets (small community decision-making groups where everyone had a say). Shortly after, it was consolidated centrally by people who kept spouting the same rhetoric as the early revolutionaries, but simply as a way to control the masses. It's arguable whether Russia was ever communist (it skipped several steps proposed by Marx), but if it were then it only remained so for a year or two before becoming an oligarchy.
The USA's use of democracy and freedom as talking points has been quite similar, but the USA was never really in a position where everyone had a say in the governing of the country. It had moved towards oligarchy long before universal suffrage.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:03PM
When you receive your security clearance, you are informed of the rules and the penalties for breaking them.
And those penalties have always been administrative actions unless there is evidence of intent to distribute that information.
Somehow I don't think a verbal warning for a first offence is going to satisfy the partisan witch-hunters.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:07PM
Except this isn't a first offense case. This is a thousands of offenses case.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:36PM
yawn
network security for email. I'm literally LOLing about all you R's who want blood for such BS.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:40PM
I've never voted republican once and I find this pretty appalling.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:10AM
If it helps you to think I'm a Republican, go ahead. It's not true but that has never stopped a liberal from believing anything before.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:42AM
> It's not true but that has never stopped me from believing anything before.
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:13AM
So edgy.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:04AM
I ran your post thru a repub-o-meter and it scored over 60%.
its science, man. it does not lie.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 06 2016, @10:35AM
Your meter's flawed. It doesn't take a partisan shill to be completely disgusted with either party.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:46AM
> Except this isn't a first offense case. This is a thousands of offenses case.
Huh? Where did you get that number from?
At most it is about a hundred cases and
(a) That includes material sent to her by other people
(b) That's out of tens of thousands of emails
(c) None of it was made evident until this investigation
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 06 2016, @02:02AM
Except to her, who it was instantly and blatantly evident to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:37AM
As supporting evidence for Buzzard (not that I expect it will affect his detractor's views one bit), here's Hillary in her own words directing known-classified info to be sent insecurely: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605 [wikileaks.org]
(Score: 2) by IndigoFreak on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:37PM
Devil's Advocate. Isn't it being on an email server intent to distribute? Isn't email by its very nature a distribution system?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:44PM
Yes, but the recipients happen to have security clearance. If she sent emails containing confidential information to people without the appropriate clearances then try would have had her.
If someone sent her emails with confidential information and she replied did she really distribute it anyway?
(Score: 4, Informative) by physicsmajor on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:03PM
As has been posted above quite clearly, the exact statute does not care if everyone privy has clearance. The information must at all times be held in authorized locations. To wit: "... intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location ..."
She did this with full knowledge and intent. She was repeatedly warned about it. It's a felony.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:12PM
I think it's cute how her backers make this out to be a GOP conspiracy and accuse people that think she should have been prosecuted as being partisans.
The reality, is that this is a very serious crime and that she should at least be indicted so that the matter gets prosecuted. If a jury of her peers doesn't think it was criminal, that's one thing. But having it written off without even seeking an indictment is completely unacceptable.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Wednesday July 06 2016, @04:29AM
Just a small nit:
s/a jury of her peers/an impartial jury/
This ain't Britain.
Yeah, okay, I'm being pedantic. Go ahead, make a mod.
Sorry, Francis. No personal attack intended. I just get bent about that "peer" thing :-).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:11AM
most of us don't define this as a 'serious crime'.
starting a war where econonomies were ruined and 10's of thousands of people died. THAT's actionable.
this pissed you off for other reasons. and you know, we don't care to hear them because we've heard your type of BS many times before.
its weaksauce. and if its the best your team has, that's fucking pathetic.
sore losers. 'lets get the dems any way we can'. GROW UP LITTLE BOYS. this shit makes me sick.
for the record I could care less about hillary. I have zero feelings for her, positive or negative. but I see this for what it is: a slimey attack just to score more points in the redshirt side.
pathetic. keep farking that chicken.
oh, and btw, BENGHAZI! (there, that probably raised your blood level a bit. lol). yet another tempest in a teapot.
and as for our 'secure' servers: HA! I'm sure I'm not the only sysadmin here. we all know that its 100% impossible to secure email, no matter what air gaps (etc) you use. I would be willing to bet that other countries have all the info about us that they want (and we, on them). this maxwell smart child view of 'secure server!' is childish. fucking comey can't even secure his damned aol account.
again, come back when people died directly because of this. but be prepared to go back in time and go thru ALL the emails that were sent; and I'm sure you'll find some eyeopeners among them. and zero way to know how well they were secure. probably not very.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:53AM
Did that sound less retarded inside your head?
Are you under the mistaken impression your gal Hillary had one of these (along with the classified keying material) separating her little email server from the public Internet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACLANE [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:53PM
If you don't consider that to be a big deal, then what does that say about your moral compass? She had an insecure server that provided crackers with all sorts of classified information, including top secret documents, because she thought she was above the law.
At an absolute bare minimum she should have her security clearance revoked like they did to the last guy they convicted of a similar crime and be barred from seeking further clearance. Which would also disqualify her from the Presidency as being President without access to classified materials would make it impossible to do the job.
The whole idea that we're going to grant clearance to somebody after such a massive breach of the rules is staggering.
I won't vote for her as even as Comey was laying out that they wouldn't charge her, it was pretty damn clear that they would have charged her if she wasn't an elite. You or I behaving like that would see jail time or at a bare minimum have our security clearances revoked and be barred from seeking them again in the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @03:50AM
So basically your position is that politicians can basically do whatever they want, ignore any laws they don't feel like following, and it's all OK so long as no one dies? Or does that only apply to people on your team? Give me a break.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:35AM
She's so unique she doesn't have peers.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:39AM
Sidney Blumenthal didn't.
Marc Mezvinsky (Clinton's son-in-law) didn't, when he was managing a hedge fund tied to Greece and she was feeding him secret information about the EU's bailout of Greece.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:39PM
True, but she did something far far worse. Stupid bitch put it on Microsoft Exchange Server with zero firewalling or proxy in front and then they turned off the pitiful Trend Micro security stuff when they couldn't make it work. Top. People. Taking the whole mail spool, zipping it up and putting a listing for a .torrent file up on thepiratebay.[whatever it is today] wouldn't have distributed it to more foreign intelligence services.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:02PM
Partisan? I was a Democrat before this. I'm no longer a Democrat because of this. I haven't decided whether I'll be a Green or just Independent, but passing it off as a partisan hatchet job is disingenuous. It might have started out that way, but anybody who looks at the case with unbiased eyes is going to see at least cause for concern, even if they don't see something criminal in it.
Even under the best possible interpretation, she violated retention policies meant to ensure the people could keep an eye on the activities of their government officials. That alone ought to be serious cause for concern given the recent history of corruption and lack of accountability in the White House.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:53PM
Clue - the republicans and democrats still believe that democracy works.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:47AM
I know, but I mean even at the state level where things are generally less broken.
This kind of corrupt BS is why I'm throwing my support behind Wolf PAC and their efforts to remove money from the political system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:50AM
Nice try at deflecting somewhere else, bro. How much is it nowadays per post?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @02:10AM
Administrative? Maybe.
During my earliest days in the Navy, I saw a number of "classified" documents. Most commonly, I saw the POD, or Plan of the Day. The POD is merely confidential, of course. It's clearly labeled as such. And, the POD was not to be removed from the confines of the ship. I questioned that, because I didn't understand why it was classified. The reason for it's classification was spelled out, verbosely. I questioned what would happen if I folded a copy up, put it in my pocket, and took it home. The answer was Captain's Mast, if the act were discovered.
So, yes, technically, you're right - taking the POD off of the ship would result in administrative action. But, that meant a potential reduction in pay grade, 90 day's fine of half your pay, 45 days extra duty, and 45 days restriction to the ship. No jail time, because a Captain's Mast isn't a judicial proceeding, it is administrative.
Why do we not see some similar results for the ruling class? And, why are so many people willing to give a promotion to the person who is so deserving of some administrative action?
I'm so sick of the double standards.
Then, we have Snowden, who reported to the public that it's public servants had betrayed us. And HE is the one who is 'Public Enemy Number One'.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:05PM
I'm just wondering how many Republucans that have been after Clinton for this personal email server sent her emails with possibly confidential information in them? The domain of the server had to be something other than a .gov gtld. Shouldn't they have know that they weren't sending to a .gov email address?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:24PM
Yes, somehow, the republicans are to blame!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:31PM
No, not to blame. I'm sure Democrats sent her email, too (though they weren't trying to hang her afterwards).
But how does someone who is sending classified material to a non-governmental email address have any leg to stand on? The FBI report mentions 110 emails from 52 threads so clearly there were plenty of responses to her emails containing confidential information or she responded to plenty containing confidential information.
I'm just wondering how many of the emails containing confidential information were sent by Republicans who then came after her for using clintonemail.com?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:38PM
You seriously think people look beyond the human readable name associated with an email address by their mail clients?
Get real.
Secondly, the "yeah but GOP" excuse is crap. Pure crap. I don't vote for them, so I'm sure as hell not voting for their equivalent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:48PM
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of sending confidential information to a non-governmental email address and then saying it was a crime for her to receive the email if any of the emails containing confidential information were sent by the same individuals who were accusing her of a crime.
Not knowing where you're sending confidential information is no excuse. They certainly would not have accepted the "I don't look at the email address" excuse from Clinton.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:06PM
So according to the laws of the U.S., it looks like they could ALL be guilty then:
and so they shouldn't be held accountable?
They should just get a pass (I didn't know and they didn't know, so.... meh).
"You are selling drugs and i am supplying them to you and he is buying them, but none of us knew that we were doing something bad, really, so...... meh."
If anything, hold them ALL accountable in a court of law.... don't just shrug and go..... meh!
But the FBI now have Hillary by the balls, and so i'm sure their budget will go up.
And yes, Hillary does have balls... at least when compared to Billy.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:11PM
I agree that they ALL should be held accountable. Unfortunately the law explicitly states that intent must be established for these actions to be considered a crime. So the only way to hold any of them accountable is to vote for their opponents.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:10AM
Intent is in no way part of negligence, gross or otherwise. This is why people who accidentally kill someone with a car while texting, don't face the chair like people who intentionally run someone over. Negligence means being careless, but not intentful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @10:07AM
The fact that you even asked that question speaks volumes about you. And because of that, I will explicitly states: yes, all who helped Hillary break the law should be held accountable for their own actions.
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:49PM
like going after bill for a blow-job. stupid, waste of time, waste of money, tore the country apart.
nothing happened, either. the R's tried their damned best and nothing happened.
BECAUSE IT WAS NOTHING THAT MATTERED IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.
same here. 1000 other things to get worked up over. a technical rule violation is the farthest thing down in my 'do I care?' list.
the more you guys fight, the less the country thinks of you. then again, the r's stopped caring what people (who are not already on their side) think.
in a way, though, I encourage the pathetic little republicans to keep farking that chicken. your numbers being reduced will make everyone's life better. so, keep up the, uhm, good work, fellas. lets see how you do come election time with this tactic of yours.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:56PM
The law doesn't say you can't be a sinner. Cheating is, regretfully, legal in the USA.
The first legal issue is that she was his subordinate at work. This tends to create a workplace environment that is banned by various laws. For example, making OTHER people in the office uncomfortable could be a hostile work environment. (you can thank the supreme court for expanding sexual harassment) BTW, this creates a blackmail risk that is a security problem.
The second legal issue, the one that led to impeachment and the loss of his law license (bar), is that he lied about it under oath. The best you can say for Bill is that we let other people get away with this, which is the same sort of lame defense that Hillary is using. It's a huge problem that we don't prosecute everybody who does this. When there are no consequences for lying under oath, everybody does it and our court system makes horrible random bad decisions.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:04AM
This canard. Again.
At the time he was under investigation for sexual harassment.
How do you determine if Lewinski is relevant without an investigation?
Was it politicized? Sure. But to mischaracterize lying under oath during the trial especially when staring down a lawsuit just marks you as a shill.
On appeal, in the midst of his trial for impeachment based on false testimony in the Jones case (about his affair with Monica Lewinsky), Clinton was faced with the prospect of having to go under oath again and testify more about his sexual history. Instead, Clinton agreed to an out-of-court settlement, paying Jones and her lawyers $850,000 to drop the suit.
That must have been one hell of a blowjob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:10PM
this little person left the country in 2008 'because' lawlessness in finance and foreign wars and i've not fully come to terms with seeing the last bits of the rule of law veneer removed today.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by jdavidb on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:21PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:06PM
That's a bit like saying dragging a saw across a tree once isn't a big deal because it had to be done other times to fell the tree.
The problem here is that this is a woman that's running for President. If she doesn't understand how to secure top secret documents or even less sensitive materials, then why should we trust her with the other things that come with being President? She should be in prison along with all the other people that couldn't figure out how to keep those things secure.
It's without precedent for somebody running for President to have been caught mishandling that many classified documents without any penalty of any sort.
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:17PM
Wikileaks has published some of Clinton's e-mails, concerning the war in Iraq, that it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/wikileaks-publishes-more-than-1000-hillary-clinton-war-emails-a7120011.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:41PM
I wish they would clarify if this is the threatened cache of emails that would lock her up. I wish Wikileaks would just quit being so coy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:59PM
The ones in that list are from FOIA results that predate the threat.
I don't even know why they are on the site. They aren't leaks.
(Score: 2) by Bill Dimm on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:03AM
I don't think it is. From the article:
The emails stem from a State Department release back in February
It sounds like this release is just stuff that was already public, so I'm not sure what the point if it is, other than maybe organizing things by topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:50AM
Until they say otherwise, I'm going to assume that's all the email wikileaks has on her.
And while in the past I've been a strong supporter, including the 'collateral murder' video, this is some seriously lame bullshit. Almost like Assange wants to make wikileaks look pathetic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:54AM
> I was also X, but…
Nice pattern here.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:22PM
MAGA TRUMP 2016 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:39PM
For the uninitiated, MAGA is short form for "Make America Great Again."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:00PM
YOLO T-Rump 2016!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:56PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:24PM
Much like the banks she gets her money from. She is too big to jail.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:03PM
I'm almost to the point of being ashamed I'm an American. This clear and outright fraud needs to stop. This government is a farce.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday July 07 2016, @04:52AM
s/farce/wet fart/
I AM ashamed... no, I'm appalled.
:-)
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:08PM
Compared to Trump University and the outright scams DJT has run in the condominium business, intentionally fleecing hundreds of average folks who were starstruck by his celebrity, this mistake by HRC is worth reporting but hardly disqualifying.
It's just that it's been reported by Fox News over and over and over and over again, along with Benghazi and whatnot. Sorry guys, that doesn't make it a major scandal.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:18PM
First, I am not a Trump supporter and intend to vote 3rd/4th party.
You should know that of all the things just listed, none are felonies. This is. Holding classified material in an unauthorized, unsecure location is a black-letter felony. Ms. Clinton committed this act numerous times (and potentially thousands more we don't know about, because the server was private on top of the rest).
This also exposed the State department to malicious actors because they had to disable their spam filter to allow her personal account through!
Questionable business practices are one thing. There's a reason the used car salesman jokes work. This is black-letter premeditated felony behavior, and it's way - WAY - beyond scamming people out of money. Entirely different class of crime. If you don't see this, you are willfully blind.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:33AM
I mean, the FBI made a case that all historic examples of mishandling of classified information on this scale has not resulted in prosecution.
Now, Trump definately has violated federal law in a couple of ways (e.g. I mean, the recent fundraising e-mails to foreign nationals) I have no idea if the Trump University stuff rises to the level of a crime or not.
Now, I don't agree with her use of the private e-mail server. If the Republicans had put up any reasonable candidate, they would have won 30+ states. As is, this election certainly is a hold your nose and cast your vote situation.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 06 2016, @10:08AM
As is, this election certainly is a hold your nose and cast your vote situation.
No election is like that unless you're incredibly short-sighted.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:46PM
A lot of elections are like that. This one is possibly the worst I've ever seen.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:14PM
You're right. Only two parties exist and you must vote.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday July 07 2016, @06:14AM
You can abstain, but then you literally don't count politically. It's not a vote for better options in the future or otherwise registered as anything. You're assumed to just be lazy.
And the system only hits a stable equilibrium with 2 parties, so.... yeah, any third party isn't going to matter. Because none of them will ever get the momentum needed to become a real contender for more than a single cycle. At best, they're a spoiler, and then there's blowback from all the people who wished they had held their nose and voted for the lesser of two evils.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 07 2016, @04:47PM
Voting for a third party isn't about winning outright. You're not gambling here; you're trying to scare the main parties into becoming more like the third party candidate by utilizing the perception of the spoiler effect. In the short time, this may mean that you lose several elections to The Big Bad, but being shortsighted hasn't improved the situation any.
There's always going to be a blowback from shortsighted idiots; no helping that. No one owns my vote but me, and I refuse to vote for evil.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:46PM
Compared to Trump University...
You really want to go there? There ain't no scam Trump is involved in that Crooked Hillary ain't beat him to. Why Isn't The Press Covering Clinton For-Profit University Scheme? [investors.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:14PM
Note that just because a fact was classified does not necessarily mean any inclusion of that fact in an email came from a classified document.
It's been known that publicly-available info often ends up being classified.
For example, A Clinton aide could have heard that Imam Uri was going on vacation on May 5 from his/her connections, and included that fact in an email to Clinton. But somebody else happens to classify the vacation date at approximately the same time. The person who writes that email thus is not getting info from a classified document, YET it's technically "classified information". The FBI may be merely comparing text rather than verifying the actual source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:58AM
That's true and, if you will recall, there were reports about a year ago that state and justice were arguing about the classification status of some of the info in the emails.
But the discussion around the FBI's statement today also includes 'urgent communications' where exigent circumstances prevented one or more parties from having access to secure comm channels so they chose to risk communicating in the clear so that people who needed to act could be fully informed. That's the kind of call I would expect a department secretary to have full authority to decide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:02AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again now: Hillary specifically instructed other people to send then-known classified information via insecure means.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605 [wikileaks.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @10:41PM
Isn't that also an argument for NOT using the State Dept's "regular" in-house email server? A generic service provider probably set it up upon request just like somebody did for H's home server. The dept. server was eventually hacked even. [reuters.com] The proof is in the pudding.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:32AM
The whole point to having a personal email server was to try to shield herself from FOIA requests. Look at what she did. She was required to hand over *all* her email. she cherry picked her messages, said "here ya go, all you care about, my private stuff is private", then when told "um, we want all your email", she wiped her server, then said "like, what, with a cloth?" Then all the messages got recovered, she was all "um, ooops".
If 99% of the population had done what she did we'd be sitting in jail, not running for president. But she's "special", broke several laws, but no prosecutor will prosecute cuz it means they get the night shift at 7/11 if she wins the presidency.
Our country has gone to shit, neither presidential candidate has any business holding the office, both parties have proven themselves to be bankrupt.
Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:56AM
That's speculation about motivations that I won't get into here. Let's focus on the technical side and technical risks in this thread.
While the Director's statement suggests the filtering missed some work-related messages, it appears to be a relatively small volume and no pattern indicating coverup was found in those skipped: those hired to filter probably merely didn't spot Waldo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:39PM
You talk to me and I give you money. But let's focus on bureaucratic email bullshit instead.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:40PM
I'm a registered Democrat, and supported Sanders. Things like the whole Benghazi "scandal" was total BS in my book, but even I've always thought this email thing was serious shit, and has Nixon-esque arrogance written all over it. It's frankly insane that she's getting a bye on that one.
I've always thought it calls into question the degree to which she can be trusted. The caveat to that of course is that I in fact do trust Trump to to literally everything wrong, and will thus go the lesser of two evils route. Not a pretty picture at all, but that's where we are for sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:38AM
the degree to which she can be trusted
For me the scary thing is that this is just coming in to question for many now AFTER everything she's done; encouraging the destabilization of the Middle East (especially Libya and Syria), protecting Bill and herself over the years (rape allegations for example), and not to mention the things her husband did as governor of AR. People have very short memories, or plain just don't care. She is practically the human incarnation of bad politics, and the fact that she can get away with it while being the epicenter of attention is a mere foreshadowing of the kind of power she will exercise in office.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mrchew1982 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @02:53PM
I believe that there are enough protections in place to stop Trump from ruining this country. It's painfully obvious that there aren't enough to stop Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:56PM
As a Sanders supporter, you probably noticed how the DNC basically decided that Clinton was going to be the candidate (via superdelegates and other shenanigans) regardless of what the voters wanted. There was at least as much motivation for the RNC to stop Trump, but they don't have superdelegates, so they failed. Here is what really matters about the general election:
If Trump wins, maybe the DNC learns that they should actually listen to their voters (Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton does, after all) instead of trying to dictate who we get to vote for.
If Clinton wins, you can be damn sure the RNC will start having superdelegates to keep the voters from ever getting to pick a candidate again in the future.
That's what matters -- the future of democracy. The policy crap doesn't matter -- nobody does what they say they will when they become president and Congress wouldn't let them anyway. If you want to have the option of actually voting for someone that thinks outside the box (for better or worse) rather than someone who will toe the party line and kiss all the right donors' asses in the future, Trump needs to win even if every one of his policies is wrong.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:21AM
She broke the law several times, but no "sensible" prosecutor will go after her. In other words, she broke the law, but she has the power to totally fuck you over if you haul her corrupt ass into court over it.
Face it, there's us little people, and the elite like HRC who can do whatever they want without worrying about penalty.
Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday July 07 2016, @05:06AM
You are "preaching to the choir".
BTW: I'm not a republicrat or a democran.
"The System is the Solution" - AT&T, circa 1978
"The System is the Problem" - an AT&T employee, 'bout the same era
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @02:06AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Conducted public business from his private email server for eight years while he was governor of Florida, including highly confidential matters with national security importance. Didn't turn them over as required by law, for many years after he left office.
Who cares? Not the Republicans. Not Fox News. Not Breitbart, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc.
It only matters when HILLARY does it. Isn't that right, you stupid wingnuts. When a Republican governor does it, no big deal. All the emails have been handed over, so he's square. OK, toss in his name in a ritualized line of "I hate in when anyone pulls this". You do, huh? How many times has Jeb been called a criminal who needs to be locked up for the rest of his life, just for making a typical "easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permisson" type decision that chief executives routinely make?
Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @04:48AM
It isn't "right" when anyone does it. That's the point of law.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday July 06 2016, @04:54AM
Breitbart did have an article about a story in The Verge that criticised Jeb Bush for releasing other people's personal information when he made his e-mail archive public. It says the action might have been illegal.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/10/report-jeb-bush-releases-personal-information-social-security-numbers-in-massive-email-dump/ [breitbart.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:06AM
Fine; let them both share a prison cell.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:25AM
I don't have any info, but I can't imagine the email server was just about mishandling. My guess is that it was done specifically to avoid accountability and make it easier to illegally share information. In that case it would be intentional treason.
However I do agree with some other posters, this is really a PR stunt to try and affect the election. There are so many worse crimes occurring, but since the majority of the country is led by the nose through big media it is incredibly difficult to get unified support for any action. Not to mention that large protests are ignored in the media so as not to gain wider traction, and law enforcement actively subverts pretty much all political groups.
I just got myself a little depressed.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:43AM
Not nearly enough.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by theluggage on Wednesday July 06 2016, @10:10AM
My guess is that it was done specifically to avoid accountability and make it easier to illegally share information
I'm sure she absolutely didn't deliberately hire someone to install a private mail server to avoid accountability and make it easier to illegally share information.
Nah. Hilary was messing about between summits one day, trying out Debian on a spare PC (apparently Bill liked Woody) when she came across "SMTP HOWTO" and decided to have a go. She sent a few test messages, but unfortunately she'd typed "c#/-itz&39" instead of c#/-itz@39" on line 12397 of sendmail.cf causing the mail agent (her own custom Eudora clone implemented in EMACS) to use the new address as the default REPLY-TO header and it all kinda snowballed from there until she couldn't turn off the server without breaking the internet. Or something like that.
Total accident. Could happen to anybody.
(Gorammit Hilary, you've made me agree with Trump about something and now I need to use brain bleach for a week.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:16AM
No of course it isn't. And it's always who does not did what...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:31AM
and she's taken a huge sum of money from saudi arabia.
who do they hate? israel, iran, and syria.
Can't attack israel. So that means we'll be going to war with iran and syria.
Invest in weapons companys. Profit.
Might as well gain something from this clusterfuck shitshow of corruption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:47PM
It's amazing how the media and the FBI/govt has twisted this entire case from being about whether or not Hillary Clinton used private servers because she has something herself to hide to whether or not her use of personal servers containing classified information was a reckless jeopardizing of U.S. classified information.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:56PM
... used private servers for government matters because she ... *
A relevant Techdirt comment I just read
"She should be facing charges regarding the deletion of emails in the face of an investigation. That itself is a crime that the FBI would prosecute anyone else for."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160705/08455934895/fbi-clinton-should-have-known-private-email-server-no-way-to-handle-classified-info-no-charges-will-be-sought.shtml [techdirt.com]
This a thousand times this!!! Now the whole thing got spun into a completely different direction. If she has nothing to hide ...