SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(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'.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.