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