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: 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.