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, 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