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: 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.