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, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:19AM
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
Can any Americans here let us know how that defence goes for you the next time you're defending a speeding fine?
It doesn't apply to speeding fines since those are not criminal.
Reckless driving can be criminal but, as the name implies, requires intent.
FWIW, american law has two related concepts "mens rea" (guilty mind - aka intent) and "strict liability" (intent does not matter).
One example of mens rea is the different between murder and manslaughter.
One example of strict liability is the possession of child porn, it doesn't matter how you came to have it, simply having it is illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:29AM
One example of strict liability is the possession of child porn, it doesn't matter how you came to have it, simply having it is illegal.
Which is highly unjust because:
1) Computers--especially ones connected to the Internet--are insecure, thereby allowing pretty much anyone to potentially plant data on your computer.
2) That is government censorship, which is always wrong and unconstitutional regardless of what our treacherous courts have ruled. Regardless of how disgusting the material itself is, government censorship is far worse.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:51PM
Possession of child porn does not appear to be a strict liability offense, though some sentencing enhancements are. See http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Chapter_02.pdf [ussc.gov]
Strict liability offenses are supposed to be things like parking tickets. The 800-pound gorilla of an exception is statutory rape, which may be what confused you.
Additionally, strict liability offenses with penalties significantly more serious than parking tickets are absolutely terrifying for reasons that should be obvious, but that's neither here nor there.