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 Capt. Obvious on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:33AM
I mean, the FBI made a case that all historic examples of mishandling of classified information on this scale has not resulted in prosecution.
Now, Trump definately has violated federal law in a couple of ways (e.g. I mean, the recent fundraising e-mails to foreign nationals) I have no idea if the Trump University stuff rises to the level of a crime or not.
Now, I don't agree with her use of the private e-mail server. If the Republicans had put up any reasonable candidate, they would have won 30+ states. As is, this election certainly is a hold your nose and cast your vote situation.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 06 2016, @10:08AM
As is, this election certainly is a hold your nose and cast your vote situation.
No election is like that unless you're incredibly short-sighted.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:46PM
A lot of elections are like that. This one is possibly the worst I've ever seen.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:14PM
You're right. Only two parties exist and you must vote.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday July 07 2016, @06:14AM
You can abstain, but then you literally don't count politically. It's not a vote for better options in the future or otherwise registered as anything. You're assumed to just be lazy.
And the system only hits a stable equilibrium with 2 parties, so.... yeah, any third party isn't going to matter. Because none of them will ever get the momentum needed to become a real contender for more than a single cycle. At best, they're a spoiler, and then there's blowback from all the people who wished they had held their nose and voted for the lesser of two evils.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 07 2016, @04:47PM
Voting for a third party isn't about winning outright. You're not gambling here; you're trying to scare the main parties into becoming more like the third party candidate by utilizing the perception of the spoiler effect. In the short time, this may mean that you lose several elections to The Big Bad, but being shortsighted hasn't improved the situation any.
There's always going to be a blowback from shortsighted idiots; no helping that. No one owns my vote but me, and I refuse to vote for evil.