back to article FBI won't jail future US president over private email server

The FBI has said it will not recommend nor push for any charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while secretary of state. At a press conference Tuesday morning, FBI director James Comey gave a lengthy description of the investigation his staff had carried out, focused on whether Clinton has …

Silver badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

'Classified as "secret".'

'They're ignoring it because it's not bad."

(sarcasm appreciated)

Keeping it in perspective, here's a nice way of saying what the different classifications might mean:

for official use only: potentially embarassing

confidential: disclosure could compromise security or military advantage

secret: disclosure could GET SOMEONE KILLED [or worse]

top secret: disclosure could START A WAR [or worse] or cause the U.S. to LOSE a war

(and there are higher levels but I don't know what they are)

most of the interpretation of what each level means is just my opinion, but I was in the military back in the day, and I had access to classified material as part of what I did (nuclear reactor operator on a submarine). The location of a submarine is considered 'secret' and there was actual top secret equipment on the boat. Other things, like whether or not nuclear weapons are on board, are also 'secret'. The propulsion plant and mechanical details were 'confidential', and at the Nuclear Power school in Orlando, Florida, we had to stamp all of our notes and keep them locked up when not in class or studying.

Anyway, in case nobody understood what 'secret' really means: In short, disclosing 'secret' information (or higher classification) can EASILY get people *KILLED*.

You know, like the TERRORIST ATTACK at Ben Ghazi a few years ago...

7
2
Facepalm

Re: Interesting downplaying there

Actually, some of the classified emails were marked classified before Team Hillary sent them through the server.

2
0

Re: Interesting downplaying there

Are you aware that the Secretary of State is expected to assign classification to stuff themselves by virtue of their position?

That's why Clinton has always been careful to say "there's nothing marked classified on my email server", rather than just "there's nothing classified on my email server". No one has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being dumb.

2
0

Re: Interesting downplaying there

And General Petraeus as well.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

There are confirmation hearings for cabinet-level and some sub-cabinet appointees, but there are no such things for elected officials.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Interesting downplaying there

"...she tells more lies before breakfast than other politicians tell all day."

...and Trump's coming up fast on the inside.

// eagerly waiting for the results of his IRS audit

/// He's asking for donations now

0
0

Confirmation Hearings

The "confirmation hearings" for elected positions are supposed to be the election campaigns, the judges being the voters supported by an entirely unbiased, objective free press. What the Founding Fathers voiced as one prerequisite for the viability of the government they designed has ceased to manifest (another was franchised citizens were themselves reputable, moral, and responsible). They effectively guaranteed their government would break down if franchised citizens would not or could not exercise appropriate due diligence over those running for office. Jefferson in particular believed their government would inevitably become corrupted to the point of necessitating an armed revolution as the only possible remedy.

2
0

Re: Interesting downplaying there

Director Comey specicallly stated that many of the emails were classified before they were sent and that some had classification markings when sent and received. The complete statement by Comey is on youtube - look it up.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

"The fix was in and he knew that he couldn't get the indictment to go forward."

PRAGMATIC, indeed. good observation.

And the thumbs down:up ratio is 2:1 - nice job! [the shills and Soros minions are down-thumbing like madmen]

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Interesting downplaying there

> He is, however, one of the most autocratic

I'm curious about this. In what sense is BO the most autocratic? He's issued fewer executive orders (avg per year) than all of his predecessors dating back to Grover Cleveland.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

1
0

"while she may be well-qualified for the office, she is unfit to hold it"

Awesome. Trump, then?

0
0
PAW

Re: Interesting downplaying there

"She clearly broke the law,"

Be specific please. Which law(s) did she break?

0
0
PAW

Re: Interesting downplaying there

Tom Dial: The norm and requirement, however, was and is to use government facilities whenever possible.

Wiki: On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts."[White House - April 12, 2007 Press Gaggle by Scott Stanzel]

Tom Dial: Clinton's use of personally owned and notably insecure facilities, administered "at her cost" by a former campaign aide hired to the State Department as a Schedule III political appointee, is far worse than Powell, Rice, and perhaps Albright using commercial email services that probably were maintained and secured to a halfway reasonable standard.

me: do you have an opinion about the level of security maintained on the private RNC servers?

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

"Using a personal email account for official communications was not, and as far as I know is not unlawful as such (I retired at the end of 2011 and there could be changes of which I am not aware). There are occasions when it is necessary to send or receive email but impossible or impractical to access a government network to do so."

The Secretary of State is one of the highest appointed offices in the US government and their communications are given a high priority. If they needed a scrambled, high security Sat phone while on a trip to a high risk country, they could have one for the asking. There would be no need to stand on a street corner waving a Crackberry around trying to find good signal. The same would go for written communications.

A Representative on a "Fact-Finding" mission to Europe over the Christmas holidays might have more difficulty, but could arrange to use facilities at an embassy, consulate or mission if it were important to communicate securely.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

"Even still the Hidabeast should be disqualified from being POTUS."

No. She meets the qualifications (Over 35, US citizen by birth). It is up to the Democratic Party convention to determine whether to put her forward, and to the US electorate to decide about her fitness to hold the office.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

Executive orders covering some millions of people not legally resident in the US, for instance. The point is not that this is not something that should be done, but that it is something that, under the Constitution, requires action by the Congress, not the President alone. He didn't like the law of which he took an oath to ensure faithful execution, so he issued an executive order that executive agencies under his responsibility would not enforce it.

Comparing numbers of executive orders per president is pretty much meaningless.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

PAW: Based on the quoted Wiki, which I did not look at but do not dispute, the security status of the RNC private server would be primarily a private RNC matter, as clintonemail.com certainly was not, despite the claimed instruction to retain the email as possibly covered by the Presidential Records Act. Much of what happens in the White House is in the gray area between official business and political party business. That is not the case (or is not supposed to be) for communications by the Secretary of State acting in her official capacity.

Based on reports in The Register and probably elsewhere, it is likely that the RNC's servers, like gmail, yahoo, and most other commercial services, were considerably more secure than clintonemail.com.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Interesting downplaying there

@MachDiamond: I was referring to the agency that employed me. While it was a DoD agency, for practical purposes it handled no information more sensitive than Privacy Act PII that it would have been a serious "no-no" to put in an email message that transited an exchange point between the NIPRNET and the public internet. I do not know whether such traffic would necessarily have been caught, but it would have resulted in at least "counseling" if it were.

0
0

elReg trolling?

"FBI won't jail future US president ..."

Shirley, you must mean "candidate for future US president"?

As for the rest, did anyone expect anything different? Powerful people get away with murder in the US, an email server is peanuts.

26
1

Re: elReg trolling?

I am afraid they are being realistic.

Seriously, H. Clinton vs. D. Trump, is that the best the US can do?

2
1
Silver badge

Re: elReg trolling?

When Kanye West said he would run for president in a future election I thought that was insane. I despise the guy, but even he wouldn't be the worst choice given the current candidates.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: elReg trolling?

Well, there is G. Johnson, but because he wouldn't up the News shows' ratings he doesn't get much air time. Oh, and because he's a 3rd party "he doesn't stand a chance" so most people discount him, so he likely won't.

Personally, I refuse to throw my vote away, so I'll be putting my mark down for Johnson.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: elReg trolling?

"Seriously, H. Clinton vs. D. Trump, is that the best the US can do?"

well, _I_ didn't have the time and money to run for president this time around. So I'd say, "yeah".

0
0

US' sad story continues

Tired of this. US government is so corrupt, and has been for so long, that we put up with this crap. Comey's remarks should have been "we are not going to file charges because 1/3 of the presidential cabinet would be part of the indictment."

Between all the advancements in computer forensics, and the fact that they gave the admin a pass for his cooperation, no way they did not find enough to piss themselves. Either that or they are for less competent than anyone gives them credit for.

Sad day indeed. Well at least we got to celebrate Independence Day before they kicked us in the balls.

20
4
Silver badge

Re: US' sad story continues

The only solution is to vote all of the Democrats out of office.

This may sound like partisan politics but I'm an independent. Both parties wreak, however the Democrats have shown themselves to be the most corrupt party. We have seen countless examples of where the politicians put their party ahead of this country.

We need new blood in office.

17
18
Silver badge

Re: US' sad story continues

The Democrats have taken a terrible beating nationally the last two cycles. There are far fewer of them in office than before. What we are seeing now is an aging Mafia Don attempting to buy her way out of court, while at the same time asking the People to elevate her to the top of the power structure. So far it appears to be working, but now she has to make her 'supporters' actually go and vote for her. Sorry, but all the dirty money in the world won't make voters anxious to pull the lever for the Wicked Witch of the West.

Her only hope is to make Trump look so satanic that the plebes will rush to the polls in horror of a Trump presidency. But he's just not that evil, and after seeing him on TV for years, everyone knows it.

10
11

Re: US' sad story continues

How about a third party, like Libertarian?

7
3
Silver badge

Re: US' sad story continues

My take on Trump and Sanders is they both seem to care about where the US is headed even if they have very different ideas of what to do. One is blowhard and the other loon but they both have a degree sincerity and integrity. I can tolerate either as POTUS. Hildabeast is nothing more than a corrupt slime who could teach Boss Tweed a few pointers, like how to avoid jail.

9
6
Silver badge

Re: US' sad story continues

I see two fundamental differences between Sanders and Trump. First, Sanders is undeniably qualified by experience and temperament for the office; better qualified, I would argue, than Hillary Clinton. Trump cannot say the same; creating and running successful businesses is not like being the US president, if only because the Senate, House of Representatives, and federal judiciary are full of men and women with independent power status that is not so evident in even publicly held companies and can be effectively nonexistent in privately held ones. Second, Sanders is a man of personal and intellectual integrity, worthy of trust, by all reports I have seen; while I would not say that Trump is not, it seems to me far less obvious in his case than in Sanders'.

7
4
PAW

Re: US' sad story continues

Republicans with Hillary like email problems:

Gov Jeb Bush

Gov Scott Walker

Gov Marco Rubio

Gov Chris Christie

Rick Perry and Booby Jindaln used private email accts

Sec Condolezza Rice

Sec Colin Powell

2
1
Silver badge

Re: US' sad story continues

I'd be ok with jailing every single one of them. Members of neither party should be held above the law. Actually, they should be held to a far higher level of accountability than anyone else.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: US' sad story continues

Every time a Democrat is unequivocally shown to be really corrupt, we have to hear how "All politicians are rotten, throw out the lot of them!"

BS. This is about Hillary, and Hillary alone. No one else has this kind of "email problem," sorry.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: US' sad story continues

Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Bobby Jindal were state governers and not subject to federal laws that govern storage and processing of federal government data. They may or may not have been compliant with applicable state laws; I do not recall seeing complaints about that. Marco Rubio's alleged problem occurred when he was a state legislator, so also not subject to the federal laws that Hillary Clinton violated during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell (as well as Marco Rubio and most of the named governers) used commercial services that almost certainly were better maintained and more secure than Secretary Clinton's personal server setup (see, for example,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/hillarys_sysadmin_next_to_the_pillory/).

Both Rice and Powell also used email far less than Clinton, whose 30,000+ emails establish a rate of over 20 a day, including weekends and holidays.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: US' sad story continues

> No one else has this kind of "email problem"

Well actually... the email servers at the state dept did.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/

0
0
PAW

Re: US' sad story continues

"BS. This is about Hillary, and Hillary alone. No one else has this kind of "email problem," sorry."

Other than the entire Bush White House. Read for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

0
0
PAW

Re: US' sad story continues

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued an interim report on June 18, 2007 stating that at least 88 RNC email accounts were issued to Bush Administration officials. These included Karl Rove, Andrew Card (Chief of Staff), Kevin Melham (White House Director of Political Affairs).These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.

"The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements (Presidential Records Act). At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive."

The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Henry Waxman said "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[ The Hill. Waxman wants RNC, Bush campaign to preserve e-mails. 26 March 2007]

BTW, I'm quoting and plagiarizing from the Wikipedia article: 'Bush White House email controversy'

0
0

The US is under the muslim mafia regime.

The Clinton Kennedy mafia with the muslim Al Qaeda cell Barack Hussein Obama at the White House.

And Trump is the Clinton puppet , trojan horse made to destroy the GOP.

The US is not a democracy anymore thanks to these criminals.

7
31
Silver badge

Re: The US is under the muslim mafia regime.

Bad as Trump is, any crimes you could pin on him would not be a pimple on the arse of Hillary's crime syndicate record. So we'll thank you not to try for equivalence here, because there ain't none.

12
17
Holmes

What a shocking and totally unexpected result...

a Democrat DOJ, under a Democrat president, not indicting a Democrat candidate for president, I am shocked I tell you, absolutely Shocked!

29
2
Silver badge

Re: What a shocking and totally unexpected result...

You had to former republican state dep that did the same thing. Arrest her and you would have to arrest them.

6
1
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: What a shocking and totally unexpected result...

Not necessarily. Both the law and the internal policy could have changed.

Since the other guy is not running for president, his infractions are also somewhat less significant. Although by the letter of the law, even a felony conviction probably wouldn't keep Hillary out of office.

1
7
Silver badge

Re: What a shocking and totally unexpected result...

"Since the other guy is not running for president, his infractions are also somewhat less significant."

What happened to all being equal in front of the law? A crime is a crime, and either both are prosecutable or neither is. Doesn't matter which job anybody is applying for.

10
0

Re: What a shocking and totally unexpected result...

Not true at all.

When Colin Powell was running State, he tested private email to see how well it worked. At the time, it wasn't against the rules to use a private account in conjunction with his official accounts. He was also very careful to not put classified information through that account, because he knew it wasn't secure enough. It was his experience that helped create the rules about the use of private email and records retention.

Condoleeza Rice didn't use a private email account.

On the other hand, Hillary's use of her private server came AFTER the rules were laid down. She didn't make any effort to secure her server, and did it to avoid record-keeping rules that applied to all government-related emails. Then she lied about it. She also sent a LOT of classified material (that was, yes, classified BEFORE she sent it). To top it off, she kept using it AFTER she knew it had been compromised. The Russians probably have a more complete list of her emails than we do.

The comparison is almost comical.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: What a shocking and totally unexpected result...

@kain preacher and others wishing to equate the actions of Clinton, Rice, and Powell: The fact that Hillary Clinton is running for President (and neither Colin Powell nor Condolezza Rice is) should have nothing to do with whether to charge any of them, or not. Secretary Clinton's transgressions, at well over 20 email messages per working day, are far more significant than those of Powell, who admitted to a few hundred during his tenure, or Rice, who stated that she did not use email significantly. In addition, Secretary Clinton contrived to use a personally owned and operated, and quite insecure, setup for her official email correspondence, and Secretaries Powell and Rice reportedly used commercial services which probably had more competent and regular maintenance and hopefully better configuration than hers. There could well be justification for prosecuting Clinton but not either of the others, even ignoring the fact that federal information assurance standards and procedures became considerably more stringent between 2001 and 2009.

6
1
PAW

Re: The comparison is almost comical.

The George W. Bush admin used political email servers setup at the RNC to avoid being in the White House system. The Hatch Act prohibits gov resources being used for political purposes so the Bush admin said they used the RNC servers to be on the safe side. 88 RNC hosted email accounts were given to senior White House Staff. A private domain of gwb43.com was used (george w. bush, 43rd pres). The White House said 5 million emails may have been lost in potential violation of the Presidential Records Act ( mandates the preservation of all presidential records). Karl Rove is said to have used the RNC addresses for 95% of his email.

0
0

Whitewashing

> intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.<

"In other words, sloppy but not illegal."

That's not how things work. Intent matters, but one can break a law even then, if they had not intended to do so - and will still get prosecuted. For ex. most traffic accidents do not occur, because the drivers want to harm or kill the victims - yet, they will be prosecuted for it, even criminally.

Clinton should be tried, for what she did. If she will not, then this will just prove again, that the so called American democracy is just a facade, where that law and justice is only enforced against poor people. Which most of us knew anyway.

16
4
Silver badge

Re: Whitewashing

"That's not how things work. Intent matters, but one can break a law even then, if they had not intended to do so - and will still get prosecuted. For ex. most traffic accidents do not occur, because the drivers want to harm or kill the victims - yet, they will be prosecuted for it, even criminally."

Depends on which laws. You cannot be guilty of murder one or fraud without intent, you can be found guilty of DUI without intent. Armchair lawyer versus head of FBI: I wonder who I'm going to trust on matters of law.

"Clinton should be tried, for what she did. If she will not, then this will just prove again, that the so called American democracy is just a facade, where that law and justice is only enforced against poor people. Which most of us knew anyway."

Here it is public interest: minor, unintentional breaches of classified information are very rarely prosecuted. If they were, you would have difficulty finding anyone to be a low-level official in such organizations, and have difficulty finding room to put all the new prisoners.

5
1

I give up with this world...

"And no politicians are likely to make the same mistake in future."

Why because of the huge penalties held against her?

All this will do is ensure that more and more leaks happen as security is an after thought in the US these days, and when you've clearly broken the law youre let off. Unless youre a civilian of course.

Next to be shown to have broken every rule in the book but no charges - BLAIR.

6
1
Silver badge

Correction

"...when you've clearly broken the law you're let off.

Unless youre a civilian Republican of course."

There, fixed it for you.

0
1

Redefinition

==> concluded that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case based on the evidence

Somebody must have swapped out "no true Scotsman"

4
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018