Think Bernie or Trump would have got off so easy?
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 …
I'm going to have to side with Jim also. After Bill's meeting with AG Lynch and Hillary's Saturday
meeting with top FBI brass "interview" with the FBI this should be plain, simple, and understandable by anyone. There's a reason they decided to call Saturday's meeting an interview and that because the FBI director was interviewing for a much better position, perhaps head of DHS, DOD, Secretary of State or even a Judgeship. Mark my words Directory Comey is going places in this world and if he isn't, there are still even odds that he'll eat his own bullet in Fort Marcy Park.
Liking you is relevant, but not the key.
Being well liked greases the wheels but the thing that propels them is the expectation of mutual backscratching. Any politician has a long list of people who have invested time, money and favours in their candidacy and expect a return. The backlash against anyone who derails that candidacy will be significant and needs more political cover than this.
Clinton does seem well liked by her supporters (and unusually hated by her opponents), but Richard Nixon wasn't really liked by anyone and he still made things work by playing politics exceptionally well (until he played his hand too hard and could be dethroned).
I think the politics here are made easier by the fact that noone in the establishment wants Trump to win (he's a loose cannon but, more importantly, he doesn't owe any powerful people any favours).
That makes a decision which in isolation looks absurd to me (what legitimate reason would a Secretary of State have to use her own email server?) very easy to understand in the context of politics.
*"Simple, if it is YOUR server what is on it is yours as well. Plenty of fodder for multi-million dollar books, blackmail, and just plain power. Simple.*"
In the case of a senior US government official, ALL work related communications are property of the government.
The "intent" argument that Comey put forward can be dismissed by several recent cases where the defendants were found guilty and given long term prison sentences. In some of those cases, there was no intent found and the information had not leaked. In the case of Hillary, there was intent to hide those communications from government oversight and it appears there were serious leaks of highly sensitive communications related to her job. Her continuous lying about every aspect is slightly suspicious.
Ralph B: The short answer is "probably not."
The longer answer: In my native Louisiana, politics is our second most popular spectator sport (topped ONLY by "American rules" football). One of our most "colorful" politicians and longest serving governor (four non-consecutive terms) Edwin Edwards was well known for his total disregard of the law. He was corrupt as the day is long BUT fiercely loyal to his state and his backers. He is the embodiment of the old saw "an honest politician is one who STAYS bought." In Louisiana, he has always been enormously (and inexplicably) popular. Many people would proudly proclaim "Yeah, he's a crook, but he's OUR crook!"
The FBI and Department of Justice tried to prosecute Edwards on many occasions for many violations. After several failed attempts, they FINALLY got him and sent him away for (IIRC) eleven years. After his release from Federal penitentiary, there were people who very seriously attempted to get him to run for office again. It was at that point we learned that a felony conviction did NOT disqualify one from seeking or holding office at the Federal level. State, yes. Federal, no. I weep for my country...
"I believe that the US Constitution is hot on "States' Rights", so I guess that in other states a convicted felon could hold office?"
Pretty sure that's correct. Couldn't tell you which, off the top of my head, but with 50 states to choose from, I'm sure you could find at least one where a felony conviction is a non-issue for political office holders and/or aspirants. All I can say for certain is that Article 1, section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 specifically prohibits convicted felons from holding public office unless they have first received a full pardon of their conviction. One of the few things (in law) that Louisiana does correct.
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for doing a mail redirect?
I doubt it very much. Some sort of internal disciplinary procedure and a black mark on the personnel file maybe.
Ms Clintons "special treatment" seems to be a level of scrutiny that has never been directed at any previous presidential candidate. No one asked about the million dollar bailouts George W. received from Saudi Arabia, no one questioned any of the many screwups that took place during Bush seniors term at the CIA.
Hopefully some of the better Republicans will start putting the interests of their country above that of their party or personal ambition -- take a look at the brexit mess to see how badly wrong such selfish and partisan behaviour can turn out.
An Ambassador was sacked by the State Department for doing this exact thing (private email for work documents).
The issue is not whether you could be prosecuted for the server, but whether this amounted to negligent handling of government documents. The FBI has gone as close as they could to saying "negligence" without actually crossing that line as that would have required a prosecution. That is why this is a political decision: There are no rules on when to call behaviour careless or negligent - purely a matter of the opinion.
That is also why this decision will not stop any of the arguments - a different person could quite legitimately call this negligence (especially considering the number of documented occasions when it was brought to the notice of both Sec. Clinton herself and her staff).
James Anderson said:
"Hopefully some of the better Republicans will start putting the interests of their country above that of their party or personal ambition -- take a look at the brexit mess to see how badly wrong such selfish and partisan behaviour can turn out."
Seriously? You make that statement about Republicans and pretend that the Dems have not been far more guilty of that behavior? How about Obama choosing to not enforce laws because he didn't like them, despite taking the oath of office to do so, yet saying Obamacare is "the law of the land" How about the Dems saying that legislation they put forth can have no compromise and the bills must have no other riders (such as the budget bills), but when Republicans do it, they are obstructive and uncompromising.
No....you can't make your claim to be exclusive of Republicans, or be insulting about them (better Republicans, indeed) ... go back and sit in your hole.
In all fairness to Hillary (which isn't saying much), the FBI have also previously stated that this was a state of affairs which previous secretaries of state also had in place, it's just Clinton is the first to be investigated for it. It doesn't *justify* her doing it, but it does explain why the FBI might be reluctant to pull her in over it (they'd have to pull in at least the last two secretaries of state as well and explain why they didn't investigate/charge them)
no other SoS had their OWN email server and refused a .gov email address.
powell and rice did occasionally use (and report) their private email address but they also had a .gov address to use for their job.
clinton used her own exchange email server under her own domain name (with email addresses that numerically changed through the years) she also refused to use a .gov address.
anyone else would have been charged.
Charged with what exactly?
GW Bush created domain gwb43.com for email exclusively. Also used georgewbush.com and rnchq.org.
You say, "powell and rice did occasionally use (and report) their private email address but they also had a .gov address to use for their job."
How would you know? There are supposedly millions of missing emails from the Bush years. The House Oversight Committee said the private RNC servers have 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts.
were crowing that they had information on this issue that could sink Hillary's candidacy. Given this report, are they more or less likely to put this forward and potentially embarass themselves?
"Just wait until Vlad starts blackmailing her."
which is why we don't have "proof" of any Russian break-ins to the Clintstone private e-mail server aka "a way to prevent 'Freedom of Information' requests from revealing their dirty secrets". It's easier to blackmail someone if nobody can prove that Russia has that info. Or anyone ELSE for that matter (China maybe?).
Not just 'one law for the Clintons, and another for everyone else', but communications and records and paper trails and all of that stuff that got Nixon in trouble. Mrs. Clinton was *kinda* involved in THAT, on the Demo-rat side anyway [to OUST Nixon].
And what about that 'Foundation' of theirs, that allegedly accepts 100 million dollars in
bribes charitable contributions from foreign interests, many of them NOT acting in the USA's best interest [a kinder and gentler way of putting it].
Donald Trump is going to have a FIELD DAY with this. You KNOW it's coming. Mrs. Clinton's flat out lies to the American public, reminiscent of Bill's "I did not have sex with that woman" followed by LYING UNDER OATH [which Mrs. Clinton may NOT have done, but seeing her ADMIT things under oath might prove fun to watch, intermixed with her LIES to the American people, in a political ad]. Mrs. Clinton *CLEARLY* tried to skirt 'Freedom of Information' records-keeping and has NOT provided sufficient evidence that she's disclosed *ALL* work-related e-mails, classified or otherwise.
As for the comparison to O.J., I was thinking of that earlier. O.J. certainly lawyered up and got away with murder. And the Clintstone legal team is probably the best and most powerful in the world.
Comey says they were able to recover most of them from a "laborious review of the millions of email fragments dumped into the slack space of the server." The result? Three classified emails.
So classified material was definitively found, but they're ignoring it because it's not as bad as it could have been?
Seems like a weird approach to take.
Comely is being pragmatic.
The fix was in and he knew that he couldn't get the indictment to go forward.
She clearly broke the law, but again, the prosecution would have tanked the case and it would have been a wasted effort.
Note that there was no mention of the FOIA violations.
Or the potential corruption charges.
Even still the Hidabeast should be disqualified from being POTUS.
Also... Obama has been shown to be the worst POTUS in the history of the US.
He probably knows that the GOP have a smoking gun that will kill (politically and legally) Hillary should she get elected at the Confirmation Hearings.
Then they can install DT and run for the hills like the Good Ole Boys they are.
If you think we are in a political mess here in the UK, this is just the warm up act for the Hillary vs Trump main event. The problem is that neither of them are IMHO suitble to become POTUS.
Should not the FBI be obliged to prosecute criminal activity in the case of government? Allowing them to just drop charges when it is politically inconvenient (i.e. it's your likely future boss) is just an open invitation to excuse corruption.
Who are the Internal Affairs of government?
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. There was, and I presume is, guidance about when this is allowable and what additional steps, like copying a superior on such emails as I always did. The norm and requirement, however, was and is to use government facilities whenever possible.
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, particularly as neither of them reported using email very extensively compared to Secretary Clinton's average of well over 20 per day.
I never expected an indictment in the matter, maybe partly because I don't know enough law to decide whether FISMA violations are prosecutable or lead merely to employee disciplinary action. However, "not indicted" is a very poor measure of fitness for an office of trust.
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?
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.
"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.
@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.
"Who are the Internal Affairs of government?"
In the American government, that would be the respective Inspectors General.
That post in the State Department went unfilled for about 6 years - until September 2013.
Anyone that tries to read anything into that is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
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.
I do not agree that Barack Obama is the worst of all presidents. That's a strong claim that requires strong evidence. He is, however, one of the most autocratic, driven partly by unwillingness of Republican legislators to work with him politically, but mainly by his diffidence and unwillingness to work politically with Republican legislators. He undeniably is a smart and thoughtful man, but any reports of his political competence are in error. In that respect, he is a dwarf beside Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and numerous earlier presidents.
Worth another upvote though. Hillary Clinton showed, by her disrespect for both her superior, the President, her subordinates at the Department of State, the laws she aspires to take Care be faithfully executed (US Constitution, Article II, Section III), and the people, that while she may be well-qualified for the office, she is unfit to hold it.
> 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.
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.
"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.
Apparently, you're the one who wasn't aware that at least some of it was classified BEFORE it was sent, with the classification marking taken off at her direct order. This is, of course, a crime.
You should also realize that certain materials are "born classified," and should be treated as such whether anyone typed the word on the document or not.
Of course, the fix was in, so they're glossing over that part. Along with insane amounts of other stuff.
The best part of this debacle is that the FBI is admitting, in print, that Hillary Clinton is completely inept and careless with high-level classified information.
> Are you aware that the stuff was classified after it was sent ?
That doesn't mean anything.
Andrew P. Napolitano (aka. "The Judge") writes in Hillary Clinton’s False Hopes
Also this past weekend, Gen. Michael Hayden, formerly director of the CIA and of the National Security Agency, stated on CNN that it is a near certainty that the Russian government and others had access to Clinton’s non-secure server and all it contained.
Lawyers familiar with the terminology of state secrets will refrain from using the word "classified" to describe the emails that contained state secrets, even though Clinton repeatedly does that. The word "classified" is not a legal term; rather, it is derived from the verb "to classify," and it means that the classification process has been completed.
Since nothing is marked "classified" – the legal markings are "confidential," "secret" and "top secret" – Clinton has been materially misleading the public and the FBI when she claims that she never sent or received anything "marked classified."
Are you aware that it was explicitly stated today that the stuff was classified prior to it being sent? Some later stuff was "up-classified", but it is the responsibility of a person with a clearance to know what should be classified, even if it is not currently so. Further, there are "need to know" requirements. It would have been interesting to see who the recipients of the classified information were.
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.
"So classified material was definitively found, but they're ignoring it because it's not as bad as it could have been?"
Well, be fair.
If she'd used an officially sanctioned server, that data'd be available for download on the web now. So yes, it could be worse. :/
'Classified as "secret".'
'They're ignoring it because it's not bad."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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,
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.
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'
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.
"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.
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.
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.
@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.
> 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.
"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.
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.
Anyone who has even caught a whiff of classified information knows that it is a legal requirement to personally protect the information under the penalty of felony persecution - legal situation that has been around for decades. The fact that highly classified information was on her server is enough for any other peon to prosecuted and thrown into slammer for a very lengthy vacation courtesy of Club Fed.
Also, sharing internal information, not classified, is a great help to the various spookhauses. One bit of training I had (very old) noted the mundane items like phone directories could be extremely useful to a competent spookhaus.
The flag should be the bananas and stripes.
Even with his constant blather about hispanics not being suitable to serve as federal judges, banning muslim immigration, sexist faux pas about various women, banning well-known news organizations (Washington Post) from his campaign events, etc.
Hillary should be leading Trump by double digits, but she just keeps reinforcing the mantra that on any given day she spends more time lying than the average American spends working.
Hillary should be leading Trump by double digits
That would be if Hillary had anything to offer except more neocon bullshit and populist "liberal" rhetoric. (Hell, she's the chosen candiate for Project For A New American Century II, this should make anyone's hair stand on end)
Trump should be DESTROYING Hillary like a B-52 area bombardment with bunker busters and added napalm. Only Ameridumb mental zombification and the MSM's control of the Goodthink narrative served with fat amounts of Computer Graphics and Duckspeak keeps the Trump barbarian out of the entirely rotten, maggot-infested and pestiferous Rome of the establishment.
Hillary was a staffer during the Watergate hearings, when then president Nixon had his "tapes", that he could have destroyed and that would be the end. Then they were "discovered" and the downfall was inevitable given what was going on.
Fast forward to today: Hillary controlled the server. Hillary edited the contents of the server (selectively "burned the tapes") to sanitize the problem. No "smoking gun"/"Deep Throat" and an uninterested press and the "problem" disappears.
Now we need her to say "I am not a crook!".
Observation: Where is Wikileaks when you need them??
'Unless there was evidence that Clinton or her team had knowingly bypassed reasonable security procedures.....'
There is NO requirement for an offence to be committed 'knowingly' or with any intent, it is an absolute offence. Have a look at what happened to Bryan Nishimura for an infinitessimally smaller transgression of the law:
What do you think Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were talking about at Phoenix airport - their grandchildren?!
It is only necessary to read the juicy parts of the State Department IG report to see that there was intent to bypass reasonable security procedures, and that is true even if the primary or secondary motive was to keep control of records that might be demanded under the FOIA or become permanent records of Secretary Clinton's tenure at the State Department.
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 mishandled classified information, and concluded that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case based on the evidence.
And then you have Republicans....
This isn't well reported in the press, and likely none of our international readers are aware of this. He was appointed by Obama because he had promised to appoint a couple republicans to cabinet level positions hoping that would help bipartisanship (obviously he was wrong there!)
Previously he was appointed Deputy Attorney General by George Bush, and before that was a federal prosecutor. Those who think "the fix is in" will still think that, but it wasn't due to a lifelong democrat whitewashing things at the FBI.
.... if Apple had just unlocked that iPhone. It is encrypted phones that cause risk to all, definitely not classified information being stored on unsecured servers. Definitely not opm databases going walkabouts to China. Nope. iPhone encryption is where it's at.
/at least I am guessing that's where Coomey surveys his threat model.
// Fast forward to next iPhone-gate-gate. So POTUS H, remember when we made that email server case disappear? There's another box of stuff we didn't bother reading inside a filling cabinet in a disused lavatory with a leopard warning. Be a real shame to have to clean that out. Sorry, got sidetracked. Where was I. Oh, that's right. Can we talk about banning mathematics, sorry, I mean encryption?
Well part of it too is that if you prosecuted Hillary, democrats would be calling for an investigation of former secretary of states Powell and Rice, neither of whom used official state department email but used their own for all their official business. It is unlikely they operated any differently than Hillary did, which is probably why career (i.e. not partisan appointees) state department officials never flagged Hillary's use of private email as a problem. They'd seen it all before, and to stick around a long time through administrations of both parties they know you can't be a boat rocker.
Career State Department security and IT staff who raised questions about Ms. Clinton's server were instructed "never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again." The State Department Inspector General's report on the matter is interesting, maybe especially for those inclined to make light of it.
In any case, they certainly can be found in a data center in Utah. To be printed out and slipped elegantly across a waxed desk should the need ever arise, accompanied by a small cough and raised eyebrows, as is the Imperial City's custom.
(One should also prosecute the cleaning lady for not adequately dusting around the server, the gardener for not appropriately cutting the greens visible from the server room windows etc.)
"Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I do not believe for one instant that several thousand emails no longer exist."
the Clintstones are well known to have shredded a bunch of documents at the Rose Law firm related to Whitewater... (according to actual testimony from a courier in 1994). "What evidence?" Exactly!
This is nothing new, in other words. Nor, is it unexpected from the Clintstones.
the Clintstones are well known to have shredded a bunch of documents at the Rose Law firm related to Whitewater... (according to actual testimony from a courier in 1994). "What evidence?" Exactly!
That's all very well, but it's a damn sight easier to shred paper documents and hope that there are no existing photocopies than it is to delete every copy of an email. This is where Phil Jones (CRU) and his pals came unstuck. FOIA (whoever he/she/it is) had taken the precaution of backing them up or copying an existing backup.
A genuine conspiracy theory here would be a man in the middle attack on what is described as "an insecure server" from the NSA for example. Never mind the Norks, Russians, al Qaeda, Uncle Tom Cobbley... Whoopsie! I wan't supposed to mention Uncle Tom. How embarrassing!
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I do not believe for one instant that several thousand emails no longer exist.
I'll pass on the epithet, but perhaps you should ask Colin Powell about emails that no longer exist. I understand he is quite the expert in that domain.
Any email Hillary sent or received that included someone with a state department address should still exist in the system somewhere as it would be covered under the state department email server's retention. If she emailed email@example.com and didn't cc: anyone, it'll be lost (unless the NSA has broken into his email and has a copy)
"there was no "clear evidence" that Clinton or anyone on her team has "intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information."
So ignorance of the law is now a legitimate defence?
"Sorry your honour, I didn't know that driving at 100mph through a school zone was illegal"
"OK, that's alright then. Off you go."
No matter who becomes the next US president, the whole world will suffer the consequences. They will enrich themselves in the wars that will surely come. None are competent to lead, or have any empathy for others. Authoritarian, narcissistic, criminals lead the world's nations. Prepare yourselves, a storm is coming.
Can anyone explain to me why Hillary seems to be hated so much by half the US?
Yes, I've heard "she lies all the time", "she's corrupt" and so on, but from this side of the Atlantic she doesn't seem to be any better or worse than the average politician.
Is there some specific reason that she's so much worse than any other politician? Or is it just partisanship getting more heated than normal?
I had written a wall-o'-text, but here's the short version: She's female, and this puts her in the spotlight, and the spotlight shows all the crap that successful politicians do, and make her slime all the more noticeable. She also has a core of support that shields her from any backlash from slimy moves that go wrong.
RE: "She's female"
And, she's a Clinton, and a Democrat. For many people just being a Clinton is enough, but as any fule no a democrat is a communist heathen atheist fascist dictator, to which sins we can now add Obama's being a Moslem atheist, and whose only aim is to hate all Americans and destroy them all as slowly as possible. They dream of the old USSR and have secret pictures of Stalin on their walls. I know what-about-ery is not cool but there are politicians who I consider much much worse, such as Dick Cheney, but apparently he's a patriot and can do no wrong. The extreme hatred of Hilary and her rather mild sins is utterly irrational and seems to be sweeping through folk of a certain persuasion like an outbreak of mass hysteria. To answer the OP there is no rational reason to hate her so much more than almost any other politician, or at least none that I can discern. She has become in the minds of too many people a cartoon villain MWAHHAHAHAing in the shadows, and her enemies and the media are taking full advantage of this fact.
See http://www.gocomics.com/pricklycity/2016/06/24, a mild example of the output of a right-wing cartoonist, and one who hates Donald Trump (another of this strips has him pointing out that the Founding Fathers would have been less concerned about the black Prez than the, ahem, orange one.
Seeing that cartoon reminds me of Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. Apparently Adams is a trained hypnotist and skilled in the art of persuasion. Adams says it would be a mistake to underestimate Trump. Trumps is apparently using all the tools of persuasion and using them well and managing to convince a lot of people to vote for him. Even those who hate Trump are being manipulated and are behaving in a very predictable manner. Trump looks at who he is talking to and says what those people will react to in the way Trump wants them to react. In California he promises water. In Arizona and New Mexico he promises a big wall. He is more formidable than he has led his haters to believe.
God help you.
I'm glad I don't have to make the choice between Clinton or Trump. Or watch a Republican Senate and Congress try and subvert the democratic process, should Trump lose.
You have to admire a process that takes a year to choose a candidate, a few months before an election, in this day and age, there must be a better way, now that geography is somewhat less important.
Many forget that Secretary Clinton relied on advice from her predecessor, Colin Powell - previously Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - for advice on email and messaging at State as she took over. He entered a world where a technophobic state department did not quite know how to spell "email" let alone have processes in place for managing it properly. After setting up her own services as done by Powell it is hard to remember the need to manage the underlying administrivia when you are in a Sec State role running over a million miles a year and corresponding all over the world. Your key criteria - did my messages get through and did just the people who were supposed to get them get them.
Many fail to recall a huge scandal that occurred on the Secretary's watch - Wiki Leaks, where the State Department's internal emails were breeched and sent out for global publication. At the time I bet Ms Clinton was glad she had her own private server instead of government services and security. The same security that saw every known malevolent state actor hack White House Emails, Pentagon (F35 plans to China), OPM - where all the top secret HR files for Presidents, Generals, and spies were hacked. The list of successful government hacks is rather too long to enumerate here. Where is the FBI/CIA/NSA in safeguarding these systems? Oh right - they have Edward Snowden's to worry about.
Lest we point fingers to all the massive government incompetence - we should look carefully at our own practices. Has your password changed since 1990? 2000? 2010? Do you change your password every 30 days and is it a complex alpha-numeric with more than 12 characters? Despite being in the technical dark ages in 2008 with respect to cyber-security - even in 2016 we would at best have just recently discovered the steam engine. We have a long way to go.
When Clinton took the State Department Office in 2008, the world was a very different place geo-politically and technologically. The planet was in the midst of its greatest recession in 70 years. A new President assumed office and was embroiled in domestic economic collapse and global conflicts while a new model of diplomacy was being embraced. Into that environment the prime objective for Ms Clinton was getting messages on a timely basis. Her predecessors advice was to not rely on internal staff based on their lack of technological familiarity. The world has changed radically since 2008.
Clinton left office in 2012 and with each 4 year interval the level of technical expertise and security awareness has changed geometrically - and yet, Sony, Home Depot, Panama Papers, Your Favorite Hospital. The list of major hacks and infiltrations using phishing attacks and social media to subvert mail and sophisticated security standards seems to grow each month.
My question is whether the right yardstick was used to judge Clinton - and I think it was. However, I take the words of James Comey - the FBI director - as a reminder to Clinton that things have radically changed and she needs to focus on cyber-security in any future new roles. It is ironic that despite shaming Ms Clinton for her security expertise, Comey, just a few months earlier, begged the courts - since "Congress" and "act" are oxymoron's, to force Apple to make their phone systems less secure so the FBI can crack them.
Oh Trump will continue to whine like a baby about this just like he did years after it was proven that Obama was born in the US.
Trump will continuing his whining even after he loses badly in November.
Hey. The FBI director is a Republican and even he couldn't agree that what she did was so bad.
Even those who sent mail should of noticed that she wasn't using a government approved server [no .gov is a hint].
The hope by some that Clinton's use of a private email server would somehow provide a silver bullet to kill her candidacy has however died.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Angry House Republicans are announcing plans to investigate FBI Director James Comey's decision against pressing criminal charges for Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified emails. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Comey's decision defies explanation and leaves many questions unanswered. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called Comey to testify on Thursday, and the Judiciary panel announced that Attorney General Loretta Lynch would appear next week.
The GOP has to keep this in the news so Trump can use it against Clinton. Fox News [sic] will trumpet it and the Trumpettes will eat it up. GOP Congress-critters can't see what's coming. If you believe what he says, a Trump presidency will render both houses of Congress redundant, because Trump "has a very good brain" and he will make his own decisions. He don't need no stinking advice and consent.
That said, Clinton was reckless and that's not a good prerequisite for a president either.
Oh, you do them injustice. Research is so much more than going on chat shows. It also means reading World Net Daily and The Drudge Report, neither of which tasks is easy and takes up time when they could be doing more useful things such as prayin', shoot'n, and going to public "Rest" rooms.
Oh, come on Reg, a little accuracy please?
Right now, on July 6, 2016, Hillary Clinton is the "presumed Democrat Party nominee". She has not yet been officially selected by her party, and she sure hasn't faced the election in November. She may or may not prevail. However, in no case is she the "future president".
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the caucus our state had back in March. Bernie always seemed to draw huge crowds during his campaign rallies. The times that I saw Hillary Clinton speak, I wondered where her crowds were.
Seriously, though, if she wins in November, I think it will be for two reasons: She is a woman and nobody wants Donald Trump as POTUS. There are a lot of women in the US who are chomping at the bit to have a woman as POTUS. But, Hillary is not the first woman to ever run for the Democratic nomination.
Hillary also has things going against her. She is not particularly likeable and she's not an easy woman to trust based upon her history. I do not understand why the Republicans are all in a tizzy over Hillary Clinton, if she became POTUS, she would be the best President the Republicans could ever ask to have.
I think America is ready for a woman as President; but, there is a better option: Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party.
Bunch of corrupted politicians, fighting for power and ignoring their own rules when it's for their convenience. I know about practicing good OPSEC, having worked at a military base, and cannot believe just how corrupted the whole system is, even the FBI is corrupted.
I once was convinced that the US was a fair country, looking to do good in the world and live in peace etc, but with just happened with Clinton, it makes me believe the US I used to know is dead and it has become what everybody should be fighting against. Ironic I know... I think most US citizens would like a country where rules and laws are followed by everybody. I don't care if other people did the same thing, if they did, they should be prosecuted and punished as well. All I can say is that I lost any faith in the US with this outcome. It's just outrageous...
Have you worked with anything close to keeping records safe as with PCI rules. Have you ever enforced IT security where secrets matter a lot to the company? Do you care about national intelligence and secrets being safe? How can you defend what Clinton did just because she's running for the democratic party, are you really that sheep like? Where are all the IT guys that give a damn about their profession? Is there any democrat IT guy that thinks that the FBI recommendation is fine and that what Clinton did doesn't deserve any punishment?
I just hope the guys working in IT that think that what Clinton did doesn't deserve jail time or at least become unfit to rule the US, do not work in any security related job. If so, I truly believe they suck at their jobs. Lack of integrity and honesty.
>>"This thread is completely loaded with feminists. Nay, 3rd-wave-female-chauvinists that even feminists disavow. 'Nuff said."
I think you're seeing what you want to see. I'm a feminist (check my posting history here on El Reg if you want to see plenty of evidence) and I'm not defending Hilary's actions.
Look at the US's reaction to an African American President.
Nut-jobs ahoy, I'm looking at you Donald.
Some just can't stand the fact that a woman might take the top job.
It's about time one did!
I mean, it's not like 50% of the US population with XY chromosones have EVER done anything for their country.
Don't you mean misandry? How is the world's most corrupt woman getting off misoginy?
And not like men have done anything? How about built the best country in the world! It only recently went to heck.
And cray-cray? Seeing misogyny around evey corner? How old are you?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019