Indifference and ignorance: Delving deep into the Clinton e-mail saga

Clinton wasn't alone in mishandling communications, classified data.

Read the whole story

 

[Twigs21x]

Here's a number of things I get from this article: The sheer incompetence of the IT Departments in the Federal government to cooperate and ensure the security of our infrastructure from foreign attacks (of course we spend a lot of money doing the same to our allies and enemies). Those of us who have had experience in supporting IT services for Enterprise Customers and the determination of our users to get their work done in the most efficient way even if it conflicts with Security concerns/standards. And finally the role of US government historians in the future trying to figure out WTF we were doing with no possibility of reconstruction of records etc. a la the Hillarys of the world.

 

[JohnnyTheGeek]

We don't need more people in politics like a Hillary Clinton. When even after proof is provided she miss handled classified documents she continues to lie about it. Not very Presidential in my book to have to lie about what you did wrong. I prefer people be in higher office that can admit mistakes rather than deny they happened or try and cover them up. Especially a person like Clinton who has no excuse not to know how to handle that classified information. After all, she was first lady and a senator before becoming Secretary Of State. So I find it difficult to accept any excuse she may give for what she did. Besides the fact she continued to lie to Congress and the people about how she handled this sensitive information. I don't care to have a President who cannot admit their mistakes. It's not proven but it appears to me she and her staff attempted to cover up her mistakes as Secretary by erasing information on her personal servers that she had. Do I want someone like that as the leader of the US? No, I think that set's a bad example of rewarding someone who defies everything I believe in as a good human being. The Clinton's have a past that is not so squeaky clean and it's getting dirtier all the time.

 

[Questors]

Intent is not necessary to secure and indictment. Why does intent continue to be stated as a necessary component to charge and prosecute Hillabeast? INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY to prosecute in cases like this.. This is worse than the perpetual lie that the GTX 1080 performance doubles the GTX 980. Together these two tidbits of false information continue to perpetuate themselves through people not reading and/or listening.

You can capitalize and repeat yourself all you want, chief, but it doesn't make it true. Because here's the direct quote from James Comey:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

The fact the DoJ is criminal (Loretta Lynch not recusing herself) in itself and Comey is a stooge, has no bearing on Clinton's guilt. You can bold type all you want, but intent is not needed to indict or prosecute for the mishandling of sensitive/classified information. That's simply a truth of law. Comey berated Clinton for 30 minutes, including public statements to the effect she is unqualified with the use technology (device and application) and to handle sensitive information; her understanding and knowledge of technology was not consistent with her station.
Comey also pretenses that no prosecutor would, etc., etc. Simply because he said that, does not make it a true or accurate statement. There is a young man (Navy) who is facing 5 years in federal prison over a picture he forgot to erase from his phone when he bought a new one. A single photo he did not share, there was no intent to distribute or share, no charge of intent to commit a crime of any sort was levied against him (with regard to intent), other than being careless with classified information. Yet his conviction is all but etched in stone. Clinton gets a pass? This is not applying the law equitably, let alone fairly.
If your grasp of right and wrong with handling sensitive information is based solely on a quote from a man who's final conclusion is at least questionable, you should take some time and do research, rather than be spoon fed.
This is just one set of statues: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As a U.S. Navy recruit, years ago, recruits were told from the time we reached bootcamp to treat all information as classified to avoid a mistake and to cover your butt. Reminders of this ideal were frequently made. A U.S. citizen should expect the Secretary of State to be fully aware of this pitifully simple principle and act on it.

 

[DarthSlack]

JohnnyTheGeek[/url]":9crh3avs]We don't need more people in politics like a Hillary Clinton. When even after proof is provided she miss handled classified documents she continues to lie about it. Not very Presidential in my book to have to lie about what you did wrong. I prefer people be in higher office that can admit mistakes rather than deny they happened or try and cover them up.

Um. The alternative is Trump. How does he not totally fail this test to the point of making Hillary look good? Instead of admitting that Trump U was a con, he instead doubles down and demands that the judge remove himself because of his Mexican heritage. Or proclaiming that it was a mistake to take down an image his campaign got from 8chan.

Especially a person like Clinton who has no excuse not to know how to handle that classified information. After all, she was first lady and a senator before becoming Secretary Of State. So I find it difficult to accept any excuse she may give for what she did. Besides the fact she continued to lie to Congress and the people about how she handled this sensitive information. I don't care to have a President who cannot admit their mistakes. It's not proven but it appears to me she and her staff attempted to cover up her mistakes as Secretary by erasing information on her personal servers that she had. Do I want someone like that as the leader of the US? No, I think that set's a bad example of rewarding someone who defies everything I believe in as a good human being. The Clinton's have a past that is not so squeaky clean and it's getting dirtier all the time.

[/quote]


In fact, substitute Trump for Clinton in your screed and if you actually feel better, you need help. Quickly.

 

[Vinceslayer]

Blitzenn[/url]":3hbd1qiu]

Vinceslayer[/url]":3hbd1qiu]...because other people did it too...

This does not lessen the absolute stupidity, carelessness, selfishness, shadiness, and possibly nefariousness of her actions. Anyone who does something like this should have, at a minimum, security clearance revoked for life.

Did you read the article? (No). So you drive down a road that has no posted speed limit and everyone else is driving 55 mph. So you drive 55 mph. Later you learn the speed limit is/was 35. Should your driving privileges be revoked for life?

The article clearly states that this 'condition' that caused this to happen was due to a number of factors, including predecessors doing the same (or even worse) things. On top of that, everyone in a position to stop or correct it was afraid to say anything. Nothing was ever done or said until one of the involved parties choose to run for high office. I am glad it came to light so it can be fixed, but to place all of the blame on one person is clearly folly. Especially if you read the article.

Yes I read the article. Thanks for another shitty metaphor btw. My comment is germane to the long running comments sections posted regarding these H email stories. Also, anyone who does what she did (R or D or national hero, whatever) should have their security clearance revoked, but I already said that...so you didn't read my comment, you clownfuck.

 

[dradler]

This is a clarification question for the author, Sean. Alas, it is likely to never be seen in the morass of political comments here. Anyway, this statement: "... and Rice used only her State.gov e-mail. But Rice herself never had a State.gov e-mail address ..." is confusing. How did she use her e-mail, but didn't have an e-mail address?

 

[ZagNust]

Snark218[/url]":3k1d0qhn]

Isahaya[/url]":3k1d0qhn]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

Actually, the statute is very precise; mishandling classified information is a violation of federal law. Intent does not play a role in this case.

 

[shadowjin]

Um. The alternative is Trump. How does he not totally fail this test to the point of making Hillary look good? Instead of admitting that Trump U was a con, he instead doubles down and demands that the judge remove himself because of his Mexican heritage. Or proclaiming that it was a mistake to take down an image his campaign got from 8chan.

Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,”

If you cookie cut a paragraph in sections it will sound racist. I've seen tons of cases where certain groups say the same.

 

[Rrr7]

BullBearMS[/url]":24qm9ehk]

Snark218[/url]":24qm9ehk]

Eurynom0s[/url]":24qm9ehk][

A memo went out across the State Department, with Clinton's signature on it, saying not to use personal email to conduct State business. Which is exactly what she was doing, and not just as one-offs when she was on the road, but as her exclusive means of conducting State business over email.

I don't really see what else to say about this—if you send out a memo saying not to conduct State business over personal email how can anyone possibly claim that there's ANY possibility that she didn't know she shouldn't have been doing what she was doing?

Even assuming she ever saw that memo - and Secretaries of any cabinet department never attend to shit that plebian - so what? Consciously failing to adhere to an agency IT policy doesn't mean she consciously intended to mishandle classified information.

The fact that she did the direct opposite of what the NSA warned her about is the part where her own conscious decision led to classified information being exposed directly on the internet.

The NSA is a huge organization with a huge black budget (as in it doesn't get to be debated in budget hearings) with absolutely zero oversight (as in they can do whatever they want since they are not beholden to any laws). Kinda like the Spanish Inquisition, but with a bit more freedom to operate, both inside & outside the US.
Since you keep defending them in every post, do you work for them?
..actually, no need to answer that..

 

[Rrr7]

GenericAnimeBoy[/url]":2wdezrvx]Clinton's role in all this has been well established--the flogging of that particular animal has gone way past dead horse territory, and we're now well on the way to horse tartare. The discussion I want to hear is about the technical aspects and how to fix that part. What is deeply disconcerting to me about all of this, as a citizen, is the attitude of general resignation that government IT systems can't be better.

Isn't it a basic principle of information security that a secure system is worthless if people have to work around it to do their jobs? Obsolete, slow, unweildy, and otherwise hard-to-use technology is a security liability in and of itself. While it is true that some of the inconvenience and extra steps required for working within a secured system can't be entirely eliminated, those liabilities need to be managed and balanced against the need to accomplish the mission. "Just Follow The Rules" is not an acceptable response when following the rules clearly prevents the job from getting done.

Whether it be streamlined procurement or streamlined approval processes or whatever...something needs to be changed to make government IT not suck.

For that change to happen, Congress, more precisely the Budget Committee (both fully controlled by Repubs) would have to allocate funds, but then they wouldn't be able to complain and grandstand over something like this.
So, no, it won't happen.

 

[Capt_Buzz]

“Didn’t deliberately” – Not a valid excuse:
Regardless of the legal, political and scandal issues and outcomes of Monica’s ex-boy friend’s wife are, it is important to know that for whatever reasons her judgment in the reckless and harmful way of handling classified material is criminal, and a disgrace. For that reason she and her aides and staff involved should be stripped of their security clearances at every level. No matter what level of clearance you posses, be it Need to Know, Confidential (red), Secret (yellow), or Top Secret (blue) with all the special access tiers (SAP), everyone signs an oath, promise, pledge, vow to protect that data, hardware, or whatever classified material is at risk of being compromised. If you in any way compromise that material, whether it is poor judgment, or any other reason, you will be stripped of your clearance and subject to fines and possible prison. There is no question that Mrs. Clinton’s poor judgment of using an unsecured server to transmit and receive classified material, marked or unmarked, has put our country’s security in jeopardy. Her blatant disregard and contempt for policies and procedures in place to protect our national security while secretary of state is unacceptable for any government official let alone a presidential candidate. Your judgment has been grossly and inexcusably impaired if this is behavior you find acceptable for a president, or for that matter, any government worker, or contractor entrusted with our nation’s secrets.

 

[norsegirl]

What I don't understand is why the content of these E-mails that are shown in this article would be considered "classified"? Awfully boring stuff; nothing a
foreign government or "spy" would have any use for, in my opinion.
Could someone (who is impartial but knowledgable) explain it to me.
Thank you!

 

[Capt_Buzz]

“Didn’t deliberately” – Not a valid excuse:
Regardless of the legal, political and scandal issues and outcomes of Monica’s ex-boy friend’s wife are, it is important to know that for whatever reasons her judgment in the reckless and harmful way of handling classified material is criminal, and a disgrace. For that reason she and her aides and staff involved should be stripped of their security clearances at every level. No matter what level of clearance you posses, be it Need to Know, Confidential (red), Secret (yellow), or Top Secret (blue) with all the special access tiers (SAP), everyone signs an oath, promise, pledge, vow to protect that data, hardware, or whatever classified material is at risk of being compromised. If you in any way compromise that material, whether it is poor judgment, or any other reason, you will be stripped of your clearance and subject to fines and possible prison. There is no question that Mrs. Clinton’s poor judgment of using an unsecured server to transmit and receive classified material, marked or unmarked, has put our country’s security in jeopardy. Her blatant disregard and contempt for policies and procedures in place to protect our national security while secretary of state is unacceptable for any government official let alone a presidential candidate. Your judgment has been grossly and inexcusably impaired if this is behavior you find acceptable for a president, or for that matter, any government worker, or contractor entrusted with our nation’s secrets.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

shadowjin[/url]":26j2qp7d]

Um. The alternative is Trump. How does he not totally fail this test to the point of making Hillary look good? Instead of admitting that Trump U was a con, he instead doubles down and demands that the judge remove himself because of his Mexican heritage. Or proclaiming that it was a mistake to take down an image his campaign got from 8chan.

Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,”

If you cookie cut a paragraph in sections it will sound racist. I've seen tons of cases where certain groups say the same.

Not sure what your point is. As regards this statement from Trump, he is full of shit, and if it were held to be true than any defendant could insult the ethnicity of any judge and claim conflict of interests. Because let's face it, an insult is all it is. If Trump is elected there will be no wall, and if a wall gets started it will take years to complete and Trump's replacement will cancel it. Besides if Trump is elected 2 years in the Republicans will lose a lot of seats in the house and they will lose the senate for sure, then there goes the funding...

Unless you think Trump can get congress to pass an enabling act?

 

[fitness]

Like many teenagers Clinton wants to throw out contradicting excuses, remarks and doesn't think her Gruberites will question the contradictions. Democrats claim she is the most qualified candidate EVER. Yet they want you to agree she wasn't smart enough to recognize a Top Secret E-Mail. They want you to say it was just a few Classified compared to the many, but want you to forget that all it takes in some cases is ONE. They want you to believe that others did the same thing, but ignore facts that it was a Server not just a Blackberry. They want you to ignore she lied repeatedly, which the FBI has used in thousands of cases to prove GUILT. They pass over the destruction of thousands of E-mails they destroyed saying they were personal, yet how many little people have been imprisoned for destroying evidence? They completely ignore her instructing on how to take the "Secret" markings off, yet saying she wasn't sophisticated enough to know. Hillary is guilty, a sixth-grader could determine that and it proves that we don't have equal Justice.

 

[NickBII]

Questors[/url]":w7vjqxop]
Comey also pretenses that no prosecutor would, etc., etc. Simply because he said that, does not make it a true or accurate statement. There is a young man (Navy) who is facing 5 years in federal prison over a picture he forgot to erase from his phone when he bought a new one. A single photo he did not share, there was no intent to distribute or share, no charge of intent to commit a crime of any sort was levied against him (with regard to intent), other than being careless with classified information. Yet his conviction is all but etched in stone. Clinton gets a pass? This is not applying the law equitably, let alone fairly.
If your grasp of right and wrong with handling sensitive information is based solely on a quote from a man who's final conclusion is at least questionable, you should take some time and do research, rather than be spoon fed.

Which he tried to cover up by destroying multiple electronic devices. Hillary, OTOH, sent her entire server to the FBI to be analyzed and they got everything they wanted from it. Congress didn't get everything they wanted from her emails, but I think if we lived in a country where the FBI director recommended charges for disobeying Congress I'd already have an asylum application in north of the border.

Hate-reading the law because you're in the midst of Clinton Derangement Syndrome makes for poor reading comprehension.

An example:

This is just one set of statues: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As a U.S. Navy recruit, years ago, recruits were told from the time we reached bootcamp to treat all information as classified to avoid a mistake and to cover your butt. Reminders of this ideal were frequently made. A U.S. citizen should expect the Secretary of State to be fully aware of this pitifully simple principle and act on it.

To quote the statute "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person."

See that bold bit? It means you have to prove in Court, in front of a defense lawyer, to the beyond a Reasonable Doubt level; that the accused not only sent the damn email to someone without proper clearance they "willfully and knowingly" did so. "Willful" means 'deliberate,' "knowing" is self-explanatory; so for her to have done either you'd have to prove, (again, to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, in open court, in front of a highly paid defense attorney whose entire job is to disprove you) that she knew the info she sent was classified. OTOH that Navy recruit knew that cell pic was of his engine room.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of why Hillary violated a statute that could result in criminal charges from anyone who has actually read the statutes with enough objectivity to go "goddamnit 'knowing' again. this one won't work." Most of them actually seem to be written by true morons who can't figure out that the level of deliberateness in "gross negligence" is pretty much the same as 'knowing' or 'willful.'

 

[NickBII]

norsegirl[/url]":21ufm6on]What I don't understand is why the content of these E-mails that are shown in this article would be considered "classified"? Awfully boring stuff; nothing a
foreign government or "spy" would have any use for, in my opinion.
Could someone (who is impartial but knowledgable) explain it to me.
Thank you!

Much of it is classified as a courtesy. There were emails from Blumenthal about the Northern Irish situation that were classified because State didn't want US FOIA to out their internal secrets. I believe a meeting with the President of Malawi ended up in her email and is auto-cloassified for the same reason. Somebody also apparently named some names of people who were supposed to be undercover.

 

[drachasor]

NickBII[/url]":2j4lgor3]See that bold bit? It means you have to prove in Court, in front of a defense lawyer, to the beyond a Reasonable Doubt level; that the accused not only sent the damn email to someone without proper clearance they "willfully and knowingly" did so. "Willful" means 'deliberate,' "knowing" is self-explanatory; so for her to have done either you'd have to prove, (again, to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, in open court, in front of a highly paid defense attorney whose entire job is to disprove you) that she knew the info she sent was classified. OTOH that Navy recruit knew that cell pic was of his engine room.

Not only that, it is undoubtedly not allowed to even take a cell phone into the engine room (possibly not even allowed on the sub period). Let alone taking a picture of something classified.

Hillary quite possible didn't even read some of these email chains. Most people that high up (or even at lower levels), don't have the time to read every single email chain they get -- most of them aren't part of their personal duties -- though may be needed for reference later.

Most people here don't even understand how common it is to overclassify something, and how if you are using faxes how common it can be to send it over the classified system rather than the unclassified -- even if the information does not need to be classified. Heck, most people here don't even understand there are separate networks for each classification level, and ways to send info without even using email or a PC (e.g. fax). Yet they act like they are fully informed on these matters. Double-heck; I see a lot of people making comments that are severely misinformed and are directly addressed in this article.

Again though, NO ONE WOULD GET CHARGED FOR WHAT HILLARY DID. If you think you see something that's the same, then take a second look, because it is not the same. If you don't understand how they aren't the same, then you don't understand the details of how these systems work and what these people did. There's a massive difference between taking a phone into a secure area (not allowed) and taking pictures (really not allowed), vs. receiving emails that include information taken from a secure network and that someone else manually transferred (by typing) from one computer to another (likely because they didn't think before writing an email).

 

[MsAh1on1]

So, this is that "cynical world" Jerry McGuire was talking about. He was right. We do live in a "cynical, cynical world." The real threat to America is from those who can't be honest with themselves; who have an unyielding irrational hatred for Hillary to the extent that facts and truth are irrelevant, because you already decided her guilt a long time ago (the good Lord, Himself could tell you Hillary was innocent, and you would denounce Him as well); worse yet, you would knowingly put America in the hands of a fool--again. Why don't you look at her resume. Do your research. It's not Hillary that is ignorant, indifferent or reckless, it's those who choose to not put America best interest first. Instead of looking for a reason to prove guilty, try looking for reasons to prove innocent, because that's how America works.

 

[vertical2010]

Wow. What a load of excrement. All I can say is, I have no doubt who Sean Gallagher is voting for in the presidential election. He should have published this on The Politico or HuffPo.

He repeats every excuse (and lie) of the Clinton campaign. It is absolutely ridiculous to argue that Top Secret/SCI information was "not marked" or not classified at the time. Such information would be known to be highly classified by a janitor at the State Department. If Hillary didn't recognize it, she had to be the dumbest person in government.

And there weren't "a few" classified emails, but hundreds. And we don't what what was in the THOUSANDS of email deleted from her servers that the FBI believed WERE work related (based on partially recovered chains from recipients), and never will know because her lawyers WIPED her servers.

Attempting to muddy the waters by equating the actions of past secretaries doesn't apply. NONE did anything near this level, nor did they ever lie about it.

God help us if this lying, paranoid, unethical, self-serving fraud becomes president.

P.S. @ Shawn Gallagher: As a former Navy Officer, you KNOW what would have happened to you had been careless with a single classified document..even CONFIDENTIAL.

 

[hubeee]

Here come stage 2 of the Clinton propaganda/ lie defense. It's always someone else fault. Our pathological liar would never do anything dishonest. Yup, she is just a little Sunday school teachers looking out for the little people.

Lady Justice, standing at the International Scales of Justice,is wearing a blindfold to symbolize everyone is equal under the law.. But that's just another damn lie. Thousands of National Security violations, and a cover up from DOJ/FBI, and Imam Obozo, all equal preferential treatment. If her name was Jane Doe, she would already be in federal jail.

 

[DarthSlack]

vertical2010[/url]":cdu2wh60]
God help us if this lying, paranoid, unethical, self-serving fraud becomes president.

Which lying, paranoid, unethical, self-serving fraud? Trump or Clinton?

 

[CraigJ ✅]

Someone link to this article on drudge or something.

 

[linnen]

fitness[/url]":aoan4qxb]Like many teenagers Clinton wants to throw out contradicting excuses, remarks and doesn't think her Gruberites will question the contradictions. Democrats claim she is the most qualified candidate EVER. Yet they want you to agree she wasn't smart enough to recognize a Top Secret E-Mail. They want you to say it was just a few Classified compared to the many, but want you to forget that all it takes in some cases is ONE. They want you to believe that others did the same thing, but ignore facts that it was a Server not just a Blackberry. They want you to ignore she lied repeatedly, which the FBI has used in thousands of cases to prove GUILT. They pass over the destruction of thousands of E-mails they destroyed saying they were personal, yet how many little people have been imprisoned for destroying evidence? They completely ignore her instructing on how to take the "Secret" markings off, yet saying she wasn't sophisticated enough to know. Hillary is guilty, a sixth-grader could determine that and it proves that we don't have equal Justice.

'Herp Derp' reported in Aisle Two! ' 'Herp Derp' in Aisle Two! Cleanup needed!

 

[vertical2010]

MsAh1on1[/url]":3711p1fr]So, this is that "cynical world" Jerry McGuire was talking about. He was right. We do live in a "cynical, cynical world." The real threat to America is from those who can't be honest with themselves; who have an unyielding irrational hatred for Hillary to the extent that facts and truth are irrelevant, because you already decided her guilt a long time ago (the good Lord, Himself could tell you Hillary was innocent, and you would denounce Him as well); worse yet, you would knowingly put America in the hands of a fool--again. Why don't you look at her resume. Do your research. It's not Hillary that is ignorant, indifferent or reckless, it's those who choose to not put America best interest first. Instead of looking for a reason to prove guilty, try looking for reasons to prove innocent, because that's how America works.

OK, I did my research. Hillary is not only ignorant, indifferent and reckless, she is totally incompetent and has massively screwed up everything she's touched, from Watergate, Whitewater, FBI Filegate, the Hillarycare fiasco and bimbo eruptions, to Libya (including the Benghazi debacle) to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Russia. There is no way we could have had a WORSE Secretary of State.

I'd vote for a Kardashian for president (any of them) before I'd vote for Hillary.

 

[vertical2010]

The comments of Hillary acolytes here speak volumes about her true qualifications to be president.

They don't make any effort to tout her accomplishments, because there are none.

Rather, their arguments boil down to: Yeah, she screwed up with highly classified material, and mislead voters about it, but other people did too and she wasn't actually indicted by the FBI.

That's really a glowing endorsement for the democrat candidate for president.

 

[dudeface]

Sean did a great analysis of the report and pulling out some nuances. But the balance must be addressed.

There is no mention of the George Bush White House use of the private RNC server (gwb43.com). Rove stated he used that server 95% of the time. There was never an ARS analysis. Neither of the 22 missing emails from the White House server lost in 2003 and then somehow found 6 years later with no explanation of what else could be missing or, for that matter, whether any classified information was transmitted. Where are those reports? Where is that analysis or even comparison? I get that's not part of the report but that is the level of reporting that the readership has come to expect from ARS Technica. A "it should be noted that while there was indictment of Libby over intentional disclosure of classified info to the media, the Bush White House also lost 22 million of emails for no less than 5 years and had officials with classified access using gwb43.com for as much as 95% of their email communication, though no further investigations into whether any classified material was made" statement would have been sufficient. Fair and balanced goes both ways.

And, Sure, part of the political story here is that Hillary said no classified info transmitted and there was. But thats not the type of article ARS Technica does.

 

[BioTurboNick]

vertical2010[/url]":3jsqy1pb]The comments of Hillary acolytes here speak volumes about her true qualifications to be president.

They don't make any effort to tout her accomplishments, because there are none.

Rather, their arguments boil down to: Yeah, she screwed up with highly classified material, and mislead voters about it, but other people did too and she wasn't actually indicted by the FBI.

That's really a glowing endorsement for the democrat candidate for president.

Uhh... why would we be talking about her accomplishments? That would be off topic.

No, the argument is that she screwed up with having the server at all, other people sent a handful of classified information to her in e-mails, and since she may not have known about it at the time, she may have been wrong about not having classified information but that was not intentionally misleading.

 

[soulsabr]

NickBII[/url]":157bgpli]

Questors[/url]":157bgpli]
Comey also pretenses that no prosecutor would, etc., etc. Simply because he said that, does not make it a true or accurate statement. There is a young man (Navy) who is facing 5 years in federal prison over a picture he forgot to erase from his phone when he bought a new one. A single photo he did not share, there was no intent to distribute or share, no charge of intent to commit a crime of any sort was levied against him (with regard to intent), other than being careless with classified information. Yet his conviction is all but etched in stone. Clinton gets a pass? This is not applying the law equitably, let alone fairly.
If your grasp of right and wrong with handling sensitive information is based solely on a quote from a man who's final conclusion is at least questionable, you should take some time and do research, rather than be spoon fed.

Which he tried to cover up by destroying multiple electronic devices. Hillary, OTOH, sent her entire server to the FBI to be analyzed and they got everything they wanted from it. Congress didn't get everything they wanted from her emails, but I think if we lived in a country where the FBI director recommended charges for disobeying Congress I'd already have an asylum application in north of the border.

Hate-reading the law because you're in the midst of Clinton Derangement Syndrome makes for poor reading comprehension.

An example:

This is just one set of statues: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As a U.S. Navy recruit, years ago, recruits were told from the time we reached bootcamp to treat all information as classified to avoid a mistake and to cover your butt. Reminders of this ideal were frequently made. A U.S. citizen should expect the Secretary of State to be fully aware of this pitifully simple principle and act on it.

To quote the statute "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person."

See that bold bit? It means you have to prove in Court, in front of a defense lawyer, to the beyond a Reasonable Doubt level; that the accused not only sent the damn email to someone without proper clearance they "willfully and knowingly" did so. "Willful" means 'deliberate,' "knowing" is self-explanatory; so for her to have done either you'd have to prove, (again, to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, in open court, in front of a highly paid defense attorney whose entire job is to disprove you) that she knew the info she sent was classified. OTOH that Navy recruit knew that cell pic was of his engine room.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of why Hillary violated a statute that could result in criminal charges from anyone who has actually read the statutes with enough objectivity to go "goddamnit 'knowing' again. this one won't work." Most of them actually seem to be written by true morons who can't figure out that the level of deliberateness in "gross negligence" is pretty much the same as 'knowing' or 'willful.'

Forgive my English but I do believe the second "or" does not pertain to the "knowingly and willfully" part of the law. Thus we also have:

or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

I believe what she's done more than qualified as publishing when she sent said emails.

 

[soulsabr]

DarthSlack[/url]":1c34ypl4]

vertical2010[/url]":1c34ypl4]
God help us if this lying, paranoid, unethical, self-serving fraud becomes president.

Which lying, paranoid, unethical, self-serving fraud? Trump or Clinton?

Yes?

 

[BioTurboNick]

soulsabr[/url]":1ig8k69t]

NickBII[/url]":1ig8k69t]

Questors[/url]":1ig8k69t]
Comey also pretenses that no prosecutor would, etc., etc. Simply because he said that, does not make it a true or accurate statement. There is a young man (Navy) who is facing 5 years in federal prison over a picture he forgot to erase from his phone when he bought a new one. A single photo he did not share, there was no intent to distribute or share, no charge of intent to commit a crime of any sort was levied against him (with regard to intent), other than being careless with classified information. Yet his conviction is all but etched in stone. Clinton gets a pass? This is not applying the law equitably, let alone fairly.
If your grasp of right and wrong with handling sensitive information is based solely on a quote from a man who's final conclusion is at least questionable, you should take some time and do research, rather than be spoon fed.

Which he tried to cover up by destroying multiple electronic devices. Hillary, OTOH, sent her entire server to the FBI to be analyzed and they got everything they wanted from it. Congress didn't get everything they wanted from her emails, but I think if we lived in a country where the FBI director recommended charges for disobeying Congress I'd already have an asylum application in north of the border.

Hate-reading the law because you're in the midst of Clinton Derangement Syndrome makes for poor reading comprehension.

An example:

This is just one set of statues: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As a U.S. Navy recruit, years ago, recruits were told from the time we reached bootcamp to treat all information as classified to avoid a mistake and to cover your butt. Reminders of this ideal were frequently made. A U.S. citizen should expect the Secretary of State to be fully aware of this pitifully simple principle and act on it.

To quote the statute "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person."

See that bold bit? It means you have to prove in Court, in front of a defense lawyer, to the beyond a Reasonable Doubt level; that the accused not only sent the damn email to someone without proper clearance they "willfully and knowingly" did so. "Willful" means 'deliberate,' "knowing" is self-explanatory; so for her to have done either you'd have to prove, (again, to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, in open court, in front of a highly paid defense attorney whose entire job is to disprove you) that she knew the info she sent was classified. OTOH that Navy recruit knew that cell pic was of his engine room.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of why Hillary violated a statute that could result in criminal charges from anyone who has actually read the statutes with enough objectivity to go "goddamnit 'knowing' again. this one won't work." Most of them actually seem to be written by true morons who can't figure out that the level of deliberateness in "gross negligence" is pretty much the same as 'knowing' or 'willful.'

Forgive my English but I do believe the second "or" does not pertain to the "knowingly and willfully" part of the law. Thus we also have:

or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

I believe what she's done more than qualified as publishing when she sent said emails.

I think you'd have a tough time arguing that "e-mail" is included in "publishing". I expect that would mean intentionally spread publicly in some set form (e.g. book, magazine, newspaper).

 

[etudiant]

Tempest in a teapot imho.
The absurd degree of classification within the US government is a greater threat to our country than any possible leak. No government official can function if his every utterance and comment is to captured and processed by an unwieldy and dysfunctional electronic monitoring/recording system such as was offered to Hillary.
She asked to use her Blackberry, on a setup similar to what had been installed for Obama, but that was refused on grounds that it was too laborious for the DP support services. So she said to hell with them.

I just wish that she had had the cojones to say publicly that this whole rigmarole of classification is absurd, hugely expensive and damaging to the national interest. It costs a fortune and has not prevented massive leaks, from the A bomb to the Navy codes to the spy satellite data.

 

[aurispector]

She knew damn well she should not be conducting official business on her private servers. In fact, the only possible reason she had the servers set up in the first place is specifically to be able to delete potentially embarrassing and/or incriminating emails outside of official scrutiny. It's classic clinton slime, skating absolutely as close as possible to the edge of the law, with teams of lawyers ready to handle the fallout when they inevitably cross the line.

If she is actually that ignorant of the law, or that stupid, she, a lawyer herself, is utter unfit for public office. Aside from the whole "complete lack of ethics" thing.

 

[NickBII]

soulsabr[/url]":wolrze40]

NickBII[/url]":wolrze40]

Questors[/url]":wolrze40]
Comey also pretenses that no prosecutor would, etc., etc. Simply because he said that, does not make it a true or accurate statement. There is a young man (Navy) who is facing 5 years in federal prison over a picture he forgot to erase from his phone when he bought a new one. A single photo he did not share, there was no intent to distribute or share, no charge of intent to commit a crime of any sort was levied against him (with regard to intent), other than being careless with classified information. Yet his conviction is all but etched in stone. Clinton gets a pass? This is not applying the law equitably, let alone fairly.
If your grasp of right and wrong with handling sensitive information is based solely on a quote from a man who's final conclusion is at least questionable, you should take some time and do research, rather than be spoon fed.

Which he tried to cover up by destroying multiple electronic devices. Hillary, OTOH, sent her entire server to the FBI to be analyzed and they got everything they wanted from it. Congress didn't get everything they wanted from her emails, but I think if we lived in a country where the FBI director recommended charges for disobeying Congress I'd already have an asylum application in north of the border.

Hate-reading the law because you're in the midst of Clinton Derangement Syndrome makes for poor reading comprehension.

An example:

This is just one set of statues: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As a U.S. Navy recruit, years ago, recruits were told from the time we reached bootcamp to treat all information as classified to avoid a mistake and to cover your butt. Reminders of this ideal were frequently made. A U.S. citizen should expect the Secretary of State to be fully aware of this pitifully simple principle and act on it.

To quote the statute "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person."

See that bold bit? It means you have to prove in Court, in front of a defense lawyer, to the beyond a Reasonable Doubt level; that the accused not only sent the damn email to someone without proper clearance they "willfully and knowingly" did so. "Willful" means 'deliberate,' "knowing" is self-explanatory; so for her to have done either you'd have to prove, (again, to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, in open court, in front of a highly paid defense attorney whose entire job is to disprove you) that she knew the info she sent was classified. OTOH that Navy recruit knew that cell pic was of his engine room.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of why Hillary violated a statute that could result in criminal charges from anyone who has actually read the statutes with enough objectivity to go "goddamnit 'knowing' again. this one won't work." Most of them actually seem to be written by true morons who can't figure out that the level of deliberateness in "gross negligence" is pretty much the same as 'knowing' or 'willful.'

Forgive my English but I do believe the second "or" does not pertain to the "knowingly and willfully" part of the law. Thus we also have:

or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

I believe what she's done more than qualified as publishing when she sent said emails.

Problem is Courts are Constitutionally required to interpret statutes in the way most favorable to the Defendant. In 1916 "publish" would have meant something involving dead tree books or newspapers in their thousands, not one electronic communication sent to one person. Moreover the first clause clearly applies to email because it talks about "communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person," which describes email perfectly. Then you get into an interesting Constitutional issue because if you can commit a 10-year-felony just by publishing a book on the drone war in Pakistan (which is entirely Top Secret-Classified so the Pakistanis can pretend it does not happen) there's some pretty hardcore freedom of speech issues brought up.

Thus, it would thus be virtually impossible to get a Judge to go along with this.

 

[WaveRunner]

So how much have GOP members spent of taxpayers money in the last 30 years to get at the Clintons with no results to show for.

100 million? 200 million? Somewhere in there to keep GOP lawyers employeed. She's great for business no wonder they are throwing Trump under the bus. Small government my ass...

 

[rgphys]

One of the things I learned as a scientist with friends who became lawyers is that there is a lot of history and lawyer jargon in laws, so they may not mean what we non-lawyers would think of as the common sense meaning of them.

There is a lot of second-guessing here about Clinton being prosecute-able, but if there is any signal amidst the noise, I don't know enough to find it. But there is a lot of name calling that suggests the signal is small.

 

[Azethoth666]

mycroftxxx[/url]":3u7he0mg]it is also very clear from context that keeping her email as far away from FOIA as possible was a major driver in the personal server situation.

"Keep her _personal_ email away from FOIA."

I agree with that. Her personal email is nobodies business.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Why, in a nation of 300 million people, are we supposed to believe that the presidents wife, was the most qualified to be candidate. Or Mr Spymaster AND his D-student son. What are the chances?

And why does the media waffle on with sideshows like this?

If you can completely bend a democracy to your personal family wishes, who gives a damn about email? She could have sent the messages by carrier pigeon and still never have been sanctioned.

Because that's how oligarchies work, complete with media as court jesters.....

 

[shadowjin]

CraigJ[/url]":2gqh9mxq]

shadowjin[/url]":2gqh9mxq]

Um. The alternative is Trump. How does he not totally fail this test to the point of making Hillary look good? Instead of admitting that Trump U was a con, he instead doubles down and demands that the judge remove himself because of his Mexican heritage. Or proclaiming that it was a mistake to take down an image his campaign got from 8chan.

Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,”

If you cookie cut a paragraph in sections it will sound racist. I've seen tons of cases where certain groups say the same.

Not sure what your point is. As regards this statement from Trump, he is full of shit, and if it were held to be true than any defendant could insult the ethnicity of any judge and claim conflict of interests. Because let's face it, an insult is all it is. If Trump is elected there will be no wall, and if a wall gets started it will take years to complete and Trump's replacement will cancel it. Besides if Trump is elected 2 years in the Republicans will lose a lot of seats in the house and they will lose the senate for sure, then there goes the funding...

Unless you think Trump can get congress to pass an enabling act?

I'm sorry you dont 'get it'. The point is, if you quotes someone, say the whole quote, not selectively cherry pick to paint a picture. Words have meaning, I will kill you VS I will kill you for killing my family. That changes the dynamics of the sentence and meaning. What he said was no different than anything I haven't heard before. The only difference is that he's running for president so he's in the spotlight.

EDIT: I've read TONs of articles with people being sentenced : "The Judge is white, or the jury is all white. The trial wont be fair" and ask for a new one. Sometimes it's granted, sometimes it's not. It works BOTH ways. No one ever called them racist.

 

[NickBII]

rgphys[/url]":11zx47j7]One of the things I learned as a scientist with friends who became lawyers is that there is a lot of history and lawyer jargon in laws, so they may not mean what we non-lawyers would think of as the common sense meaning of them.

There is a lot of second-guessing here about Clinton being prosecute-able, but if there is any signal amidst the noise, I don't know enough to find it. But there is a lot of name calling that suggests the signal is small.

Lawyers are pretentious shits who make everything complicated. If there is a very simple case, with a very obvious outcome, 50% of the lawyer involved will be employed solely in hopes they can rationalize some bullshit. In fact many law school classes consist solely of the Prof giving some simple-sounding scenario, asking what should happen, and spending the next hour or two repeating "and why was the last student wrong?" specifically so he can train up his students in the fine of art of making shit that is obviously irrelevant apply to the situation.

Which means that lawyers will almost always over-complicate things, generally by mentioning the one case where some lawyer convinced a Jury that since the glove did not fit they must acquit. Frequently if you research the case there was some weird-ass circumstance that does not apply, but it does allow them to play the lawyer card and win the conversation. Statutes are actually probably easier to read then Physics papers because you don't need a math background. You need a Fluent English background and a pretty good legal dictionary, but if you're on Ars you have google. The steps are pretty simple.

Step 1: find the statute. This can be a huge pain in the ass, but in this case most people will give you the exact number to search for.

Step 2: Copy/paste it to a word processor of some sort.

Step 3: Start reading, replacing long list of shit with some term that makes sense to you. For example 18 USC 793 refers to "long list of shit intended to cover all kinds of documents that we could possibly classify" as "any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense." They tend to become much clearer when you've done this.

Step 4: Take care to check out all adjectives in a legal dictionary. In everyday conversation they can be frequently ignored, but legally they can be quite important.

In this case the signal is pretty strong. To be charged in Court you have to violate statutes, and none of the statutes really apply unless it can be proven in Court (beyond a Reasonable Doubt) that you knew the info was classified. All the cases people have brought up to contradict this point (remember that earlier thing I mentioned about case-law? this is a classic example) involve clearly marked classified info. Most of them also involve the defendant also destroying some evidence after the law enforcement investigation started (the original subpoena was Congressional, who are Legislative branch not Executive branch).