FBI Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal [W:234, 1861]

[sanman]

Re: clinton walks

Under the law, "gross negligence" in the handling of national secrets is criminally prosecutable. How the f*** do you differentiate between "extreme carelessness" (Comey's words) and "gross negligence" (the words of the law)?

 

[Moot]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

The markings are irrelevant. Coney also said that someone in her position should know better.

Comey also said the entire State Department security culture was lacking....and probably long before Hillary was Secretary.

"...While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government...."​

 

[Quazimodo]

Re: clinton walks

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

 

[Fenton]

Re: clinton walks

Ok, she INTENDED to set up a private Email server, she INTENDED to receive and send classified data on that Server, she INTENDED to mislead ( Lie ) to the public over and over and over but Comey's not recommending charges because there was no intent ???

Uh huh.....

 

[JANFU]

Re: clinton walks

According to Hillary, her-damn-self, the home-brew server(s) were established for convenience. She also stated (in emails, I think) that she was concerned that her private emails might be accessed or read or shared with people who were not the intended recipients. Even according to Comey, Clinton was less concerned about keeping America's secrets safe. "Extreme carelessness", I believe is how he referred to her actions.

It is incredible that she would be more concerned about private email - to the point that she established a private server - than she was about classified email! In fact given the choice Hillary sacrificed one for the other!

Why has Congress- Senate not made this practice illegal?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: clinton walks

Where in the law relevant to Hillary's cavalier disregard for security and gross negligence is intent written?

You must be proven to knowingly mishandle classified information. That's where intent comes in.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: clinton walks

Where in the law relevant to Hillary's cavalier disregard for security and gross negligence is intent written?

Does the concept of Mens Reas mean anything.

Hillary Clinton Isn't Getting Indicted. Here's Why. | ThinkProgress

 

[ajn678]

Re: clinton walks

Where in the law relevant to Hillary's cavalier disregard for security and gross negligence is intent written?

I wouldn't bother with these folks. 88 pages and they are still spouting the same falsehoods as they started with.

 

[Quazimodo]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Comey also said the entire State Department security culture was lacking....and probably long before Hillary was Secretary.

"...While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government...."​

Comey should "know better."

 

[Paperview]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

LOL

That's like saying because one person doesn't get indicted for murder we don't indict anyone else. Do you know how to think things through logically?

I do.

I'm pretty sure you don't.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: clinton walks

Why has Congress- Senate not made this practice illegal?

Probably because it would make the task of governing more complex.

 

[Captain America]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Let's see how ol' Donnie feels about it. (Warning: Adult language.)

 

[ajn678]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

I do.

I'm pretty sure you don't.

You literally said, "One person who violated the law was not charged. Therefore, any one else that violates the law should not be charged either."

 

[Taylor]

Re: clinton walks

You must be proven to knowingly mishandle classified information. That's where intent comes in.

You don't get cleared to handle classified information without first being instructed on how to handle classified information.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: clinton walks

I should have been more clear...she's been investigated by her own State Dept since 2014.

The FBI was given her first batch of e-mails in dec of 2014.

The email matter was referred to the FBI by the Intelligence Community Inspector General during the summer of 2015.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: clinton walks

And, there were 110 classified emails on Clinton's server.

And not a one of them had any consequences from being there or even any evidence of them being hacked. A lot of the "classified" ones were drone related and other things routinely reported by the press but still considered "classified" by State because we don 't admit to drones strikes. This thing is about as overblown as it can get. You'd think she gave away the store by the way you guys talk. There is nothing to see here.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: clinton walks

You don't get cleared to handle classified information without first being instructed on how to handle classified information.

And aren't those security rules regarding the handling of said classified information ridiculously complicated?

 

[Moot]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Comey should "know better."

Comey knows the evidence doesn't rise to the level of "gross negligence" and wouldn't hold up in court. So yeah, he probably does know better than the HillaryHaters.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

You are flat misstating the law. As anyone can read, no intent is required to violate 793(f), the federal statute I quoted here.



You are the one who is confused. Violating section 793(f) IS an "actual crime"--a felony, to be more specific.



That is false. Once again, although intent is normally a required element of a crime, Congress saw fit not to require intent to violate section 793(f). Only gross negligence is required.



By trying to mince words you are only making more clear that you are grasping at straws in your desperation to defend this G--damned crook. Your claims are no more credible than hers. Comey said Clinton had been extremely careless in her handling of those communications. There is no meaningful difference between saying that and saying she acted with gross negligence--which is obvious to anyone who knows the facts about her handling of those emails.

Intent can be the hardest part of a crime to prove, which makes it much easier to prosecute someone under a statute that specifically does away with the need to prove it. Clinton's actions check all the boxes for a violation of 793(f), and indicting and prosecuting her for it would have been straightforward. That is exactly why the people who arranged this fix knew they had to arrange it.

Who's out and about campaigning with Obama while you are sucking wind? Give it up, it is over.

To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.
Lesser penalties are provided under 18 USC 1924 which provides that an officer of the United States commits a criminal violation if that person possesses classified “documents or materials” and “knowingly removes such … materials without authority and with the intent to retain such … materials at an unauthorized location.”
Prosecutors would also encounter stumbling blocks if they charged Clinton under this law. First, it is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated.

 

[danarhea]

Re: clinton walks

The way I see it is that one of the reasons Hillary Clinton is not being indicted is that information on her non-classified server was not classified when it first arrived, but classified later. However, Hillary should have been aware that any sensitive information can change status and become classified at any time. This is one of the reasons I agree with not prosecuting her, but also agree that her recklessness makes her unfit for presidential office.

 

[Taylor]

Re: clinton walks

And aren't those security rules regarding the handling of said classified information ridiculously complicated?

Certainly not "easy." I don't know how it works at the state department, but we were required to take quarterly training and pass a test.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: clinton walks

The way I see it is that one of the reasons Hillary Clinton is not being indicted is that information on her non-classified server was not classified when it first arrived, but classified later. However, Hillary should have been aware that any sensitive information can change status and become classified at any time. This is one of the reasons I agree with not prosecuting her, but also agree that her recklessness makes her unfit for presidential office.

She is more fit for presidential office than trump.

I am going to vote for her this November.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: clinton walks

You don't get cleared to handle classified information without first being instructed on how to handle classified information.

Irrelevant.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: clinton walks

I wonder if Putin will now release all those emails he hacked from Hillary's server? You know...it's be bandied about that Putin would rather see Trump as President than Hillary. Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to torpedo her campaign?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: clinton walks

Certainly not "easy." I don't know how it works at the state department, but we were required to take quarterly training and pass a test.

If that classified information needed to be passed around frequently the security rules would have made it frustratingly timeconsuming.