DOJ Will Not File Charges Against Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (politico.com) 801
An anonymous reader writes: After FBI Director James Comey recommended not to indict Hillary Clinton for her email misconduct yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday that the Justice Department has decided not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton or her aids and that the department will close the investigation into her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. "Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State," Lynch said in a statement on Wednesday. "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation."
Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting for Hillary because she's "not guilty" is like hiring Casey Anthony to babysit your kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we just need to wait for the promised leaks from the professional FBI. Should be fun.
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
What leaks do you need? If what Comey said wasn't enough nothing will satisfy you. He said she's a total fuckwit but her last name is Clinton so his hands are tied.
Re: Yawn (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever had a security clearance? Since the bulk of Us peons are not clintons, we wind up minimally permanently unemployed or maximally in jail for doing similar things.
For someone with a boat load of experience that supposedly makes them the only "worthwhile" candidate this certainly is an amateurish move
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Informative)
18 USC 793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any documentthrough gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custodyor having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody.shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC 1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC 798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Statesany classified informationshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC 2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
This is merely to put the final nail in Bernie's coffin. We're left with two absolutely horrible people who shouldn't be pissed on should they catch fire. But we're not lucky enough for either one to catch fire.
The election is over, we all lost.
Sanders has an option (Score:5, Interesting)
He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting government secrets' etc etc. The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs. If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.
Here's hoping.
Hillary concerned about legitimacy ? (Score:4, Funny)
Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all.
The same goes for
lack of morality
lack of patriotism
lack of decency
lack of conscience
Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then don't vote for evil. Vote 3rd Party.
Yes. We will have to suffer either Trump or Hillary but let's get the ball rolling on killing the two party system. Vote 3rd Party. The only advantage of a President Trump is that Congress (both Republican and Democrat) would not be on his side and the press will act like watch dogs instead of lapdogs (as they would with Hillary).
I'm #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary - Vote 3rd Party in 2016
Such faith in the delegates (Score:5, Insightful)
You assumed the delegates have moral fiber.
People of good character can't this far in the political process.
Re:Sanders has an option (Score:5, Funny)
Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the best candidate of the entire crowd, even including the entire clown car that started on the so-called Republican side. I even donated my poll tax to him, but in retrospect I am saddened to conclude that no matter how broken the system is, it is still incapable of electing a candidate who has any prominent philosophic streak. (No, Reagan had senility, NOT a philosophy.)
However, as regards Hillary's popularity, how much of it do you think that she actually earned? Seems quite obvious to me that she has been aggressively targeted for decades for primarily partisan political reasons, and even that much of the hateful rhetoric is displaced from other targets. Mostly stuff that would have been targeted at her husband if Bill hadn't whupped all their arses in the unfair fight. (However, I still haven't made up my mind if he was a good or bad president. Actually much easier to see the obviously bad ones such as Dubya.)
All of this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. The problem is that there is only one "most casual observer", and it usually isn't me.
Re:Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score:5, Interesting)
how much of it do you think that she actually earned?
Plenty. Look at her behavior throughout this process. "Wiped? What, like with a cloth or something?"
Now, to be clear, I certainly hear what you're saying. The Clinton's have been aggressively targeted for decades but how much of that is their own fault? They regard themselves as above the law and act accordingly. Bill lied under oath for heaven's sake. Is that a line you would cross? I sure as hell wouldn't. They're basically Francis and Claire Underwood without the murders. That breeds a certain level of resentment among those that oppose them politically, so is it really a surprise that they've been aggressively targeted?
One point to consider: Barack Obama has faced a Congress at least as obstinate as the one that reigned in the 1990s and nobody has tried to impeach him, much less succeeded at it. There have been a few investigations into his administration but none that have touched on him (or Michele) personally. For all of his faults -- and he has many -- I don't think he has anything approaching Bill and Hillary's level of hubris.
Re:Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would probably also help if you actually pointed out what was wrong with their worldview instead of just calling them dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
He lied under oath about having an affair. Something that by all rights should not have been asked of him in the first place (outside of a divorce proceeding)
Revisionist historians like to ignore the reason that Clinton was being asked about his affair with Lewinsky was because he was being sued for sexual harassment [wikipedia.org], and the questioning was appropriate to establishing a pattern of predatory sexual behavior on his part.
Re: (Score:3)
If the Hillary delegates gave the slightest shit about carelessness, protecting government secrets, or indeed the rule of law in general, they wouldn't be Hillary delegates to begin with!
It opens the door for Sanders (Score:2)
Such a motion would render Hilary dead in the water, forcing the convention to ask her to step aside. He's then the only alternative. Of course this assumes that there's any honour in a convention....
Re: Sanders has an option (Score:5, Informative)
Citation? Last I saw An exhaustive review of all senior members of his department turned up a couple dozen work-related emails that various members of his team sent to/from private email account... Hillary withheld 100% of every work-related email from her time in office outside the reach of FOIA requests for her entire term PLUS two years, turning them over only after her lawyers reviewed each and every one of them. That is not 'the same thing' - not even close.
Re: (Score:3)
And the FBI was able to recover 3 of Clinton's email chains that contained information that was classified (they were already classified at the time that they were sent so there is no "that was classified after the fact" defense) from her "wiped" server. No one has produced any evidence that Powell deliberately deleted evidence during an FBI investigation. It's never the crime, it's the coverup.
Re: Sanders has an option (Score:5, Informative)
Putting information in an email that someone decides well after the fact should be classified (what Powell did twice, and Rice did about a dozen times) is not a crime..
Re: Sanders has an option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sign the petittion... (Score:3, Informative)
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924 [whitehouse.gov]
It will likely only result in a mealy-mouthed platitude, but at least it is one way to communicate our disapproval.
Re: (Score:2)
That I will do.
Re:Sign the petittion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminal prosecution by popular vote. There's absolutely nothing fascist about that.
Re: (Score:3)
There's already been an official response from the White House (Justice Department). Somebody you don't like didn't get prosecuted, so the petition (if you read it) is to demand prosecution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is merely to put the final nail in Bernie's coffin.
Clinton won 60% of the primary vote in California. Sanders 43%. That was the final nail in Bernie's coffin.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure any of his supporters think it matters. They probably would support Chavez too if you did not tell them who he was. Hell, I bet a lot of them still wouldn't care if they knew about him or about how well it works out.
Re:I would daresay... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nixon was far more honest than Clinton.
Carter is far smarter than Trump.
Clinton married well. Everything else she has done fell from that.
Re:I would daresay... (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary is one of the smartest people in the room / world.
Look at all the scandals she has been involved with and escaped rather easily because of how she structured it. Her entire public life has been a double dutch Irish sandwich or whatever it was called (Apple's tax avoidance schemes ) that has legally violated the law for her own gain.
Re:I would daresay... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you find yourself declaring that the lack of evidence of wrongdoing is, in fact, evidence of wrongdoing, it's time to take a break and realize that you've become trapped in a self-referential delusion loop.
its_time_to_stop_posting.jpg
Too bad we can't kill all the lawyers? (Score:4, Insightful)
You do know what a lawyer is, don't you? Hillary is a good lawyer and several other oxymorons. Okay, so "skilled lawyer" is probably a "better" way to say it.
Actually, she, like everyone else, has a bunch of personal identities. One of the things I like least about Hillary is that "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer" might be her top personal identity. Obviously it isn't "politician", though "politician" is probably in her top ten (and I definitely think it's Bill's #1). I doubt that "philosopher" is on her top 10 list, but "feminist" is probably in there somewhere (and I don't regard it as a terrible thing, though it isn't so high in my own priorities). She's an unusually complicated person, and it's hard to figure her out. For example, I think that "grandmother" might be a higher ranked personal identity for her than "mother" (whereas I think that "father" is definitely one of President Obama's top 10).
Just for reference I do think that "philosopher" is in Bernie's top 10, but I can't figure out if it's above or below "politician". Maybe "wise man" is his #1, but there's zero chance America would elect one of those to the presidency, even in the backlash from a fiasco like Dubya or the even worse mess that Trump might leave behind.
The Donald? His #1 has to be "con man" or "salesman". Or maybe he switches back and forth depending on the weather. Actually, I think it possible that "authoritarian" might be his secret #1.
Re:Too bad we can't kill all the lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
You wanted people who are all show and no snow? You got them. AWOL Bush pushing his military service in Texas versus a war hero getting swift boated.
Re: Too bad we can't kill all the lawyers? (Score:3)
'AWOL Bush'? Are you referring to the infamous Dan Rather documents [wikipedia.org] that proved Bush was AWOL? John Kerry took a movie camera to Vietnam to capture his 'adventures' for future campaign use and lied during his campaign about illegal incursions into Cambodia that never happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Repeating lies doesn't make them true (Score:3)
You are lying again, but I know you're just a Hillary hater or misogynist, so that's the probably the sincere best that you can come up with. Pitiful.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, we're going to have to leave it there. Clearly there are two sides to this issue: 1) balls in your mouth and 2) dicks in your ass.
After the break, we'll be joined by Eric Trump to explain why his father totally wasn't being anti-semitic by using that jew star. Then, our full panel will revisit the controversy, "Balls in your mouth, or dicks in your ass?"
Fox News. Fair and Balanced.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can't even decide if I wish I had a mod point to give this one, and if so, what sort of mod point it should be. (But I NEVER get any mod points, at least not in some years.)
On the one hand, I don't like unneeded profanity, but on the other hand the language isn't that strong. On the third hand, I agree with the sentiments, but on the fourth hand it scarcely seems like a constructive comment that will generate interesting discussion, and on the fifth hand it's probably feeding a troll whose comment is not vi
Re: (Score:3)
1 Hillary wins the presidency.
2. Democrats win the house and senate.
It still would not mean anything since anything that manages to get by in the house would be filibustered in the senate. The government would still be stalemated. No immigration reform, no tax reform, no supreme court nomination for at least another four more years. Its been a long time since one party has won the presidency for more than 8 years. Republicans did it in 1980-1992. Democrats did it in 1932-1952. So it would be very har
Trump's monkey business plan (Score:3, Funny)
Nice sock puppet... Put down the mod point. (Insightful? THAT is a FUNNY mod.)
Time to reveal the Donald's secret scam:
Step 1: Get the so-called GOP nomination. Easy to fool some of the people all of the time.
Step 2: Pick a VP who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon.
Step 3: Win the election. As Con Man Donald says, "You can fool most of the people on some of the election days."
Step 4: Be himself. AKA Phuck up massively. Start a war, bankrupt the country, whatever.
Step 5: Get impeached, resign, get pardoned. (Step 2
FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't prosec (Score:5, Insightful)
The director stated in his news conference that Clinton was "extremely careless" with classified information on at least 110 occasions. It's federal crime to be "grossly negligent" in handling classified information. Essentially, he announced "she's guilty on 110 counts, but we won't prosecute".
Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score:5, Informative)
18 U.S. Code 793 (f)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score:5, Insightful)
Prisons are full of people who didn't "intend" to violate the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting for Hillary because she's "not guilty" is like hiring Casey Anthony to babysit your kid.
More like "not guilty" and "not Trump".
And yet... (Score:3)
No justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden blows the whistle on illegal government spying, is forced to flee the country. Clinton violates laws and exposes classified information and will be the next President. There is no justice in America.
Protest in the streets (Score:3, Insightful)
There needs to be protests in the streets about Hillary Clinton not being charged for violating federal law.
This is where it starts, the selective application of the law to those in power vs those that are ruled. Make a stand now before all is lost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
".... and exposes classified information ..."
As the article indicates, there's no proof that classified information was exposed. It's "possible" that it was, but it's also "possible" that an airliner is about to land on your head.
Further, there's "classified" information and then there's "classified" information. Many things are classified, (in fact, it's hard to find government information that's not), but we haven't been told if it's just classified, secret, top secret, or higher...
Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight of those emails carried top secret information, eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/no-charges-clinton-emails-fbi-director-article-1.2699441
Re: (Score:3)
You do know SoS can reclassify (anything classified by the state dept) at will right? It is like president sitting in front of television and reading every single classified piece of information that he comes across. There is nothing you can do, until the next election (or impeachment atleast). It is not illegal. The FBI cannot prosecute.
Top secret and special access (Score:5, Informative)
> but we haven't been told if it's just classified, secret, top secret, or higher...
The FBI director announced that several emails contained documents which were already marked "top secret". Other emails included information classified "special access", which is higher than top secret.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...
It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "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." The FBI characterization of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with d
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
We of course knew this was coming when the FBI didn't recommend indictment, given that Lynch said she'd go along with whatever the FBI decided.
But I expect the real reason is simple: they don't feel they're guaranteed a conviction. If you listen to Comey's reasoning, he was quite clear that there was no precedent for such a case - meaning that they don't want to set a precedent until they have iron tight evidence where they can be sure they know how the case will go.
Likewise, "no reasonable prosecutor" would want to be the prosecutor who indicted potentially the first woman president and then lost the case. If the case wasn't a 100%, sure-fire victory, no one would be willing to prosecute it. Which is kind of reasonable: who wants to torpedo their career by killing Hillary's presidential chances only to lose at trial?
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
Of course there are two classes (Score:2)
To believe otherwise is fantasy. On the whole it's hard not to despair.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
Surprisingly, Mr Comey, actually admitted this in his statement [fbi.gov]...
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Why can't people like Mr Comey run for public office?
Re: (Score:2)
Once again a Clinton is exonerated
No, that actually cannot happen without a trial, or at least a full investigation, neither of which will happen now.
Re: (Score:3)
Clinton avoided a criminal indictment, nothing more. From a future president, we demand integrity, honesty, and competence, and she lacks all of those.
Re: (Score:3)
Carter had all that and nobody running since from either party has made the same mistake after what happened to him due to his integrity and honesty.
It appears we instead demand someone who can put on a show.
Re:Not surprising.... Whooah There Cowboy! (Score:3, Informative)
there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us.
While I agree with you in principal, the rush to judgment about this issue leaves behind a simple fact. There are lots of crimes with no punishments. This is one of them.
The one thing that annoys me the most is how they will hang this on the evil Clinton/Democrats. A sufficiently senior Republican get the same benefits. But, that's not going to be the con
Re: (Score:2)
Could you cite a few examples, please? Thank you!
Re:Not surprising.... Whooah There Cowboy! (Score:5, Interesting)
There are lots of crimes with no punishments. This is one of them.
This needs to be noted VERY well in this discussion.
Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably, getting acquitted would've helped her a lot, whereas avoiding indictment is certainly damaging.
Yes, this perce
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
All that said to be completely fair think about _why_ a prosecutor isn't confident with getting a conviction: because a jury wouldn't convict her. This is a criminal matter, so that's how these things work. This isn't the ruling class per-se. This is how our jury system works. It sometimes ignores law in favor of feelings. If you want to see an example of America's two tiered justice system ask any dirt poor man in jail for pot possession why he didn't get diverted to drug treatment like a pop star or even an attorney's son.
Will that include Guccifer? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation."
We know about her crime because Guccifer was involved in exposing it. Will they retract the charges against him? Or the only chargeable crime in America is to expose what the law says is a crime?
Darrell Issa is calling for a government shutdown (Score:2)
Who done it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence now (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence now. He was forced to end his career for much less. 2 years probation, $100K fine, security clearance revoked. Apparently it's no big deal, not even worth investigating.
Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score:4, Informative)
Petraeus gave his g/f 8 binders of classified information and told here they were classified. Hard to argue lack of intent after that.
Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score:5, Informative)
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server. She lied about only deleting personal E-mails, and she destroyed evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do you want to "investigate" them for? What are you accusing them of?
You realize (Score:5, Insightful)
If (Score:2)
But they did file charges against Saucier (Score:5, Interesting)
FBI Director Comey said that there was no evidence of any guilty intent, so "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges. So why were charges filed against Kristian Saucier, who unwisely took photos of a classified area on a nuclear submarine? No intent was proven or needed to file charges against him; he had photos of classified stuff on his phone, charges filed.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/06/saucier-attorney-on-hillary-non-indictment-clearly-a-double-standard/ [hotair.com]
I am disturbed that there is clearly one standard for ordinary people, and another standard for Hillary Clinton. I sincerely hope that Mr. Saucier appeals his verdict on the grounds that the FBI Director said "no reasonable prosecutor" should have filed the charges, and he clearly didn't get equal protection under the law as Hillary Clinton got.
Who cares (Score:2)
Stop getting so worked up over each individual case of injustice and start getting worked up to change the root cause of it all.
i'm torn (Score:2)
On the one hand, what Hillary Clinton did was wrong and she should face some punishment for it.
On the other hand, watching the die-hart Republicans, Trump supporters and other people who hate Hillary flip their shit over the lack of charges is the best entertainment I've had all year.
who cares (Score:2)
James Comey laid it on thick. (Score:5, Informative)
He was very, very careful in his phrasing (and then large on hyperbole) with what he stated. He claimed two emails carried 'confidential markings' (which was only sorta true) and then switched gears on confidential emails (which is, in fact different). There are maybe 30-40 emails that were sent that had confidential or higher (most were just confidential). So about .006% error rate on humans using email and sent something through email they shouldn't have.
One of the confidential emails... was to a lawyer and "confidential" in the sense that lawyer-client privileges applied. There were a couple of (C) markings in a few emails, but the top actually didn't have the markings for Confidential/Secret or whatnot. An incredibly huge percentage of emails were marked confidential expo-facto (and by other agencies that tend to try and classify _everything_, including public knowledge of the weather at times).
James Comey just did a public hatchet job of "selling" that Hillary should have been indicted, then basically admitted he didn't have a case that any competent prosecutor would attempt to take before a judge. Congrats, partisan hack, you pulled the wool over most of the viewers and readers.
There actually is precedent - no intent here (Score:2, Insightful)
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel." https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
"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," Comey said.
If this was said by their local version of FBI anywhere in Russia, China, Brasil, etc., everyone would be crying foul how that country is corrupt and how FSB, PSB, "FBI", etc. is clearly intimidating prosecutors not to bring any cases against an oligarch, even though there is evidence they violated the law (gross negligence). And how "important figures" in those countries are above the law. I'm so glad USA is not one of "those countries"!
omg (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:omg (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world can get stuffed. All are in the same boat. The UK goes from Major to Cameron; both are assholes. Germany puts up with that witch. Hollande is the best that France can come up with? Venezuela let Chavez ruin their economy, only to have his successor make it exponentially worse. China is ruled with an iron fist by one bunch of ancient fossils after another.
The only bright spot might be Switzerland. ALL other governments are dens of incompetency, corruption, and evil oligarchy.
Words of wisdom from Hillary (Score:3)
"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." --Hillary #DemDebate
https://twitter.com/HillaryCli... [twitter.com]
Two Minds (Score:3)
I'm of two minds: on the one hand, HRC clearly violated Federal Law. Nevermind that the law is stupid (overspecific) and capriciously enforced (how tough is it to write a flagging filter for classification strings [NOFORINT] and non.gov addr?)
On the other, HRC could easily have been disgusted by the electronic tools imposed upon her, and worked around. If State's email servers are anything like the corp.servers I've seen, who could blame her for wanting more reliable and secure? Or do whe have a .gov netadmin who can say their servers are faultless? The geek in me says "BRAVO"!
Otherwise, the notion of secure email without e2e tools like PGP is a delusion. Sure, officials have to turn over offical papers, but afterwards -- they never had to cc'in some central office.
Re: (Score:2)
John Chefetz is the owner and founder of Christian Times Newspaper. He travels the country speaking about current events and theology. You can find his articles mainly at christiantimesnewspaper.com
can't you post a credible link? a religious rag? seriously??
Re:BREAKING: Romanian hacker Guccifer found dead! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Although if you want a rumor that may or may not be true and also may or may not be related, Chelsea Manning has apparently attempted suicide [cnn.com].
Or not, the Army won't say either way.
Re: BREAKING: Romanian hacker Guccifer found dead! (Score:2)
Obviously mentally ill, so a suicide attempt isn't really surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a really reliable source for breaking news you got there. Surprisingly enough, the story is bullshit:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/s... [alexandriava.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Its only a rumor: http://sourceplanet.net/news/i... [sourceplanet.net]
The story is wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Zod. You are kneeling before Zod.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Can you please show how Obama went after Republicans with investigations at the same level Republicans have gone after Hillary?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that Hillary is incompetent, arrogant, and dishonest has nothing to do with Trump.
It's people like you who keep making this about sex and how measures men and women by different standards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should consider that to people outside your little bubble, your particular brand of insulting comments about those who disagree with you may not be particularly insightful.
Calling everyone who moderates you down a "sock puppet" account is neither a rational nor intelligent comment.
Re:She had little choice (Score:4, Informative)
Those quotes don't fit the timeline.
Re: (Score:3)
Only difference is: Tricky Dick has been vilified by the pop-media for decades. Liberal media is still swooning over Hillary.