Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
So, yes, it's possible? If you follow these steps?
Fair enough. I was just disputing his statement that the words aren't synonyms. Legal terms are different though.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
FBI will not recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Muzy72
- Start date
- Status
So, yes, it's possible? If you follow these steps?
Fair enough. I was just disputing his statement that the words aren't synonyms. Legal terms are different though.
I love the right wing talking point going around that Petraeus got criminal charges (but still no jail time) for less. It's like they have completely forgotten that the man knowingly passed top secret data to a journalist he was banging. Trying to say what Hillary did was anywhere in the same realm is laughable.
He did say that, and then he went on to say: "It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery".
It seems to me that most of the main threads within the statement are contradictions. This is one of many. How many lawyers happen to know the level of data removal required for the FBI forensic investigators to not be able to recover it? That quote reads to me that someone with a security background and technical knowledge did advise her lawyers what steps to take in order to have over half of her e-mails in question while she was at State never see the light of day during the course of the investigation.
I think director Comey did the best he could given the situation he is in. FBI will not recommend criminal prosecution, but those that take the time to read his statement in full will be able to come to their own conclusions and then decide how they feel about it.
whyamihere
Banned
It's a legal term that has a specific meaning that does not mean "excessively careless".
I don't think it's clear she lied, nor that there was material that was actually marked classified.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...y-clinton-needs-to-learn-from-her-email-mess/
The issue though is there's a huge dispute between State and FBI what should be marked classified and what shouldn't be. And also there are things marked classified that any regular individual would find odd. For example if Hillary sent news articles from the New York Times about drone strikes, that would be viewed as classified, even though it's a public article.
Version 3.0
Member
Having worked both in IT and at the NSA, I have seen firsthand how careless the high ranks can be with data security. It's been obvious from the start that this was just a manufactured scandal. I doubt anyone actually thought it would get this close to an indictment. It was just meant to muddy the waters. And it did. The more intelligent Republicans are probably quite happy with the results, or would be if their candidate wasn't Trump.
Having said all that, it sure would be nice if this nonsense resulted in better information security by public officials and high ranking military personnel.
Having said all that, it sure would be nice if this nonsense resulted in better information security by public officials and high ranking military personnel.
BrutishMrFish
Member
Given that the topic is still ongoing and that we're still posting, I still don't buy it.
My every post? Does that include the one where I said that politicians are generally dishonest and are irresponsible with their use of technology?
After Rabbi_Vole said "But Hillary had millions of her supporters carrying and repeating her lie" he said "She fed her supporters and surrogates the lie and they used it to shut down conversation," and then I replied. It was clearly about the discussion in the general sense and not about the one on NeoGaf specifically, unless Hillary surrogates and "millions" of her supporters are posting here now.
When the discussion is solely focused on one person's recent scandal when, as I said before with the Bush comment, it's both bigger and older than that, the people who want to talk about it aren't arguing in good faith, because focusing on one person is going to do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. I said that if people really cared about the subject, they would have cared back when something similar happened.
I'm not saying that people who care about the government's computer security are in the wrong, I'm saying that people who selectively care about the government's computer security based on who's fucking it up are in the wrong.
I just watched his statement. I don't get Hillary supporters celebrating. He said several things that should be concerning.
Sure.
Also, it's important to note that the director said that there was no "clear evidence" of this, so it had to be definitive that she was acting with purpose. An email like, "Get rid of this email because I might get indicted for this" (or a similar conversation) would be clear evidence.
Abstrusity
Member
IT's because without the reasonable threat of indictment, there is nothing stopping Empress Clinton from taking the throne as is her birthright.
Again, I would request a "Hillary Clinton in the Game of Thrones Finale" edit.
She's not corrupt, she's just a frighteningly good politician.
At this point, the FBI's decision here is a relief. We are too close to the election to go through this. However, the FBI director's statement is damning (but stops short of criminal) and pretty much says what many of us have been saying- that it was extremely careless, that Clinton should have known better, that hostile actors may have accessed classified information through her irresponsibility, that there was classified, and indeed top secret, information on the server. The finding isn't that there was no wrongdoing, but that criminal intent couldn't be shown.
This should be a lesson to Hillary, and indeed, to others in management roles of all sorts of organizations. Follow security policy. It's there for a reason. And it applies to everyone, no matter what their title.
This should be a lesson to Hillary, and indeed, to others in management roles of all sorts of organizations. Follow security policy. It's there for a reason. And it applies to everyone, no matter what their title.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Seriously, the IT infrastructure is a joke. They don't have email journaling on the .gov email system for example.
They expect them to print out and file all sent and received emails too. Kinda hard to do on the road, like the SoS would be most of the time.
The defense that you are making is that "well, other people do it too, so this is just manufactured". That's really spurious. What Hillary did was incredibly stupid and indefensible. It wasn't criminal, but it was pretty fucking stupid and very irresponsible.
Agreed.
Killer Queen
Banned
Really off topic but....are gif avatars back??
Clinton wanted ("needed") to use email on her mobile device, but IT wouldn't allow it, so she set up a private server to get around the restriction. What from this story leads you to believe that she's "rather poor with technology"?
True, her server wasn't as hardened as it could have been, but if that's the standard for being poor with technology, maybe a few hundred people in the US qualify as being good with technology.
BlastProcessing
Member
Man, just think about how differently this would have gone down if the FBI had acess to Thesaurus.com technology.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
This is different than saying "No they're not" to "are the words gross negligence and extreme carelessness synonyms"
Just to make things as clear as possible. Stuff gets confusing.
I can't imagine that's possible. I understand what contents would have made those emails illegal/prosecutable, but amount of unsecured classified emails has to come into play at some point regardless of intent.
Who may have possibly had classified information intercepted by adversary countries because of her extreme carelessness.
Just being a stickler for semantics, because I'm attempting to clear all this up for myself.
Lys Skygge
Member
We won't. Especially from Huelen.
No, he/she made a dig at Canada and Stump saw.
As far as Comey's concerned, it's pretty clear it was bad practice but ultimately anybody who isn't an idiot knew that there were never going to be any criminal charges or an indictment.
Indeed, it always amuses me how poor of a grasp the Republican base (not in any way attacking the poster these two quotes are in reference to, just making a general point) has over the English language beyond the most basic concrete level. You would think that the people who complain about automated messaging services having options for Spanish would have a better grasp over their own language, but I guess not.
elvisaintdead
Member
The no charges thing makes sense to me, management doesn't pursue charges against everyone who screws up at their job. However, shouldn't the idea that Clinton was "extremely careless" when handling sensitive information be a pretty big negative in the eyes of undecided voters? One of the main themes I've seen from her campaign is how qualified she is, but something like this may call that into question.
he got his powers in a wonderfully Canadian accident.
I remember him sparkling though. seems like it might be wearing off.
whyamihere
Banned
I'm sorry if it's confusing, but we're talking about legal terminology. They're not synonyms.
Hellwarden
Member
Everyone with a brain knows she isn't corrupt.
She was just really stupidly careless.
She was just really stupidly careless.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Great that this is over now.
Before the convention and before the general.
Before the convention and before the general.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
There was a lot of wishful thinking. I wish that guy with "Hilary for Prison 2016" avatar didn't get banned yesterday, because his reaction to this would've been a sight to see.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
So we won't put her in charge of IT.
But what's this got to do with her diplomatic skills, legal skills, etc?
And how does this make the pro-torture, xenophobic. corruption of blood punishment, egotistical narcissist with a penchant for trade wars look better?
Saint Gregory
Member
The problem is there wasn't a clear policy in place until after she left. Should she have known better? Ideally, sure. Was she required to know better? Unfortunately at that time no.
Having worked in gov't IT my entire adult life I can't begin to describe to you the boneheaded mistakes I witness high ranking executives make in the interests of convenience. Depending in their personalities even trying to explain best practices to them can be impossible but at least now with specific mandates from the EOP we can enforce guidelines that they can't overrule.
Psychoward
Banned
I can't tell if posts like these are sarcasm o not.
This result actually bodes well for Trump. If Clinton had been indited, or if they had recommended charges, he might find himself running against Sanders who would be heavily favorited.
Clinton on the other hand is already damaged goods and this just ads on to the public's opinion that she is not trustworthy.
Republicans may run with the rhetoric that the system is fixed and blah blah blah, but this is a huge win for them in the public eye.
Clinton on the other hand is already damaged goods and this just ads on to the public's opinion that she is not trustworthy.
Republicans may run with the rhetoric that the system is fixed and blah blah blah, but this is a huge win for them in the public eye.
Ehhhh?
Don't worry she will be using a more secure email when she becomes president, gmail.
Psychoward
Banned
I (still) support Sanders but in what way is a socialist favored to win over Hilldawg?
Like I get that he picks up the anti establishment independents but that's about it
To put things in perspective, even if a CEO (or in this case... maybe COO) bends the rules a little, they are unlikely to get fired from their company.
Now for a low level employee, rules aren't the same, and I guess that aspect of things annoys some people (probably rightfully so, but that's life), but to imply she should be in prison for it ... yeesh.
To entertain that Fantasy you really had to have done 0 reading or research about what she could actually be indicted for, or following the news (the non biased kind).
Velcro Fly
Member
Our nuclear weapons are unsafe enough. Just ask John Oliver and that wonderful segment he did a few years ago.
Expect the Trump campaign to go all in with the "extremely careless" bit.
We can't trust her with them, but our odds are better with her than with someone like Trump.
It's never too late for Benghazi round 28.
Of course not.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
That's a lot of wrong in one post.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Um, no he wouldn't. Socialism is a four letter word in America.
Which is exactly what the republicans wanted all along, and have been scheming at for 20+ years. From Benghazi to emails, to whatever other manufactured crap they can jam down the publics throat. It's all bullshit, and I hope the majority of the public is smart enough to see through the GOP mud machine and choose Clinton over an overtly bigoted buffoon.
- Status