Pretty sure the SCOTUS could force a hearing/vote if they had to. It's just that they don't want to, nor should they.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
FBI will not recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Muzy72
- Start date
- Status
You've never been allowed to keep classified information (of any level) in your own private custody on purpose or accidentally. This is explicitly taught and expected of you when granted a clearance. For her to be so willfully ignorant is awfully damning of not just her intelligence but her own moral fiber not to mention the classist bias in letting her get away scott free with something that if I had done I would have been in prison almost immediately.
neurosisxeno
Member
As far as I know the only stuff that ever was marked Classified was done so after she was no longer SoS, unless they found some new made up charges to throw at her.
teruterubozu
Member
They found some that were classified at the time as well.
You mean she lied?!
No you wouldn't. People who deal with this stuff, who *investigate this stuff as part of their jobs*, have posted about it in this thread and said its nothing.
Context is everything when it comes to data protection, partly because everyone gets it wrong all the time at every level of government. I do think that's one thing that is unreported - you could go into any government department in the UK and USA and find breaches of data policy.
If someone is copying classified stuff, sticking it in a bag and taking it out of the building - prosecute. If someone is sent a classified email to an unsecured email address - you *might* prosecute the sender depending upon how serious and how often (which we know in this case is a minute number of emails).
What you are stating is factually incorrect and demonstrably so, and has been shown to be false several times already.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
I can't make 2 page scrolls in a row on social media without seeing memes about how she's above the law. Even some of the people who said they support her in the past.
Right, except:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/pres...removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
Hillary did even more than that. She was sending classified emails over non secure mobile networks and even storing them on her own VERY insecure server...
That's not what he said yesterday
Again, it seems like they were going to let her go all along, but they had to pander to the people who would be pissed by saying stuff like "extremely careless" and pointing out that she did do wrong. Their reasoning is what's causing this back lash. They make her sound guilty of a lot more than what we thought originally. I don't want my next President to be Extremely Careless (or Extremely Rascist)
Both are horrible traits for a world leader.
Yeah, this ruling has really cemented a lot of people not voting for her. Unless something drastic happens in the mass media I could see her honestly losing to Trump now. She has been proven extremely untrustworthy and caught lying red handed by the FBI so many times now in just the past year.
There's certainly an appearance that she's playing by a different set of rules. I've asked countless friends and family with clearance if they'd lose their clearance over similar behavior, and they don't hesitate to say yes. For all of those people, losing their clearance would mean losing their jobs. I'm OK with no criminal charges, but everyone involved should have their clearance stripped, and not be eligible to have it reinstated. If that means an end to their political careers, so be it.
Her constant lying, getting caught in said lie, and back peddling to s different lie to start the cycle over again doesn't help either. It gives the impression that her supporters are suffering from a healthy amount of political party tribalism.
Exactly, she should be 'let go' which means she should be found not fit to be president. Which is tough when Donald fits that category as well.
Release the Biden please, this country needs Uncle Joe more than ever right now
Jacksinthe
Banned
Biden vs Trump debate:
Biden: Just talk, Trump. *begins scribbling smiley faces on notepad*
That's literally all the dude would have to do, lol. He'd absolutely slay Trump in any debate and the GE. It wouldn't even be a contest, IMO.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Yeah, I'd be all for Biden at this point. I'm not voting for either of these people as of now.
Yep, people in my life keep telling me to vote Gary Johnson but that's not happening. I'd prefer Bernie but Biden is better than Hillary blech.
I've never been sure why progressives keep wanting Biden - the most centre right of all four main democrats over the last 8 years.
More electable and trustable candidate than Hillary. How anyone can honestly support her now that the FBI just said "extremely careless" I will never be able to understand.
fixedpoint
Member
This line of reasoning really doesn't hold water at this point; it increasingly just comes across as Republican phlegm. She's a veritable fountain of truth when contrasted with Trump.
And not running for office.
Because I work in a related field to this and understand that it's all a bunch of nothing? That people make this same mistake in government every day? That's there's a huge difference between deliberate espionage and repeated mistakes and something dumb like this? That you would have to prosecute the entire state department? That I can guarantee you the same flaws will be found in every department apart from the pentagon?
I think the FBI directors statement was extremely political, and contrary to how they normally report on these things. I think the entire thing has been a smokescreen to push the same lies the right has been using against her for over 25 years. I think the fact that no-one cares the RNC and Buish deleted literally millions of government emails without a whisper in the press shows up how hypocritical everyone has been over this.
I think the center candidate can bring parties together better than someone on the far left or far right
Hillary at least acknowledged that she made a mistake and wouldn't do it again. So she basically understands that she was a bit careless. This is no big secret. As for how she danced around certain questions that the FBI now shot down as being false or at least mostly false, it speaks to a larger problem with important officials in the government not always opting for necessary secure communications when dealing with sensitive and classified information. Anyone who works for the government in a tech environment would tell you this is an epidemic. Comey couldn't find enough to go after Hillary but it was definitely a political indictment. He'd have to go after the entire state department.
I expect to hear lots of rambling from the right about why a gross negligence statue should have been applied.
I don't disagree - I just find it funny when it's Bernie supporters who want Biden. It makes no sense politically to move from the most left wing candidate to the most centrist candidate, and skip over the person closer to your goals and policy platform.
I worked in a similar field as well, there's no doubt that she knew what she did was wrong and so does everyone else. If something similar had happened to me or even in my office this would not have happened to us. So I'm not sure what level you are operating at but I can assure you, this is not the usual response to a very clear breach of clearance.
Yes people make these mistakes every day, and they get fired. I seen people get fired for violating minor HIPAA laws, the people think she should go to jail are a little ridiculous (the intent has to be there) but she is not fit to run.
How you going to compare everyday people to the "secretary of state"
If anyone should know, it's her, simplifying her as just another "average Joe" as some people are doing is insulting to the people who get fired for simply keeping a medical claim face up on their desk while going to the copy machine.
Would you care to explain why practically every legal expert who has been asked about this over the last year has said the same thing - thetre wouldn't be a charge?
Presumably they aren't all in on a conspiracy?
If you'd done this, your boss would likely have come down 'like a ton of bricks'. It's possible that you'd be fired etc.
For a politician, things are generally messy as "their boss" is (in large part) the electorate.
They really don't get fired. Obviously depends on circumstances and position as well - copying stuff on a military base will absolutely get you fired, compared to a political advisor sending an inappropriate email in a government department.
The idea she isn't fit to run on this would basically disqualify almost every sitting person. I have yet to meet a politician who *doesn*t break data security protocol in one way or the other - mind you, I could say the same for almost every single senior officer in every organisation I've worked. OUtside of the military this stuff is just a daily occurrence.
If I had done this, I would no doubt have lost my clearance almost immediately and barred from ever having one again. And yes the supervisor and others would have had serious repercussions as well. The problem here, is that if we elect her she will have to have access to the top secret information... but has proven her utter lack of responsibility to handling said information.
Which further proves they are above the law because as stated by myself and others, the common people of the world have gotten fired for less in regards to violating protocol of security. that's what they will relate to
Now project that to the head of your entire organization, and see what happens. She was careless. She was a bit negligent. She was not criminally negligent, and even the FBI admits there was no actual legal case there. They just wanted to go on a partisan tirade, which everyone who actually follows news knows is unprecedented for a YOU ARE NOT GETTING INDICTED story.
You can say she's careless, you can say she's negligent. Hell, I might even agree. Everyone makes mistakes, I'm sure after this she'll be more careful in the future. But it was clearly not malicious, nobody actually ended up getting hurt, and nothing illegal occurred.
It really is time to deal.with.this. Legal experts since the start of this knew she wasn't getting indicted, because the law is not there for this sort of thing. She wasn't handing government secrets off to anyone nefarious, she was simply not careful and ignored guidance on the subject. People really need to learn when to let things go. This is not even in the same sport of serious things politicians have done just this year alone.
DrROBschiz
Member
I dont get it
What a fucking mess this whole thing is
What a fucking mess this whole thing is
Unless I'm reading this wrong, isn't the issue that separates it from Clinton's case that he kept the information after he was deployed and was no longer meant to have it. Clinton did not actually steal any emails from herself, whereas he appears to have taken classified information. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't look like the same case.
what don't you get
is there some confusing aspect that you'd like explained to you or...?
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
No, potential violations. It's literally what he said, and why they couldn't bring charges. Intent is a separate matter. Again, there would be charges if there was actually something to this.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Simply not careful with top secret intel. I wish I could know exactly what was so top secret that she felt it was ok to risk sending through a server that's less secure than sending through gmail.
There are no second chances when it comes to this... unless you are above the rest of us normal citizens apparently.
Similarity being they both broke protocol for using non-secure means of information storage. Him, keeping them on his person (no USBs, removable media, etc are allowed in DOD computers, hell in a SCIF you cant bring a cellphone or anything really) hers being she stored the information on her poorly maintained and not approved private server AND transmitted information over nonsecure wireless devices.
Only we've had people who actually investigate breaches post in this very thread that there are indeed second chances. It's certainly happened in my work - the idea that a breach always results in a firing is simply factually untrue, and has never been the case.
Unless you work in a submarine base of course, or something like that - military situations are very different to civilian situations.
Unless you work in a submarine base of course, or something like that - military situations are very different to civilian situations.
This whole story exposed tons of government employees using not careful means of sending important top secret emails to expedite certain things. It happens (as with the sensitive drone target emails). Hillary's case is obviously more significant because she was the Secretary of State, but again... it's not illegal and much of what she did had precedent with previous Secretary of States. In other words, they did it too. Many of the rules have changed and the State Department issued guidance on this subject that she clearly ignored. That's her failing. We can accept that while acknowledging it was a stupid mistake that wasn't illegal, and that she probably needs to not do that again.
This story does not make Hillary a crook, does not make her any of the things people love to label her with. It was just sheer negligence that she needs to correct for the future. And I'm sure she will, because someone as intelligent as Hillary is hardly going to make that mistake again. Again, this is such small potatoes compared to the actually illegal things politicians have done this year alone. Hell, it's small potatoes compared to the case against Trump right now.
TI82 said:
I worked for the military as a civilian for over a decade, and handling secret/classified information is a thing. There are second chances. I've seen them occur. Additionally, you're just now getting irritated that the heads of organizations get treated differently than you? yes, they're more valuable than you are to the organization. That's why they get PAID more. They are usually better educated, usually you are replaceable and they are not. Of course they'd get more second chances. What is this a surprise?
Presidential elections are determined on issues far wider and more important than email security practices. It just doesn't even register for me.
Gorechylde
Member
No charge doesn't mean she's suddenly fit to be president. She deliberately filtered information through her private, unsecured servers and then lied about it repeatedly until the FBI came out and said she's full of shit. Then, she filtered her emails again before complying with the FOIA request. If she truly thought she wasn't doing anything wrong, why was she lying about it the whole fucking time? 68 year old grandmother bullshit aside, it's her fucking job to know these things. She's the Secretary of State. Now she's in damage control again.
I love posters in this thread saying this is a widespread problem in government that needs to be addressed. Hilary seems like a fine place to start hmm?
25 years of Republican smear my ass. She's a fucking liar just like her rapist husband.
I'll be voting Gary Johnson this election since neither the Republicans nor Democrats can field a candidate that doesn't induce nausea. What a shit show.
My understanding is that in itself is not illegal. The explanation I heard required that the information would need to be lawful possession of classified information, gross negligence, and removed, lost, or stolen information for it to be a crime. Hillary was negligent, but she had lawful possession of it and as far as we know it wasn't removed, lost, or stolen. The difference in the link you provided was that he did not appear to have lawful possession of it, and it was removed.
EDIT: Again, I'm hardly a legal expert and I'm basically picking up most of this today, so if you know more then feel free to correct.
They said she sent known classified emails while in countries she shouldn't have using none secure methods.
The issue is proving intent. How can you when all you have to go off of are e-mail fragments? Unless she was explaining her evil plan to someone over email I doubt they could ever get more than a hint of it.
So she could've had bad intentions but there is just no way to prove it so she gets off. Just like there'd be no evidence of hack attempts if they didn't keep logs or have staff monitoring for intrusions. It's pretty well assumed she did, just no way of proving it.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
So you're saying it's similar to the OJ case?
Embarrassing, simply embarrassing.
Lol
Spoken like a true believer of Republican propaganda. Good luck with Gary Johnson.
Edit: where's that dancing salt shaker gif when you need it? I'm gonna love the Internet when Hilary wins in November. I think it might just be better than 2012.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
Shes not THAT bad. She's at least a little less embarrassing than Trump.
- Status