2016 US Presidential Election

[commodorejohn]

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.

This part bothers me.

The idea that it is generally important for everyone else, but not for the important people is...ugh.

Par for the course, really. They might as well just bonk her on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

[Dauric]

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.

This part bothers me.

The idea that it is generally important for everyone else, but not for the important people is...ugh.

I agree with the sentiment, but the issue is that "security or administrative sanctions" are things you do to someone actively holding the job. If this had come out while she was still Secretary of State it would have been a firing offense, though not something a prosecutor would have pressed charges over. As it is, being "Former" Sec of State means that the appropriate security or administrative sanctions are a bit late.

The grand upshot is that this is a failure of slow moving regulatory oversight to maintain control over a situation in a timely manner. Someone should have gotten fired over this, but the wheels of bureaucracy grind so slowly that everyone involved already moved on to their next job.

[Tyndmyr]

When the next job also has security implications, it would seem to still be relevant.

I'm also not fond of the idea that merely swapping jobs occasionally absolves one of consequences.

[Dauric]

When the next job also has security implications, it would seem to still be relevant.

I'm also not fond of the idea that merely swapping jobs occasionally absolves one of consequences.

A sentiment I also agree with, however our democratic election process doesn't have a means by which getting fired from a job for security reasons prevents someone from running for elected office, other than the vote of the (theoretically) informed (<insert hysterical laughter here>) people.

Unfortunately that leads us to a situation as we are in now, one major party candidate is incapable of being trusted with secrets, the other candidate is incapable of being trusted period, and third party candidates are still essentially irrelevant.

[sardia]

Tldr Clinton is a lucking out that Trump is running. Hopefully the new recruits in 2020 or 2024 will be better. The old guard is exactly that, old.

[Tyndmyr]

I find myself saying that with a lot of the candidates. Neither Romney or McCain were particularly enthusing. Before that, we had rather a delightful selection of folks as well. Only Obama really doesn't fit the pattern of old, and the current pair seems to be particularly bad. Not sure I enjoy this trend.

[sardia]

I find myself saying that with a lot of the candidates. Neither Romney or McCain were particularly enthusing. Before that, we had rather a delightful selection of folks as well. Only Obama really doesn't fit the pattern of old, and the current pair seems to be particularly bad. Not sure I enjoy this trend.

Bullshit, the GOP had a great crop this year. The voters just don't appreciate work horse candidates anymore. What were they looking for anyway? Less dog whistling, more cat calls?
I already suggested Trump's rise is due to income inequality but none of the conservatives believe it.

[Tyndmyr]

The GOP had a large crop. I would not call them great.

Granted, I think they had better options than Trump, but it was entirely reasonable to look them all over, and be disgusted with the lack of options. Many of them were, for better or worse, near duplicates of each other. Cruz might be younger, but he ain't an Obama, in that Obama ran an essentially inspirational campaign. I might not agree with all of Obama's stances, but at least he had some style in pursuing them. Looking over other candidates for...a while, I don't think there's a similar example for some years back.

Sanders was...kind of close. But couldn't be successful for other reasons.

[Dauric]

I find myself saying that with a lot of the candidates. Neither Romney or McCain were particularly enthusing. Before that, we had rather a delightful selection of folks as well. Only Obama really doesn't fit the pattern of old, and the current pair seems to be particularly bad. Not sure I enjoy this trend.

Bullshit, the GOP had a great crop this year. The voters just don't appreciate work horse candidates anymore. What were they looking for anyway? Less dog whistling, more cat calls?

Trump is a beast of the media and marketing, and his campaign (this time) played to that strength. While the GOP at large tends to stick to"Tried and True" campaigning methods ("Tried and True" being largely central to a conservative mindset) Trump came in with little experience or knowledge of Politics (which hurt his previous attempts), but he figured out how to blast past that shortcoming with raw Marketing. In the end he managed to suck all the oxygen out of the room for the other candidates, being controversial and "In Your Face" meant his name was being repeated, his personality talked about and pushing the other names and personalities out of the media attention. Marketing 101: Name recognition can be everything, and he played that masterfully (even if by accident).

Cruz might be younger, but he ain't an Obama, in that Obama ran an essentially inspirational campaign. I might not agree with all of Obama's stances, but at least he had some style in pursuing them. Looking over other candidates for...a while, I don't think there's a similar example for some years back.

Ie: GOP marketing failure. Obama's inspirational tone wasn't just an inspirational and uplifting campaign, it was memorable for being different. Trump's campaign has certainly been different, in pretty much the exact opposite way that Obama's was, but again "Bad Press is still Press", and it's been memorable enough to create a brand recognition that no other GOP candidate was able to match.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

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.

This part bothers me.

The idea that it is generally important for everyone else, but not for the important people is...ugh.

I think you're misreading this. They aren't saying that they're deciding against security or administrative sanctions. They're saying that security or administrative sanctions aren't their purview — prosecution is — so that the fact that people in similar circumstances would typically face security or administrative sanctions doesn't have any bearing on their decision about whether to recommend prosecution.

[KnightExemplar]

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.

This part bothers me.

The idea that it is generally important for everyone else, but not for the important people is...ugh.

I think you're misreading this. They aren't saying that they're deciding against security or administrative sanctions. They're saying that security or administrative sanctions aren't their purview — prosecution is — so that the fact that people in similar circumstances would typically face security or administrative sanctions doesn't have any bearing on their decision about whether to recommend prosecution.

Agree'd. The FBI's job and task is basically "Should this person be sent to jail??" over some issue.

The FBI probably has never jailed someone for an administrative failure of this level. But they probably fired a ton of people in a similar position. The FBI cannot fire someone from another department however, so they can only answer the "jail" question.

[Tyndmyr]

Regardless of legal details, the resulting facts are that there is essentially no accountability for her, despite there being so for others.

Job hopping as a technical dodge or whatever isn't available to many people, and I assume any similarly scaled error would not result in most people being given the same deference regarding intent, but instead, it'd be assumed that such a flagrant violation MUST be punished somehow.

Details aside, the system does not treat the great and small alike. The responsibility for this is not that of the FBI alone.

[KnightExemplar]

Regardless of legal details, the resulting facts are that there is essentially no accountability for her, despite there being so for others.

Job hopping as a technical dodge or whatever isn't available to many people, and I assume any similarly scaled error would not result in most people being given the same deference regarding intent, but instead, it'd be assumed that such a flagrant violation MUST be punished somehow.

Details aside, the system does not treat the great and small alike. The responsibility for this is not that of the FBI alone.

While that's true and clearly demonstrated by this case... I think it is too much to expect the FBI to actually do anything about this particular sin. They get enough flak for wrongful prosecutions as it is, I don't think anyone wants the FBI to prosecute more strongly in the general case.

[Tyndmyr]

I believe they could probably prosecute this particular case while not getting any flak for wrongful prosecution, nor would they need to prosecute more strongly in general in order to justify it.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Which part of the FBI's analysis do you disagree with?

[Tyndmyr]

The part where "extreme carelessness" is listed as a reason for not being prosecuted.

Little people don't get to use ignorance as a defense, let alone "not giving a shit".

[JudeMorrigan]

You'd be surprised. Security violations happen *all* the time. Worst case for a "little person" in this sort of scenario is likely getting their clearance yanked. "No apparent harm and there's no evidence of ill intent, so we're going to make a note in your record and you'd danged well not do it again" is actually pretty normal.

[KnightExemplar]

The part where "extreme carelessness" is listed as a reason for not being prosecuted.

Little people don't get to use ignorance as a defense, let alone "not giving a shit".

Little people will get fired and clearance revoked. This wasn't a case of "Clinton grabbed documents and distributed them", this is a case of "Yo Clinton, what you typed on Email #10,425 was still classified. You shouldn't have said that publicly."

The core issue is the records management for historians and Freedom of Information Act stuff. By keeping her emails on a personal server instead of whatever, she's caused a significant complication for historians. The "classified information" part seems to be secondary to her real offense here frankly.

In any case, yes, bosses in charge of departments are generally immune from getting fired. I'm still of the opinion that the FBI is acting correctly in this case.

----------------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... mail-mess/

This is the opinion piece that matches my opinion on the matter the most.

But it also arises from Clinton’s natural, default impulse toward secrecy. You can argue that she came by that impulse honestly; after a couple of decades of Republicans and the media rummaging through every part of her private and public life and shouting “Scandal!!!” at everything they could find, no matter how banal or benign, it’s understandable that her first instinct is to keep hidden whatever she can. But her experience also should have demonstrated to her that again and again that instinct has gotten her into trouble. Yes, many people are going to assume that she has nothing but the most sinister intentions in everything she does. But in the hopes of depriving them ammunition, she has often given them more ammunition than they could have dreamed of.

And

Evidently nobody said that to her. Perhaps this is because after years with the Clintons, her closest aides exist in a kind of permanent bunker mentality, where they know they’re constantly under siege and all threats tend to merge together. Or maybe it’s because Clinton prizes personal loyalty too much, and elevates people more for their unflagging commitment to her than for other kinds of skills and characteristics that might have saved her from herself in a case like this.

This event has serious implications towards Clinton's ability to lead and do the right thing. And I think Clinton (and any voter going for Clinton) needs to accept those faults. Clinton should have listened to her staff, she should have followed proper procedure, she should have done a lot of things correctly.

But for her to be threatened with jail-time over this is insane.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The part where "extreme carelessness" is listed as a reason for not being prosecuted.

Little people don't get to use ignorance as a defense, let alone "not giving a shit".

Sorry, I mean, which crime do you think that Clinton committed? Where do you think the FBI went wrong in holding that there wasn't evidence that could prove every element of that crime?

And since they don't in fact list "extreme carelessness" as a reason for not prosecuting her, perhaps you could cite the statement in more detail when backing up your claims.

[Tyndmyr]

In any case, yes, bosses in charge of departments are generally immune from getting fired. I'm still of the opinion that the FBI is acting correctly in this case.

I'm aware that traditionally, this is the case. It irks me all the time, not merely in Clinton's case.

The part where "extreme carelessness" is listed as a reason for not being prosecuted.

Little people don't get to use ignorance as a defense, let alone "not giving a shit".

Sorry, I mean, which crime do you think that Clinton committed? Where do you think the FBI went wrong in holding that there wasn't evidence that could prove every element of that crime?

And since they don't in fact list "extreme carelessness" as a reason for not prosecuting her, perhaps you could cite the statement in more detail when backing up your claims.

It's a part of the statement describing her behavior. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" is the relevant bit.

Their rationale centers on intent, and on the above characterization of motives, and lacking "intent to break the law". In society, the further down the food chain you go, the less society gives a shit about your intent. High up, important people are presumed to be well meaning, whereas poor people are not.

[commodorejohn]

But in the hopes of depriving them ammunition, she has often given them more ammunition than they could have dreamed of.

This is the key point for me. Of course you can't say for certain what someone else's intentions were, but from an outside perspective the whole thing smacks of an attempt to remove herself from oversight and legally-mandated transparency/accessibility. Maybe it's no more nefarious than just a default impulse towards secrecy (hell, I can sympathize with that myself, and I don't have people gunning for me on a regular basis,) but to the average person that looks like just a tad more than "oops, I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to be using my vanity domain name for work purposes!"

[Quizatzhaderac]

The part where "extreme carelessness" is listed as a reason for not being prosecuted.

Little people don't get to use ignorance as a defense, let alone "not giving a shit".

Legal concept of mens rea

That's a very important and standard legal distinction. If the law is not written such that negligence was the crime, they she didn't commit a crime if she didn't act knowingly.

I"d agree, in principle, that actions should have consequence, even for the most powerful of us. However, felonizing negligence is just overcriminalization.

[Tyndmyr]

Neglecting to do something is a wee bit different from actively doing something not permitted. One doesn't accidentally set up an email server. Can you imagine some fellow saying that, yes, he sold drugs, lots of them, in fact, over a period of many years, but he didn't mean any harm to come to those folks, and the fact that his drugs were in fact, unsafe was a pure accident? He would be locked away.

Fivethirtyeight put out a bit, looks like. Lot of the same points we already hit, but a decent read all the same.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-the-fbi-end-clintons-email-problems-or-make-them-worse/

[Quizatzhaderac]

So are you disagreeing with the FBI's investigation's conclusion that Clinton's actions were "extreme carelessness"?

Also, I'm pretty sure your analogy doesn't work because you're switching the Actus Rea in both cases.
Clinton's' Actus Rea was "Leaking classified information" not "setting up an improperly secured email server that holds classified information". Her negligence was in not properly considering how the action she deliberately took (setting up a private server) could accidentally result in her Actus Rea.

The drug dealers' Actus Rea was "selling narcotics" not "causing pharmacological injury". It doesn't matter that he wasn't intending to cause harm, because that's not what he's on trial for. It does matter if he knew he was distributing narcotics, and if he showed that he bought them in the baking section of his supermarket in bags labelled "sugar" he would have a very different outcome.

[KnightExemplar]

Neglecting to do something is a wee bit different from actively doing something not permitted. One doesn't accidentally set up an email server.

But there's nothing illegal about setting up an email server.

I mean, it probably should be illegal since its clear that Clinton seems to have set it up to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But... there's nothing actually illegal about that. So we can't expect the FBI to ping her on that, can we?

So the FBI goes at her from the "Classified Information" perspective. And lo and behold, according to the law, she's not acting in "gross negligence" because she's following State Department regulations. (I mean, Clinton wrote the regulations, so... for what its worth... whatever. But FBI can't ping her on this either). The few emails (that should have been classified) they found do not constitute "gross negligence" or "intent". You see, the only "extreme carelessness" that Clinton had was how she set up this email server.

So basically, all we have here is Clinton fucking over historians who'd be interested in her emails maybe 20 years from now, whenever historians decide to start looking at this stuff. Because Clinton organized her email server in such a way that makes it difficult for historians to ensure accuracy. But... that's not really a crime. Its a dick move and a failure of Clinton to live up to the responsibilities of Secretary of State... but not a crime.

And even then, she technically handed over 30,000+ emails from her personal server to the record-keeping bureaucrats. So she's in technical compliance with the letter of the records-keeping law.

So no laws were broken. Things were just super-weird and fucked up from a records management perspective.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

It's a part of the statement describing her behavior. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" is the relevant bit.

I'm aware that they say this, but they don't list it as a reason for not prosecuting her.

Their rationale centers on intent, and on the above characterization of motives, and lacking "intent to break the law". In society, the further down the food chain you go, the less society gives a shit about your intent. High up, important people are presumed to be well meaning, whereas poor people are not.

If you think that someone "further down the food chain" would have faced criminal charges in these circumstances, perhaps you could point to a case where this occurred. Now the FBI says that this has never occurred, but you think they're wrong; and I'm sure you have some evidence to support that claim, right?

Specifically, if there's any substance to your claim, perhaps you can point to a case where someone "further down the food chain" was prosecuted in the absence 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."

[Lucrece]

As a Bernie fan, I kinda feel vindicated. All these people who voted establishment get exactly that, and establishment politician. Hated that slimy Clinton, and his wife looks to be no better in this regard.

My one consolation is that Obama trounced her for her time at the throne, and it's too bad that unlike Mitt Romney she wasn't sent packing a second time so all these rich bastards stop thinking they can buy their way into office.

[sardia]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... ame-thing/
An update on the election forecast. TLDR Trump's gained a few percentage points, from 19% to 22%. Trump underperforms red states, Clinton underperforms blue states, and Clinton overperforms swing states. This is almost like a race to the bottom as both candidates try their hardest to lose the election.

Trump is substantially underperforming Romney in red states. Clinton is slightly outperforming Obama in purple states. Clinton is slightly underperforming Obama in blue states. All of this yields some slightly complicated conclusions. On the one hand, according to our models, Clinton’s state polls tell a stronger story for her than the national polls do. On the other hand, a lot of that advantage is concentrated in traditionally red states. If Trump underperforms in states such as Texas and Mississippi, that will hurt his position in the popular vote without compromising his Electoral College math — provided, of course, that he doesn’t actually lose them. Hence, our models conclude that Trump is more likely to win the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote than the other way around, although either possibility is unlikely.

Nonetheless, Trump’s overall position has improved slightly. He has a 22 percent chance to win the election according to the polls-only forecast, as compared with a 19 percent chance when we launched last Wednesday. And in polls-plus, which also accounts for economic conditions, his chances have improved to 29 percent from 26 percent.However, our models also put a lot of emphasis on the trend within individual polls — did Trump gain or lose ground in this week’s edition of the SurveyMonkey poll, for instance? The trends in national polls have been relatively favorable for Trump over the past few days; he has often gained a percentage point or two relative to where he stood in the previous edition of the same poll. By contrast, most of the new state polls were publishing data for the first time, so while they may have been pretty good for Clinton, they don’t tell us a lot about the trend.

[Lazar]

An NYT piece about the damage that Comey's findings could do to Hillary. As they put it, it's "the worst possible good news" for her. All the same, though, I wonder if the Republicans would have been better served by framing this as a question of competence rather than criminality.

[sardia]

An NYT piece about the damage that Comey's findings could do to Hillary. As they put it, it's "the worst possible good news" for her. All the same, though, I wonder if the Republicans would have been better served by framing this as a question of competence rather than criminality.

They would, but it depends on what Trump wants. They can either do it the right way, the wrong way, or the Trump way. That's the wrong way but racist/conspiratorial.

[morriswalters]

Good or bad it means no indictment and three months to put it behind her. Short of a miracle it was never going to be good news.

[Kethryes]

If you think that someone "further down the food chain" would have faced criminal charges in these circumstances, perhaps you could point to a case where this occurred. Now the FBI says that this has never occurred, but you think they're wrong; and I'm sure you have some evidence to support that claim, right?

Specifically, if there's any substance to your claim, perhaps you can point to a case where someone "further down the food chain" was prosecuted in the absence 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."

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

And more generally
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

It's hard to not see the double standard...

[Tyndmyr]

Neglecting to do something is a wee bit different from actively doing something not permitted. One doesn't accidentally set up an email server.

But there's nothing illegal about setting up an email server.

I mean, it probably should be illegal since its clear that Clinton seems to have set it up to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But... there's nothing actually illegal about that. So we can't expect the FBI to ping her on that, can we?

She's pretty obviously circumventing policy, and going to significant length to do so over a lengthy period of time.

Most people don't set up private email servers to avoid using the workplace email. It's obviously fishy as hell, and should contribute to an impression of her intent as not benign.

So the FBI goes at her from the "Classified Information" perspective. And lo and behold, according to the law, she's not acting in "gross negligence" because she's following State Department regulations. (I mean, Clinton wrote the regulations, so... for what its worth... whatever. But FBI can't ping her on this either). The few emails (that should have been classified) they found do not constitute "gross negligence" or "intent". You see, the only "extreme carelessness" that Clinton had was how she set up this email server.

...pretty sure revealing classified information is up there in bad stuff to do. Not merely against policy, but counter to law, a violation of explicitly signed NDAs, etc.

Specifically, if there's any substance to your claim, perhaps you can point to a case where someone "further down the food chain" was prosecuted in the absence 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."

Oh, of course. Scooter Libby would be an obvious example of a much lesser thing that resulted in prison time. A single forgotten phone call was taken as evidence of intent to cover up the truth, bam, jail time. For a single piece of data, not the amount we see here.

Sandy Berger would also suffice. Again, criminal conviction, massive fines, probation. Far smaller pile of data, much less evidence of intent to mishandle. But aides can be thrown under the bus conveniently, and nobody really cares.

And those are people you may have actually heard of. Folks all the way on the ground floor are going to be punished without a second thought.

[KnightExemplar]

Neglecting to do something is a wee bit different from actively doing something not permitted. One doesn't accidentally set up an email server.

But there's nothing illegal about setting up an email server.

I mean, it probably should be illegal since its clear that Clinton seems to have set it up to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But... there's nothing actually illegal about that. So we can't expect the FBI to ping her on that, can we?

She's pretty obviously circumventing policy, and going to significant length to do so over a lengthy period of time.

Most people don't set up private email servers to avoid using the workplace email. It's obviously fishy as hell, and should contribute to an impression of her intent as not benign.

The State Department didn't have workplace email. John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to have a .gov email account. Colin Powell used a personal email account IIRC (but it sounds like it was more akin to Gmail).

And please, show me in the law where "improper use of email servers" is illegal. As noted earlier, such behavior is grounds for Clinton to get fired. Not prosecuted.

So the FBI goes at her from the "Classified Information" perspective. And lo and behold, according to the law, she's not acting in "gross negligence" because she's following State Department regulations. (I mean, Clinton wrote the regulations, so... for what its worth... whatever. But FBI can't ping her on this either). The few emails (that should have been classified) they found do not constitute "gross negligence" or "intent". You see, the only "extreme carelessness" that Clinton had was how she set up this email server.

...pretty sure revealing classified information is up there in bad stuff to do. Not merely against policy, but counter to law, a violation of explicitly signed NDAs, etc.

Not when you're emailing it to other cleared people. She just did it through the wrong medium, and not in a manner that was "gross negligence" or with "malicious intent".

[JudeMorrigan]

If you think that someone "further down the food chain" would have faced criminal charges in these circumstances, perhaps you could point to a case where this occurred. Now the FBI says that this has never occurred, but you think they're wrong; and I'm sure you have some evidence to support that claim, right?

Specifically, if there's any substance to your claim, perhaps you can point to a case where someone "further down the food chain" was prosecuted in the absence 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."

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

And more generally
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

It's hard to not see the double standard...

Both the Nishimura and Saucier cases involve the "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information" proviso. The difference is that there's no evidence that Clinton had any intention of her email server housing classified material. Intent *matters* in how these cases are prosecuted. Your cites simply aren't comparable.

[Tyndmyr]

Neglecting to do something is a wee bit different from actively doing something not permitted. One doesn't accidentally set up an email server.

But there's nothing illegal about setting up an email server.

I mean, it probably should be illegal since its clear that Clinton seems to have set it up to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But... there's nothing actually illegal about that. So we can't expect the FBI to ping her on that, can we?

She's pretty obviously circumventing policy, and going to significant length to do so over a lengthy period of time.

Most people don't set up private email servers to avoid using the workplace email. It's obviously fishy as hell, and should contribute to an impression of her intent as not benign.

The State Department didn't have workplace email. John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to have a .gov email account. Colin Powell used a personal email account IIRC (but it sounds like it was more akin to Gmail).

State Department has had workplace email. What you mean is that other secretaries have also used private email accounts.

For instance, Colin Powell said he used something akin to gmail when the government system was down. This is wildly different in scope than what Clinton did.

But he absolutely had, and used, a .gov account. Getting an email account issued to you is standard practice. I don't know why people find the idea that State department didn't have email to be plausible.

So the FBI goes at her from the "Classified Information" perspective. And lo and behold, according to the law, she's not acting in "gross negligence" because she's following State Department regulations. (I mean, Clinton wrote the regulations, so... for what its worth... whatever. But FBI can't ping her on this either). The few emails (that should have been classified) they found do not constitute "gross negligence" or "intent". You see, the only "extreme carelessness" that Clinton had was how she set up this email server.

...pretty sure revealing classified information is up there in bad stuff to do. Not merely against policy, but counter to law, a violation of explicitly signed NDAs, etc.

Not when you're emailing it to other cleared people. She just did it through the wrong medium, and not in a manner that was "gross negligence" or with "malicious intent".

...so? Did you look at my examples? Doing it through the wrong medium is still a release of classified data.

This is covered in the basic yearly training course govvies and military are forced to take in painfully repetitive detail.

[trpmb6]

...so? Did you look at my examples? Doing it through the wrong medium is still a release of classified data.

This is covered in the basic yearly training course govvies and military are forced to take in painfully repetitive detail.

Those who have, or still have, a security clearance know full well the seriousness of being granted a clearance (at any level), the responsibilities of such, and the consequences of misuse. I know full well it would result in job loss, clearance removal and quite likely jail time (at the minimum probation with a fine). Most of these people are active military, defense contractors, or people in intelligence. Not exactly a demographic that Hillary was going to do well with anyways.

A few posts above someone commented that the examples you provided aren't good comparisons. I simply disagree. The section in title 18 dealing with misuse of classified information does not discuss intent at all.

Hillary handled classified data on an unclassified system. If, as she claims, she didn't know that information was classified then that should tell you maybe she isn't qualified for the job. If, as I believe, she did know (she's been around this for the majority of her adult life), then she knowingly mishandled classified information - and then misled the US public about doing so.

And when comparing this to the Nishimura case, don't forget, he removed information and put it on a flash drive and took it home but had no intent of distributing it to anyone else. Hillary DID remove classified information from her server, placed it on a flash drive and then delivered it to her lawyers who kept it in a safe that was not approved for storing classified information.

I generally don't espouse conspiratorial theories. But one theory I saw recently was rather compelling. Comey was undermined and told in no uncertain terms that she would not be prosecuted. So he instead gave a scathing account of all the evidence he had against Hillary so that it could be used in attack ads. And indeed, Trump has already released one.

[KnightExemplar]

Neglecting to do something is a wee bit different from actively doing something not permitted. One doesn't accidentally set up an email server.

But there's nothing illegal about setting up an email server.

I mean, it probably should be illegal since its clear that Clinton seems to have set it up to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But... there's nothing actually illegal about that. So we can't expect the FBI to ping her on that, can we?

She's pretty obviously circumventing policy, and going to significant length to do so over a lengthy period of time.

Most people don't set up private email servers to avoid using the workplace email. It's obviously fishy as hell, and should contribute to an impression of her intent as not benign.

The State Department didn't have workplace email. John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to have a .gov email account. Colin Powell used a personal email account IIRC (but it sounds like it was more akin to Gmail).

State Department has had workplace email. What you mean is that other secretaries have also used private email accounts.

For instance, Colin Powell said he used something akin to gmail when the government system was down. This is wildly different in scope than what Clinton did.

But he absolutely had, and used, a .gov account. Getting an email account issued to you is standard practice. I don't know why people find the idea that State department didn't have email to be plausible.

I'll give you this point. I think I misunderstood the Colin Powell example.

So the FBI goes at her from the "Classified Information" perspective. And lo and behold, according to the law, she's not acting in "gross negligence" because she's following State Department regulations. (I mean, Clinton wrote the regulations, so... for what its worth... whatever. But FBI can't ping her on this either). The few emails (that should have been classified) they found do not constitute "gross negligence" or "intent". You see, the only "extreme carelessness" that Clinton had was how she set up this email server.

...pretty sure revealing classified information is up there in bad stuff to do. Not merely against policy, but counter to law, a violation of explicitly signed NDAs, etc.

Not when you're emailing it to other cleared people. She just did it through the wrong medium, and not in a manner that was "gross negligence" or with "malicious intent".

...so? Did you look at my examples? Doing it through the wrong medium is still a release of classified data.

This is covered in the basic yearly training course govvies and military are forced to take in painfully repetitive detail.

Yes. But without "gross negligence" or "malicious intent", the FBI can do fuck all about it.

As I've stated before: I think what Clinton did was an offense that a typical person would have gotten fired over. But I don't believe it passes the bar to get prosecuted and potentially sent to jail.

[Tyndmyr]

...so? Did you look at my examples? Doing it through the wrong medium is still a release of classified data.

This is covered in the basic yearly training course govvies and military are forced to take in painfully repetitive detail.

Those who have, or still have, a security clearance know full well the seriousness of being granted a clearance (at any level), the responsibilities of such, and the consequences of misuse. I know full well it would result in job loss, clearance removal and quite likely jail time (at the minimum probation with a fine). Most of these people are active military, defense contractors, or people in intelligence. Not exactly a demographic that Hillary was going to do well with anyways.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm former military. The sentiment is universal among folks like me, yeah.

A few posts above someone commented that the examples you provided aren't good comparisons. I simply disagree. The section in title 18 dealing with misuse of classified information does not discuss intent at all.

Oh, those were some other examples someone else tossed up. I agree, intent is not required for it to be a crime, but I did specifically grab examples where intent was less plausible than for Hillary, just so as to avoid all that.

I generally don't espouse conspiratorial theories. But one theory I saw recently was rather compelling. Comey was undermined and told in no uncertain terms that she would not be prosecuted. So he instead gave a scathing account of all the evidence he had against Hillary so that it could be used in attack ads. And indeed, Trump has already released one.

Dunno if it's a conspiracy, exactly. Doesn't need anyone to be telling him, merely for him to decide what he can plausibly get done in the political environment, and act there.

Trump, of course, can't stay on message, and managed to wander from "Hillary is untrustworthy" to praising Saddam. The two of them are fortunate to be running against each other.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Oh, of course. Scooter Libby would be an obvious example of a much lesser thing that resulted in prison time. A single forgotten phone call was taken as evidence of intent to cover up the truth, bam, jail time. For a single piece of data, not the amount we see here.

Scooter Libby was convicted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators, not for mishandling classified information.

Sandy Berger would also suffice. Again, criminal conviction, massive fines, probation. Far smaller pile of data, much less evidence of intent to mishandle. But aides can be thrown under the bus conveniently, and nobody really cares.

Sandy Berger stuffed classified documents into his socks and pants to remove them from the National Archives. "Much less evidence of intent to mishandle"? Please.