Octopus Overlords

Rip wrote: The important thing is it established as fact that she(they) were in fact careless and likely compromised national secrets. Not to mention mishandled and improperly destroyed records that should have been kept.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:FBI recommends no criminal charges against Hillary over email server.

I look forward to Rips frustrated and angry proclamations that this is one huge conspiracy.

Meh, I never expected them to prosecute.

She actually could shoot someone and get a pass.

The important thing is it established as fact that she(they) were in fact careless and likely compromised national secrets. Not to mention mishandled and improperly destroyed records that should have been kept.

Didn't destroy her campaign in a single blow but yet another paper cut.

xwraith wrote:No excuse.

Any reasonable person would have known they were taking risks and those risks have been realized.

Fitzy wrote:
Most people in this country are of similar levels of ignorance when it comes to security on computers.

Fitzy wrote:

xwraith wrote:No excuse.

Any reasonable person would have known they were taking risks and those risks have been realized.

Bull.

Others have.

No reasonable person could possibly square what FBI Director James Comey said about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State with his final recommendation.

On Tuesday, Comey spent 15 minutes meticulously detailing every illegality of Clinton—including her negligent behavior and obstruction of the investigation. Many Americans have been prosecuted for far less. And yet, at the end of it all, he offered the absurdly counterintuitive position that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges in such a case.

Everything the director said challenged his conclusion. At one point, for example, Comey claimed that any “reasonable person should have known this was not an appropriate venue for classified emails.” Only minutes before that, Comey also explained that “gross negligence” would suffice for prosecution. So is he accusing the presidential candidate of being too dumb to comprehend what a top secret document is or how an email account works? Because any other explanation makes no sense. According to the FBI, Clinton sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of them contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. Worse still, “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey explained.

There are few, if any, scenarios I can conceive of that are more grossly negligent when it comes to classified documents than sending them through an unsecured email account in a place where hostile actors can access them. Perhaps Comey could offer us an example of what a person needs do to do to be prosecuted. What if Hillary accidentally left a folder marked “top secret” in front of the Chinese embassy? Would that do it?

Fitzy wrote:The idea that this is somehow a unique scandal we should all be horrified about is just plain bull.

hepcat wrote:

Others have.

Who?

Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended.

An FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.

He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.

hepcat wrote:Nishimura downloaded classified material onto a mobile device and then left the country. Hillary used an email server in her house. Do I think she was stupid? Hell yes. But as I said, I've seen people in power do even dumber things when it comes to data security. But Nishimura's punishment is 2 years of probation and a fairly small fine. To hear Republicans talk, Clinton should've been imprisoned for the rest of her life.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.

xwraith wrote:including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.

xwraith wrote:She is much bigger in terms of being a target of foreign intelligence, but she doesn't have to face the music. Why?

Jaymann wrote:Aaaaaand, it's over:
FBI: No indictment for you.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

hepcat wrote:

xwraith wrote:including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.

Work related ≠ classified

hepcat wrote:And as has been pointed out by experts before, even stuff that became classified later may very well have started out unclassified. That's pretty much the norm. .

Transcript wrote:Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

xwraith wrote: We are given no timeline as to when the known top secret and secret material was present on her system (or being exchanged via email) so we can't really make that assumption.

Ultimately, Comey said his recommendation against charges stems from the fact that there is no precedent for charging someone under similar circumstances, saying the FBI could not find a single case in which a person was charged with crimes for similar actions.

Scoop20906 wrote:When I read this I think to myself its a little bit of ...

"It is not as bad as you think it is but probably worse then you realize."

I'm talking about the bending of rulez/policies for people in power. I read people's reactions and no one actually seems to care if she broke a law or not but are only interested in if she is punished. Where I work, we were find a security problem, we immediately address it even if it is a mistake or poor choice by an employee especially when there is no evidence any damage was done. I guess what I am trying to say it no one actually seems interested in getting things to work right or be safer but are just interested in meting out punishment.

Something like your neighbor parked in your space so instead of knocking on his door and politely point it out, I instead call the FBI and report he is acting suspicious and must be terrorist and then wonder why NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS!!

Scoop20906 wrote:When I read this I think to myself its a little bit of ...

"It is not as bad as you think it is but probably worse then you realize."

I'm talking about the bending of rulez/policies for people in power. I read people's reactions and no one actually seems to care if she broke a law or not but are only interested in if she is punished. Where I work, we were find a security problem, we immediately address it even if it is a mistake or poor choice by an employee especially when there is no evidence any damage was done. I guess what I am trying to say it no one actually seems interested in getting things to work right or be safer but are just interested in meting out punishment.

malchior wrote:

Scoop20906 wrote:When I read this I think to myself its a little bit of ...

"It is not as bad as you think it is but probably worse then you realize."

I'm talking about the bending of rulez/policies for people in power. I read people's reactions and no one actually seems to care if she broke a law or not but are only interested in if she is punished. Where I work, we were find a security problem, we immediately address it even if it is a mistake or poor choice by an employee especially when there is no evidence any damage was done. I guess what I am trying to say it no one actually seems interested in getting things to work right or be safer but are just interested in meting out punishment.

True - but IMO it also comes down that people with power generally have excellent lawyers. You have to factor that in. A Nishimura is just some guy - his ability to defend himself generally depends on his ability to pay for it. Clinton has a vast political machine behind her and deep pockets. And that is always a huge factor. Especially in a case like this that is fairly technical both from an "IT" policy sense and legal issues.

Rip wrote: They have racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, gun-toting, climate destroying Islamophobic boogeymen to protect us from.

hepcat wrote: edit: I found this part of the FBI statement interesting in light of attempts to compare this to the Nishimura incident.

Ultimately, Comey said his recommendation against charges stems from the fact that there is no precedent for charging someone under similar circumstances, saying the FBI could not find a single case in which a person was charged with crimes for similar actions.

Isgrimnur wrote:How much jail time to General Petraeus serve again? How many stars did he lose?

Isgrimnur wrote:How much jail time to General Petraeus serve again? How many stars did he lose?

hepcat wrote:SSSHHHHH! Don't mention Cheney! You wanna get shot in the face?

Isgrimnur wrote:You are correct.

xwraith wrote:Still had to plead guilty, two years of probation and a $100,000 fine.

RunningMn9 wrote:

xwraith wrote:Still had to plead guilty, two years of probation and a $100,000 fine.

Right, he had to plead guilty because he *intentionally leaked classified information to his mistress*.

Who did Clinton intentionally leak classified information to?

xwraith wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

xwraith wrote:Still had to plead guilty, two years of probation and a $100,000 fine.

Right, he had to plead guilty because he *intentionally leaked classified information to his mistress*.

Who did Clinton intentionally leak classified information to?

We discussed this somewhat upthread, but what about this guy? Who did he leak to?

hepcat wrote:And how much prison time did he do?