The Hillary Clinton thread

[xwraith]

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?

FFS. He had the classified material *itself* in his possession. Slam dunk case. You do realize that is *completely* different, right?

Was the email server not hers? I don't think it's a logical argument to say that I have a third party provision a server, and then turn around and say that I can't be held accountable for moving classified information onto it contrary to law.

[malchior]

In both the other cases it was the literal classified material itself which is a clear felony. They had it. It was a slam dunk felony. Except this wasn't the material itself. It was discussions that referenced classified information. It is completely different. Again I think it *should be* illegal but it just isn't. At least the mishandling part. Could they attempt to make a case if they really wanted to that it was gross negligence? Sure but I'm also sure they are weighing that against the public interest. Can you imagine you throw a Presidential election into disarray and then *not get a conviction*. That'd be crazy sauce times. They are implicitly making it an election issue. That is a sort of accountability itself, isn't it?

[Grifman]

FFS. He had the classified material *itself* in his possession. Slam dunk case. You do realize that is *completely* different, right?

To be honest, I don't really see much difference. By putting the emails on a private server, Clinton in effect had "possession". After all, she had to turn over her server to the FBI.

The only difference I see is that Nishimura was prosecuted under a statute for mishandling data related to "national defense". One could argue, depending upon the content of Clinton's emails, that there was no "national defense" information.

Other than that possibility I don't understand why Nishimura was prosecuted and not Clinton. I've looked but haven't been able to find a legal analysis - maybe one will be forthcoming in the next few days.

[Max Peck]

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny. The agency's yearlong investigation found that she did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release. It found that her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements. And it made clear that Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one. FBI Director James Comey's announcement Tuesday that he will not refer criminal charges to the Justice Department against Clinton spared her from prosecution and a devastating political predicament. But it left much of her account in tatters and may have aggravated questions of trust swirling around her Democratic presidential candidacy.

CLINTON: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." News conference, March 2015.

THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.

Most of those emails - 110 of them - were included among 30,000 emails that Clinton returned to the State Department around the time her use of a private email server was discovered. The three others were recovered from a forensic analysis of Clinton's server. "Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said. Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said.

CLINTON: "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." NBC interview, July 2016.

THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.

He said the marked emails were "a very small number." But that's not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. "Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

[Grifman]

Except this wasn't the material itself. It was discussions that referenced classified information. It is completely different.

Where are you reading that? It's not that I doubt you but I've not seen that referenced anywhere. And I find it hard to believe that she did not receive via email "classified info" directly at some point, and not just emails referencing it in some way. That just seems unlikely. Surely Clinton didnt' just get all her classified info in person or by phone given the ubiquity of email.

[xwraith]

It was discussions that referenced classified information. It is completely different. Again I think it *should be* illegal but it just isn't. At least the mishandling part.

I'm reading this differently from you:

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.

Reference to me means something indirect, but what the FBI director announced reads very clearly to me as it was classified information itself.

Can you imagine you throw a Presidential election into disarray and then *not get a conviction*. That'd be crazy sauce times. They are implicitly making it an election issue. That is a sort of accountability itself, isn't it?

I agree with you that the election is the final "safeguard " against a malefactor from gaining high office -- but I don't think it follows that a prosecutor should stay their hand because of it. Yeah its chaotic, but Watergate was chaotic too. Not that I'm making a direct comparison here between the two, but more pointing towards interaction between politics at the highest level and the law.

[malchior]

FFS. He had the classified material *itself* in his possession. Slam dunk case. You do realize that is *completely* different, right?

To be honest, I don't really see much difference. By putting the emails on a private server, Clinton in effect had "possession". After all, she had to turn over her server to the FBI.

The only difference I see is that Nishimura was prosecuted under a statute for mishandling data related to "national defense". One could argue, depending upon the content of Clinton's emails, that there was no "national defense" information.

Other than that possibility I don't understand why Nishimura was prosecuted and not Clinton. I've looked but haven't been able to find a legal analysis - maybe one will be forthcoming in the next few days.

There were no clearly marked classified materials on the email server. That was the crux of the mishandling part of decision. You have to be in possession of clearly marked classified documents. That specifically excludes emails that should have been classified but weren't. In fact, interestingly these conversations would have been still inappropriate but in the control of the government which IMHO probably isn't any safer to be honest since the unclassified side of the house is a shitshow.

So that leaves the case that she'd have to be grossly negligent for mishandling the information. Comey spoke at length about why they didn't believe they had a strong case there. He also spent a good amount of time blasting her politics and the Clinton Foundation. So in the end - IMO we know what we already knew... she is a barely on the side of legal opportunist. The other interesting thing IMO is the Republican attack machine is effective - this was basically a huge forced error. This was her attempt to shield her communications from scrutiny and it blew up spectacularly in her face. Which is sorta nice in a way.

[malchior]

Reference to me means something indirect, but what the FBI director announced reads very clearly to me as it was classified information itself.

Your reading is likely off. It was edit (for clarity): *mostly* indirect. He specifically to explain the methodology of their investigation. They read the emails. Then whenever they found information that they thought might be classified they had to go to the responsible party and get a classification decision. There were no 'attached' documents with classified information for instance. That was the key difference. Otherwise it'd be a slam dunk case like the others. Edit to hammer this home: They wouldn't have had to seek classification decisions had they been clearly marked classified materials. They'd be clearly marked classified materials.

I agree with you that the election is the final "safeguard " against a malefactor from gaining high office -- but I don't think it follows that a prosecutor should stay their hand because of it. Yeah its chaotic, but Watergate was chaotic too. Not that I'm making a direct comparison here between the two, but more pointing towards interaction between politics at the highest level and the law.

In their estimation it would have been a weak case on the gross negligence which was their only path to a conviction. So do you go with a weak case and blow up the election? What happens when the case gets dismissed/no conviction (let's say it goes that way). Can you imagine the fallout? They needed a *strong* case and they didn't have it.


Just to point out an example from the statement

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.

"concern matters" is the key phrase. If there were classified documents attached or excerpted then they'd have a strong felony case for mishandling. It is the required smoking gun so to speak.

Edit: Also again - I think this should be illegal. They should probably investigate dropping the standard to negligent instead of grossly negligent. That would have perhaps ended up with a different outcome.

[Grifman]

Just to my non-legal mind, the setting up a private email server alone would seem to fall in the area of "gross negligence" but that's just me. This is right behind the Obamacare website in terms of stupidity IMO. And these people are supposed to be smart!

[RunningMn9]

And I find it hard to believe that she did not receive via email "classified info" directly at some point

I don't work at the State Dept so I can't say for certain whether it works the same way - but at the DoD, classified information is restricted to a specific network (SIPRNet). If I am on the SIPRNet and I email classified information to an email address that is not on the network, *I* am the one in trouble, not the recipient.

[malchior]

Just to my non-legal mind, the setting up a private email server alone would seem to fall in the area of "gross negligence" but that's just me. This is right behind the Obamacare website in terms of stupidity IMO. And these people are supposed to be smart!

Oh it was stupid and she lied about it. Comey went out of his way to smack Clinton around and undercut some of her statements about this situation. Politico already has a decent opinion piece about her bullshit around this. I call it decent versus good because I think point 4 is pedantry but that's just my opinion.

[hepcat]

And how much prison time did he do?

Does it matter?

He got two years probation just like Petraeus, a fine, and his security clearance permanently revoked.

He had to be held accountable, why shouldn't she?

Well, she was chastised in front of the press today. But my problem is with folks who are calling for her to be tried for treason (Trump already said it a while back...and facebook is full of idiots echoing it today). The two aforementioned military men weren't.

[xwraith]

"concern matters" is the key phrase. If there were classified documents attached or excerpted then they'd have a strong felony case for mishandling. It is the required smoking gun so to speak.

Hmm,

One question for you, is "concern matters" a term of art? I'm interpreting it as it could have been anything really from a cross attached document to someone relating the key points of some sort of highly classified document in their own words. It is reasonable to assume obfuscation is going on as you don't want to really mention what it exactly was just in case somebody doesn't know what they have. For example, I don't think they would announce that there were two attachments that were really compromising. If it was just discussions tangential to a TS subject, I would have expected some wording like "discuss the circumstances surrounding TS subjects". Conversations like "I will talk to J. about the meeting tomorrow, and gain his views in regards to the subject at hand."

Why would he say "Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent" if it didn't actually contain TS information?

Also Comey said:

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

So there were documents with the markings there apparently.

Edit: Added another quote

[xwraith]

Well, she was chastised in front of the press today. But my problem is with folks who are calling for her to be tried for treason .... The two aforementioned military men weren't.

For what it's worth I don't think she was attempting to commit treason. After all she could have put *more* TS material out there for the world to read and there are probably less visible ways to betray your country. No, just a reckless arrogance that crosses the line into criminality. I think gross negligence was mentioned previously; that would also apply.

[Smutly]

At worst she's a liar who believes the rules don't apply to her and she willfully circumvented the Freedom of Information Act. At best she and her staff are unbelievably incompetent and do not inspire confidence. Either way, she sucks.

Comey lost his nerve. Loretta Lynch should have been allowed to do her job instead of Bill Clinton putting indirect pressure on Comey when Lynch made her statement that she would support whatever recommendations come. Very laudable of Lynch, but still very fucked up.

[hepcat]

And yet she's still the best choice we have.

[msduncan]

FBI rewrites federal law

Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

[Zarathud]

Are you (or the author of the article) a lawyer who spent months looking at the entirety of the law and the available evidence to convict if a case was brought against Hillary Clinton? No.

Of course, you're not someone who wrote that the the practice of waterboarding wasn't necessarily torture, President Barack Obama was secretly a personally radicalized, America-hating leftist and closet Sharia Muslim who wasn't serious about protecting US national security against threats from radical Islam, and that there was sufficient evidence in 2014 to impeach Obama for "willfully subverting the separation of powers." That was the author of the linked National Review article, McCarthy, whose professional opinion isn't worth a piss pot.

[Smutly]

And yet she's still the best choice we have.

I'm undecided, but it is extremely unlikely that she will get my vote.

[Fitzy]

Outside of the IT people here, how many of us have much knowledge of what really goes on when we send an email.

I suspect the reason the FBI is saying there is no case against Hilary Clinton, is because she literally didn't know what was going on.

Maybe I'm way off, but the only email that seems to suggest a motive is where she says she doesn't want her personal email available to be seen. Somehow this resulted in an email server in her house.

In order to hold her criminally responsible your have to believe she knew what an email server was. I think that's a huge stretch.

The issue of whether classified information was passed through the server should be minor. Again I'm speculating, but I suspect she had little or nothing to do with it beyond vague suggestions of what she wanted. And the government classifies way too much. The bigger issues should be that she intentionally seems to have bypassed the FOIA and that there was a systemic failure at State to inform her that this setup was problematic.

One brings serious up serious questions about her commitment to an open government. The other brings up serious questions about her judgement in the people around her.

Worse still, the political game will yet again allow this to continue. Ignoring the people involved, the State Department has a flaw. One they will have to ignore because to admit it means bringing down the wrath of the other party. A functional government could work together with Congress and both parties to ensure this doesn't happen again. Our adversarial government ensures it will.

[msduncan]

Outside of the IT people here, how many of us have much knowledge of what really goes on when we send an email.

I suspect the reason the FBI is saying there is no case against Hilary Clinton, is because she literally didn't know what was going on.

Maybe I'm way off, but the only email that seems to suggest a motive is where she says she doesn't want her personal email available to be seen. Somehow this resulted in an email server in her house.

In order to hold her criminally responsible your have to believe she knew what an email server was. I think that's a huge stretch.

The issue of whether classified information was passed through the server should be minor. Again I'm speculating, but I suspect she had little or nothing to do with it beyond vague suggestions of what she wanted. And the government classifies way too much. The bigger issues should be that she intentionally seems to have bypassed the FOIA and that there was a systemic failure at State to inform her that this setup was problematic.

One brings serious up serious questions about her commitment to an open government. The other brings up serious questions about her judgement in the people around her.

Worse still, the political game will yet again allow this to continue. Ignoring the people involved, the State Department has a flaw. One they will have to ignore because to admit it means bringing down the wrath of the other party. A functional government could work together with Congress and both parties to ensure this doesn't happen again. Our adversarial government ensures it will.

Again, if my wife exposed not-for-public emails on her job she would be fired. If she exposed, transferred, or made available classified emails she'd be in prison.

But she's a peasant. Not a Clinton. Let them eat cake.

[GreenGoo]

At almost at the stage where I'm like "fuck it, let them elect Trump. Reap what you sow". It's been fun watching the Brexit Leavers mill around without a clue what to do now that they got what they wanted, and it'll be just a fun to see a counterfeit watch street hustler try to run the most powerful nation in the world while everyone mills about wondering why the economy has taken a nosedive and all their allies aren't playing as nice as they're used to.

Unfortunately, unlike the Brexit, my country is likely to suffer along with you so I sure wish you'd get your heads out of your collective asses.

[GreenGoo]

Again, if my wife exposed not-for-public emails on her job she would be fired. If she exposed, transferred, or made available classified emails she'd be in prison.

But she's a peasant. Not a Clinton. Let them eat cake.

As was pointed out by both right and left leaning people in this thread, people have done worse and escaped prison. Even low down dirty peasants. I'm not sure why you think your wife would get special treatment.

With multiple examples of other high level government officials doing all sorts of stupid shit, including using hotmail and/or gmail, singling Hillary out as the anti-christ is clearly partisan. I've agreed since day one that what she did was wrong and completely inappropriate. The difference is I'm not looking for a reason to burn her at the stake.

[Smoove_B]

As was pointed out by both right and left leaning people in this thread, people have done worse and escaped prison. Even low down dirty peasants. I'm not sure why you think your wife would get special treatment.

Right, but none of those people are his wife.

From February of this year:

The truth couldn’t be plainer: The private-email problem is not a Hillary Clinton problem. It’s a governmentwide problem that’s existed since the advent of email itself,” the statement read.

I've worked for local and county level government. The shenanigans I've seen that go on with electronic files was (is?) shameful. My current employer is bound by FERPA and I have superiors using my personal email address instead of the work email address my employer provided to me. There go my aspirations at being President...

[Pyperkub]

Outside of the IT people here, how many of us have much knowledge of what really goes on when we send an email.

I suspect the reason the FBI is saying there is no case against Hilary Clinton, is because she literally didn't know what was going on.

Maybe I'm way off, but the only email that seems to suggest a motive is where she says she doesn't want her personal email available to be seen. Somehow this resulted in an email server in her house.

In order to hold her criminally responsible your have to believe she knew what an email server was. I think that's a huge stretch.

The issue of whether classified information was passed through the server should be minor. Again I'm speculating, but I suspect she had little or nothing to do with it beyond vague suggestions of what she wanted. And the government classifies way too much. The bigger issues should be that she intentionally seems to have bypassed the FOIA and that there was a systemic failure at State to inform her that this setup was problematic.

One brings serious up serious questions about her commitment to an open government. The other brings up serious questions about her judgement in the people around her.

Worse still, the political game will yet again allow this to continue. Ignoring the people involved, the State Department has a flaw. One they will have to ignore because to admit it means bringing down the wrath of the other party. A functional government could work together with Congress and both parties to ensure this doesn't happen again. Our adversarial government ensures it will.

Again, if my wife exposed not-for-public emails on her job she would be fired. If she exposed, transferred, or made available classified emails she'd be in prison.

But she's a peasant. Not a Clinton. Let them eat cake.

Is your wife the CEO, or at least top level management?

[Unagi]

dude, I'm sure it was hard enough for him to say the first time... Don't make him say it again. He married a peasant, OK?

[pr0ner]

And yet she's still the best choice we have.

I disagree with that. Which is why I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

[hepcat]

Sorry, I should have said best choice of those who have a chance.

[Grifman]

And how much prison time did he do?

Does it matter?

He got two years probation just like Petraeus, a fine, and his security clearance permanently revoked.

He had to be held accountable, why shouldn't she?

Well, she was chastised in front of the press today. But my problem is with folks who are calling for her to be tried for treason (Trump already said it a while back...and facebook is full of idiots echoing it today). The two aforementioned military men weren't.

The treason thing is just stoopid. Exactly who is she committing treason with? You have to have a third party for treason. I see the same stoopid stuff on Facebook with people calling for Obama to be tried for treason, I guess because he's a Muslim and has issued orders that have resulted in our air force killing 10,000 to 20,000 ISIS members, duh!?

[RunningMn9]

Again, if my wife exposed not-for-public emails on her job she would be fired. If she exposed, transferred, or made available classified emails she'd be in prison.

But she's a peasant. Not a Clinton. Let them eat cake.

And again, no, it doesn't work like that. She *might* be fired. Unless she willfully exposed classified information with intent, it is very unlikely that she would go to prison. If she's a contract employee, firing is much more likely. But an actual govt employee? Far less likely.

I've seen spillage occur. People weren't automatically sent to prison, or fired.

How did the classified information get on Clinton's private email server? Did she send it to herself?

[Rip]

The more I think about it this may have been the best possible outcome. As pointed out well here this doesn't exactly read positively for her.

I may be alone in saying this, but when the proverbial dust settles, James Comey may have hurt Hillary Clinton more than he helped her in his statement Tuesday concerning the Grand Email Controversy. He may have let her off the hook legally, but personally he has left the putative Democratic candidate scarred almost beyond recognition.

By getting out in front of the Justice Department, the FBI director, speaking publicly in an admittedly unusual fashion, was able to frame the case in a manner that Attorney General Loretta Lynch in all probability never would have.

Read this portion of Comey's transcript and ask yourself how this person (Clinton) could ever serve successfully as president of the United States:

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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination 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. We do not see those things here.

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.

Look at that last paragraph again, because, if the Republicans have any brains at all, they will be quoting it ad infinitum. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." What Comey is clearly saying (and leaving for us to "decide now") is that--whether you agree with his decision not to indict or no (I don't)—in a normal, real-world situation Clinton would face consequences, quite probably be demoted or even fired, certainly not promoted to the presidency of the United States, for what she did.

So if the alternative was to kick it to Lynch and have her find an excuse to not pursue it that would have no doubt been accompanied by a much more forgiving statement. If not she would have tanked the prosecution on purpose that would have resulted in Clinton being able to claim she was "exonerated".

Comey turned it into a chance to state the facts about as harshly as you could without actually indicting her. Now those statements of findings will pretty much stand as fact with the Clinton operatives preferring to move on rather than argue those details.

If not the smartest move for him to make probably the safest to insure the entire effort doesn't go for naught.

[pr0ner]

Sorry, I should have said best choice of those who have a chance.

It's unfortunate, but I have to agree with you there.

[hepcat]

I keep hoping I'll wake up one morning and Biden will be on the ticket.

[tru1cy]

And yet she's still the best choice we have.

I disagree with that. Which is why I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

He has no chance and I understand your sentiment as I don't like Hilary at all, but Trump is not the person I want with his "small hands" on the button.

[malchior]

That warms the heart - "You might not like her but at least she ain't Drumpf." I'm still trying to figure out how we live in a country of 300+ million people and the "best" we can serve up are these two? God-fucking-damn it is depressing.

[hepcat]

Half the population are angry at immigrants and minorities, the other half are angry at that half. I think this is how Rome fell...

[YellowKing]

What we really need is an alien invasion to unite humanity against a common enemy.

[Edit] I'm only half-kidding. Think about it - we no longer fear the Soviets, China still seems kind of a distant threat. Terrorism, OK sure, but it's not centralized enough. With no big threat to focus on, we turn on each other.

[The Meal]

What we really need is an alien invasion to unite humanity against a common enemy.

[Edit] I'm only half-kidding. Think about it - we no longer fear the Soviets, China still seems kind of a distant threat. Terrorism, OK sure, but it's not centralized enough. With no big threat to focus on, we turn on each other.

Maybe that's Trump's plan?

Oh, wait. Hillary is out in front of him there, too.

[tru1cy]

That warms the heart - "You might not like her but at least she ain't Drumpf." I'm still trying to figure out how we live in a country of 300+ million people and the "best" we can serve up are these two? God-fucking-damn it is depressing.

Easy two dominant parties that have made it extremely difficult for any other third party to compete.
Mass media that leans so heavily right or left that any inclination of compromise in politics is seen at total capitulation of the base value
PAC

These are the top three things that I see wrong with our system. but yes, between Hilary and Trump she will get my vote cause she at least has the qualification for leadership. Trump not so much and the GOP should be ashamed for not stomping him in the ground before it got to this point. Kaisch would have been a much better pick and as a moderate Dem I could see me voting for him over Hilary

[Scoop20906]

That warms the heart - "You might not like her but at least she ain't Drumpf." I'm still trying to figure out how we live in a country of 300+ million people and the "best" we can serve up are these two? God-fucking-damn it is depressing.

Easy two dominant parties that have made it extremely difficult for any other third party to compete.
Mass media that leans so heavily right or left that any inclination of compromise in politics is seen at total capitulation of the base value
PAC

These are the top three things that I see wrong with our system. but yes, between Hilary and Trump she will get my vote cause she at least has the qualification for leadership. Trump not so much and the GOP should be ashamed for not stomping him in the ground before it got to this point. Kaisch would have been a much better pick and as a moderate Dem I could see me voting for him over Hilary

This makes sense to me and might explain why Trump was able to hijack the Republican system because he was able to tap into people's frustration with the main parties nominations over the last decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk