23 ms·

FBI Statement on Clinton Email System

197 points by whatok 10y ago

Sakes 10y ago
While I'm not happy about this outcome, at least it is consistent with the way that I assume our government/legal system operates.
wilkystyle 10y ago
"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." In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you can, too."
- koolba 10y ago
  > In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you can, too." Seems like that's reinforced by this line as well (emphasis mine): >> 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.
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    >> how similar situations have been handled in the past Has there been anything like this before? If I work for the government and forward confidential and secret emails through to a server I'm running myself I imagine I'd have criminal proceedings against me.
    - adrenalinelol 10y ago
      Go get some political connections and/or $$ in order to join the next tier of our justice system.
    - cylinder 10y ago
      Petreaus was just in "similar circumstances" and was sanctioned and fined.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Petraeus worked for Defense, not State.
        sbuttgereit 10y ago
        Actually, by the time they went after him, he had retired from the DoD and was the Director of the CIA, a civilian agency.
    - jrs235 10y ago
      I believe yes. Similar things occurred with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The precedent being set is: if you're a government officer or official, you're exempt from the law. And even though that may not be the full truth, its the perception that the public is picking up on and it's very bad to be occurring. Depending on who you are, who your friends are, and who you know, if you have the connections you can rest not having to know the law(s). You and I? We must always be on alert, vigilant, and know all the laws at all times lest we be prosecuted. No wonder trust in government is eroding. We need to either a) actually enforce the laws on the books or b) remove the laws from the books we don't intend to faithfully enforce. Selective enforcement is a tragedy.
      - gallonofmilk 10y ago
        eww this really makes me despise her
      - basch 10y ago
- shawn-butler 10y ago
  Honestly that paragraph is the biggest WTF I have read in like six months. Who approves this nonsense? This statement, his bald-faced lies to Congress during the Apple unlock testimony. We (as in, We, the People) need a housecleaning at the FBI and we need it fast. We have always had a two-tiered justice system and advocates working against it, but if it becomes accepted as fact like this, how can the public keep faith?
  - weberc2 10y ago
    If Hillary is elected, I'll be particularly interested in her posture regarding FBI surveillance activities. I would be surprised if she didn't go to bat for them.
    - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
      Heh, yeah. Everyone knows nothing is going to change in this regard. I mean, she already thinks silicon valley can make strong encryption with backdoors. This is '...what [she's] heard. Let's leave it at that." Edit: Please, nobody misconstrue what I wrote as me supporting either party. I personally think, given the two candidates we have to choose from, that the U.S. is in a world of hurt.
    - padobson 10y ago
      This is the best argument I've heard to vote for Trump.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you can, too." Yeah, the whole statement had bits like that thrown in and its a terrifying example of corruption simply because its basically an admission: A) Clinton gets special treatment because she is politically popular. B) She stands a good chance of being President solely because A shields her from any criminal charges that would be leveled against someone without A. A shouldn't happen and the fact it leads to B is horrifying because its clear the political class, wealthy class will always receive special treatment unless there is a landslide rebellion that blocks her from the Presidency.
  - amyjess 10y ago
    The alternative is that "prosecute Clinton" is basically synonymous with "use FBI and DOJ resources to put Trump in the White House". Taking out a major-party presidential candidate during the general election season is going to have very unfortunate implications for the way US politics works. Just imagine in 2020, when President Trump decides to have his re-election opponent investigated and orders an indictment during the general election season. Except that in 2020, it will be a targeted removal and not simply a coincidence. I don't want to live in that world, and indicting Clinton now will lead to that world.
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      > The alternative is that "prosecute Clinton" is basically synonymous with "use FBI and DOJ resources to put Trump in the White House". > Taking out a major-party presidential candidate during the general election season is going to have very unfortunate implications for the way US politics works. Just imagine in 2020, when President Trump decides to have his re-election opponent investigated and orders an indictment during the general election season. Except that in 2020, it will be a targeted removal and not simply a coincidence. I don't want to live in that world, and indicting Clinton now will lead to that world. Bullshit. You just have someone else run for the Democrats. The General isn't until after the Convention (which hasn't happened and wouldn't until 7/25, fyi) and they could have just said someone being indict'd was too much risk and they'd have to go with someone else. I think this represents ignorance on the way the system actually works. (i.e. She isn't officially a general election candidate until the Convention, merely the presumptive nominee until that point. )
- chasing 10y ago
  That is not at all what that paragraph means. It means: Although we recommend against criminal prosecution, we're not saying that this won't warrant some kind of sanctions. But this document is discussion criminal prosecution only, so we're not going to comment on or make a decision about what those sanctions might be. I suspect they're saying that because those sanctions would come from other organizations and are not a part of the FBI's purview. They are not saying "Hillary gets away with it, but you won't!"
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Exactly. In fact he seems to be recommending some kind of sanctions would be appropriate and deserved. Those won't be forthcoming, however, as she currently is not employed and so the only ramifications will be political blowback. In other words, politicians don't have the same career consequences for these types of things due to the transience of their postings.
    - fulldecent 10y ago
      To clarify, TS and TS//SCI clearances do not end the day you leave office, and your NDA still continues to apply. I have not read the law that discusses whether a person in this situation is eligible to be stripped of clearance.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        This is my understanding as well, but I've also read that the security clearance system does not apply at all once you become POTUS. Should be interesting whether she is cleared for the security briefings while running for President, though.
        rdtsc 10y ago
        Interesting. And since she then becomes the head of the Executive branch, won't she technically be the boss of most of the apparatus that should supposedly be prosecuting her (DOJ, FBI, etc). Nobody will want to end up on that side of the table, so at this stage in the presidential race, everyone will be extremely careful and linient, trying to deflect responsability for tough decisions to someone else. I don't think short of impeachment, there is any mechanism to prosecute a President, or is there?
- davidw 10y ago
  What it means is that it would be a firing offense at a lot of companies, but it's not a criminal offense. But this is politics through and through, so I flagged the article in any case.
- jusben1369 10y ago
  My take, and I could be wrong, was "We were looking at criminal charges via the legal system. There are other forms of (less severe) punishment like security and administrative sanctions that are often applied."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- egl2015 10y ago
  <humor>Why so much hatin' here? I thought the HN crowd would love someone who had their own email server.</humor>
  - weberc2 10y ago
    Hillary probably lost HN support when it became apparent that her security policy was "Oh shit, we're under attack. Shut it off and hope they don't try again tomorrow." ;)
  - buckbova 10y ago
    Like 2 years ago there was something on the front page daily about running your own email server. Obviously if you are of .gov employ, you should not do this. I do have my own email server, cloud server, etc hosted on DO and don't work for the government. But I have two phones, one for work and one for personal and do not mix work/personal data. Relevant mail-in-a-box link https://mailinabox.email/ https://mailinabox.email/
  - aggieben 10y ago
    I think Hillary is better suited for jail than the White House, but +1 for a chuckle anyway :-)
- aamar 10y ago
  "Security or administrative sanctions": presumably things like: lose your security clearance for X months or until you complete Y training/attestations. He's implying that HRC could face those sanctions still. In some sense mooted by her not being at State at the moment. On the other hand, could be interesting to walk into the presidency having security clearance issues. (Not to say that that would necessarily be a big deal.)
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Probably right, but a more charitable interpretation would be "If Mrs. Clinton were still working as Secretary, security or administrative sanctions would be appropriate, but her actions do not rise to the level of a prosecutable criminal offense."
jswny 10y ago
It seems to me like Comey is basically saying that the FBI does not believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that Clinton's intent was to violate the law. Therefore, regardless of the effects of her actions which might have had consequences in a different context, the evidence is not substantial enough to prosecute her.
- piker 10y ago
  There's no question she intended to use a personal email server to exchange classified information--that's the violation of law.
  - angelbob 10y ago
    Right, but they need criminal or treasonous intent, or gross negligence. "Broke the law" isn't enough, in the same way that old jaywalking charges don't generally get brought up against you, even if somebody can prove it with security camera footage. The bar gets higher when you're digging up old stuff.
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    Not only that, but there is mountains of evidence that she deleted emails that should have been turned over to the state. In the Judicial Watch case there's been plenty of emails attached to deposition's that weren't included in the public email release, so unless they simply "forgot" to release these emails or they were some of the few that were withheld due to containing "confidential" information then she deliberately worked to withhold these emails, who knows what else she considered "personal" and decided to not turn over to the State Department. "I'm the most transparent person I know how to be", well, just because frosted glass is semi-transparent doesn't mean it does a good job at it.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  He is saying more than that though: 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. You've listed one thing she didn't do, he's actually listed 4 different things that have previously resulted in a recommendation to prosecute that she didn't do, deliberate intent/wilfulness, scope of breach, obvious disloyalty or a subsequent attempt at coverup.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
equivocates 10y ago
TL;DR: She was careless, not criminal.
- jrs235 10y ago
  I tend to think she was/is cunning.
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    Contrasting the fall out from her actions compared to whatever possible gains from using private email servers, I don't see how to describe this whole fiasco as "cunning". She may still be elected, but this is making her campaign more difficult than it needed to be, even if she is not prosecuted.
  - DKnoll3 10y ago
    Yes, clever as a fox for running a wildly insecure server that foreign nations could spy on her from, in order to dodge FOIA.
- talmand 10y ago
  In some cases being careless is criminal.
- DKnoll3 10y ago
  I hope you never have to experience a loss because of carelessness.
  - malz 10y ago
    I certainly have. Who has experienced a loss due to HRC's email policy? I'm just curious. I mean, Benghazi had clear losses, but no firm cause that pointed to her negligence. Then we have emails with clear negligence but no obvious adverse consequence. Guess we luck out either way.
  - equivocates 10y ago
    I hope so too.
sverige 10y ago
Did anyone really believe that the laws governing the handling of classified material applied to HRC? There was zero chance of an indictment. Snowden should be so lucky.
mindcrime 10y ago
So basically "the evidence says she broke the law, and we recommend no charges be filed". That makes perfect sense.
- kordless 10y ago
  Seems a good strategy. Given she wins, they can ask for things they want for themselves.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Yeah, I think you nailed it. It's just a little sad to be reminded, once again, how our legal system is hardly "blind" and unbiased. If you're a regular Joe (or Aaron Swartz, or Weev, etc.) you get the book thrown at you and the keys to the jail buried somewhere... if your name is Clinton and you happen to be Secretary of State and candidate for President, you get a wink and nudge and another opening for more "smokey back room" deals. Of course, this story isn't completely over yet, and the Justice Department could still choose to file charges. But still... I think we can largely see the writing on the wall here.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      >Justice Department could still choose to file charges. Not a shadow of a chance
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  Since when did HN readers develop a problem with reading comprehension?
pgrote 10y ago
ThinkProgress posted an article attempting to explan why the bar is high in prosecuting: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-... "Yet, as ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase “relating to the national defense” to require “‘intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.’ This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.” That’s a high bar — there’s no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States."
- jusben1369 10y ago
  It feels like this was the bar: "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." Interestingly, those who are strongly opposed to HRC use the term "traitor" frequently. It'll be interesting to see if the more fringe elements pick up on "indications of disloyalty to the US" as the reason why they think this should be prosecuted.
  - Glyptodon 10y ago
    If there turns out to be corruption with the Clinton Foundation it seems like that'd be the case.
  - aggieben 10y ago
    I am strongly interesting in seeing her prosecuted less because of my political feelings, but more because I know without a shadow of a doubt that if I, as a person who once had to handle classified information, had done what she had done, I would have been promptly fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and probably then some). This gets at the root of the kind of unrest that has led to Trump: there is one set of rules for the elites, and another for the rest of us. There is nothing more un-American. P.S. - this is certainly not to say that Trump is or would be any better: he totally isn't. But this kind of phenomenon is partially to blame for the anger that has led to his candidacy.
tanderson92 10y ago
> 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. (emphasis mine) This seems like a clear contradiction of a common Clinton talking point, that none of the e-mails were classified at the time they were sent. Director Comey even goes so far as to use the same language the Clintons have been employing. Will we see a walk-back of that line in light of this?
- noobermin 10y ago
  When has Clinton ever flipped on an issue? cough
  - DKnoll3 10y ago
    Glad you asked! http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-cl... From one of her biggest supporters, no less!
- ZoF 10y ago
  No, there will just be: >I was cleared of any wrong-doing by the FBI >At this point does it even matter
- frankydp 10y ago
  The more interesting fact would be to know the Original Classification Authority for each of those emails. As the SoS is one of a very short list of authorities. I would find if difficult to believe that some of those if not most were actually originated at State. Also, the argument that the action was not knowing or purposeful, seems very unlikely give the fact that the vast majority of executive level State Department correspondence would be classified by authority.
abhi3 10y ago
Basically what FBI is saying is that she broke the law, compromised national security, could have been hacked by foreign actors but we don't have enough evidence that she did it intentionally so no charges! 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. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. 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. 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. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence 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.
- talmand 10y ago
  >> "could have been hacked by foreign actors" I think we're past that at this point.
basseq 10y ago
Of the 30,000 (plus more found by investigators), 8 email chains were Top Secret, 37 secret, and ~2,000 confidential (a vast majority of those upgraded after the fact). I'm actually surprised it's not more, but that's still ~10% of the volume.* (* It's hard to compare apples-to-apples with individual emails vs. threads.)
revelation 10y ago
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. I don't think that's how this works. Information is born classified.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  The only people who make a deal about "but they were retroactively classified!" never held or considered getting a security clearance. Documents can be retroactively marked if they weren't properly marked to begin with, but that doesn't mean they weren't classified the moment pen was put to paper. A original classifying authority like the SoS should know this and it is no excuse.
- talmand 10y ago
  Someone has to decide to make the information classified, it doesn't do so on its own. It's possible information can go through the chain all the way to the President before it's marked classified.
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    Sure, but the SoS is a classifying authority, it's not like this is some grunt in the army that doesn't have any ability to classify information. I'm not going to insinuate that there's no possibility at least some of this information could have slipped under the radar and had no reason to be classified at the time, but I'm not enough of a fool to believe that applies to every instance.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Some information is, but it's not a requirement; there's no law or rule that says information not born classified can't be made so after the fact - indeed, this happens with almost all classified information, after evaluation to determine an appropriate level of secrecy to be applied.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Not in the case of actual security classifications. Take the helicopters used in the Bin Laden raid. People knew of them in the 90s, that's when the stealth helicopter program they came from got started. Then it went silent. Why? Because they got picked up for these particular types of missions, and consequently their development and existence was kept classified. Undoubtedly, any internal documents about it at the time that could be collected and reclassified as Top Secret were. A lot of programs go this way. "Oh, hey, we have X, it's kind of cool" (Confidential or FOUO at that point). "Oh, that's actually really useful, stop telling anyone about it" (Secret or Top Secret, past documents reclassified).
skyheim 10y ago
"...a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." How, as a U.S. Federal employee, does someone (Hillary, an aide, an admin, etc...) see classified markings on an unclassified system and not get goosebumps in terror let alone consult proper authorities in or outside chain of command escapes me.
Glyptodon 10y ago
TLDR: "Gross Negligence, but no case." Yeah....
- zethraeus 10y ago
  They certainly did not say that there was 'gross negligence'. That would have meant a case.
- Bluestrike2 10y ago
  That's not at all what they said. They said "Clinton and her colleagues...were extremely careless." Gross negligence is a term of art with a very particular legal meaning, even if there's some vagaries in the case law. The two aren't the same. Gross negligence can include extreme carelessness, but it's generally accepted to go well beyond just that.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
From the U.S. Code, 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. EDIT: IANAL & this might not be the correct code, though I believe it is.
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  No mention of intent... But read section A, first line says it all. (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense;
ihsw 10y ago
> I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Maybe I'm being overly paranoid but he doesn't say the same thing about any of the other emails. Is it plausible that this is intentional? That other emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them?
dlandis 10y ago
> "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." That is arguably the most important part of the statement -- since it is the explanation for why they recommend no charges. But it is also unfortunately the most vague and weasely. It basically says there are "considerations" around intent, context, and similar cases -- but it doesn't say what those "considerations" are. Text book example of weasel words.
venomsnake 10y ago
The piece is brilliant. He is giving ammunition for thousand kill shots while recomending not procecuting her. Brilliant.
Dolores12 10y ago
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. (c)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
elgabogringo 10y ago
If this occurred under the Bush administration there would have been a special prosecutor. In fact, there was a SP for a much more minor issue. What we are witnessing is the dismantling of the rule of law. Obama has politicized every branch of the executive.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  This isn't even in the same ball park as the long list of war crimes committed by the Bush administration, committed with the full cooperation of the Justice department concocting tortured legal interpretations to condone them. Not justifying what's happening here, but Bush administration is very bad comparison if you are trying to show Obama breaking new ground in "dismantling the rule of law".
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    This is worse. This is a secretary of State hiding her correspondence from the american public (eg. FOIA requests), letting it get stolen by foreign governments, lying about it, colluding with an existing administration to avoid prosecution while running for president. Bush "war crimes" were not political in nature, were bipartisan (evidenced by how little has changed under Barack Obama), are subject to FOIA, and did not put state secrets at risk.
    - devinegan 10y ago
      Subject to FOIA? Not so fast... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
      - elgabogringo 10y ago
        Yes, so fast genius. Was there any war-crime suspected, accused, or even hinted here? No. The Hatch Act prohibits the use of government resources, including email accounts, for political purposes. The Bush administration stated the RNC accounts were used to prevent violation of this Act.[2][26]
rdtsc 10y ago
There is probably a conflict of interest here. If Clinton becomes President, won't anyone at the FBI involved in the investigation be subject to retaliation. It would be in the best interest to try to not advise her prosecution and instead suck up to the future President.
rdtsc 10y ago
Saw this post being "flagged", wonder why...
- beambot 10y ago
  @dang... what gives? This is definitely HN-worthy.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    What is HN-worthy is decided by HN users. They voted enough to flag it. Probably because there's not anything very interesting or valuable to discuss about it. It will either be an echo chamber or flame baiting.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatok 10y ago
    Looks like it got unflagged. Thanks to dang if he was the one who did it.
    - natmaster 10y ago
      Only cosmetic. It's nowhere on any actual page.
      - r721 10y ago
        "Most active current discussions" link is quite useful for finding big heated (possibly flagged) discussions like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active
- revelation 10y ago
  Excuse me while I step on my soapbox, but as more of an outside observer this particular issue has really demonstrated the extremely toxic political culture that results from the two party system in the US. So many reasonable people are very happy to simply brush this away out of some "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" primordial thinking.
Jemaclus 10y ago
I'm not too surprised in this outcome. It has nothing to do with Hillary being rich and famous and everything to do with her being a Presidential candidate, and the front-runner, to boot. Imagine this scenario: The FBI indicts Hillary. The trial itself would derail the election cycle, and there would be a fantastic chance that it costs Hillary either the nomination or the general election. Then further imagine that the FBI fails to convict her through a jury -- or even if they did convict her, imagine one of the upper courts overturns on appeal. The FBI would have accused (indicted) a front-runner presidential candidate and destroyed her chance at winning... only to fail to convict. That would not only unfairly destroy a found-not-guilty Clinton's presidential ambitions, but it would obliterate any trust in the FBI to remain, at least to the public eye, apolitical. There's a reason the Attorney General passed the buck, and there's a reason Director Comey declined to recommend charges, and it's this: this is not a slam-dunk case. She may very well be guilty, but for Hillary Clinton, front-runner for the national election for President, the standard of proof is so high that there must be a 100% guarantee of conviction for the FBI to bring forth charges. Yes, if a normal person had done these things, they would be charged. But if a normal person had allegedly done these things, been indicted by the FBI, and then found innocent, the nation-wide and political trust in the FBI wouldn't go completely down the drain. In all likelihood, a normal person would settle out of court -- something that's not in Hillary's best interest. She needs to be found not-guilty to be President, and settling out of court would look guilty, so they'd go to trial -- again, there's a non-trivial chance that she'd be found "not guilty" by the jury, and the FBI can't risk that in such a high-profile case with such disastrous consequences. So again, this isn't super surprising when you think about the consequences of indicting Hillary but failing to secure a conviction. The risk to the American legal system just isn't worth it over a couple of emails. With that in mind, this isn't necessarily Comey declining to charge Clinton; this is Comey passing the buck to the Senate. Now, once she's a sitting President, the Senate can impeach her, and we're in different territory. The Senate is supposed to be political in ways that the FBI is not. TL;DR The problem isn't that she didn't commit enough of a crime to indict, the problem is that it isn't a guaranteed SLAM DUNK case, and since that's true, it's TOO RISKY to the election cycle and legal system to indict her.
- amyjess 10y ago
chris11 10y ago
Out of curiosity, do people think that Comey made this recommendation based on politics? This report definitely proves that this scandal is serious. But I can't really think of any reason that I would find this report to be more credible from someone else. I'd expect that if this was a political investigation, that the recommendation would fall along party lines. But Comey is a Republican. I've heard that there is some personal animosity between the Clintons and Comey. And Comey has a reputation of being highly principled. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-should-be-terrified-that-jim-comey-is-investigating-her-email-crimes/ http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-should... (I don't normally read the blaze, but it does show what right-wing conservatives thought about Comey.) I definitely see how it could appear that Clinton was treated differently than other people, Comey admits that people would face administrative consequences for her actions and explains that away by saying the investigation was criminal and not administrative. But I think that Comey would have delivered a recommendation to prosecute if he believed that was the best decision.
- mordocai 10y ago
  My guess is it was as a political decision but not in the way you discuss. I would guess Comey knows that Clinton, due to being Clinton, would not be successfully prosecuted, so decided not to recommend prosecution and waste further resources on it.
  - Upvoter33 10y ago
    yes, because repubs have been really good at avoiding waste in the prosecution of HRC...
    - mordocai 10y ago
      Yes, many politicians in general like to waste government resources on all kinds of things(republicans, democrats, and third parties). That doesn't have any relevancy to whether or not Cromey specifically is doing it to avoid waste.
jff 10y ago
Well, the post's been flagged--into the memory hole with it!
marcusgarvey 10y ago
>there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. >Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way What is the difference between "extremely careless", which he says she was, and "grossly negligent", which he implies she wasn't?
fulldecent 10y ago
This is the statement of the FBI and I respect the finality of their recommendation that comes with this letter and the authority of the person making the recommendation. If there is to be any debate against this outcome it shall be from a successful attack on one of the premises: * "... we cannot find a case that would support... " is a very strong statement. A single court proceeding meeting that criteria could invalidate Comey's recommendation. * Emails were deleted before State gave them to FBI. If a single email between Clinton and an aid related to "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information" this could change the outcome. NSA and adversary's signal collections may have a copy of such an email. A leak may change Comey's decision. * FBI was not given full access to Clinton's emails (they were whitelist-filtered first) and Comey does not believe this counts as "[effort] to obstruct justice". Another case which found "efforts to obstruct justice" based on a similar action could invalidate his reasoning. * "But that is not what we are deciding now." If there is any case of DOJ prosecution resulting in "security or administrative sanctions" then it would invalidate Comey's stance that "no charges are appropriate in this case".
bargl 10y ago
Why is this dead? This is relevant information directly from the source. Isn't this the kind of information that should be on the front page?
- natmaster 10y ago
  One can only assume, but PG is a big supporter of Hillary, and so is @dang.
  - bargl 10y ago
    I like this post over the others because it is an "unbiased" source of information about the case. In that it is a statement directly from the investigation authority. Most news sources only provide sound bites from this and include a spin. However, this statement can be read either way based on how you feel. In a conversation with my dad I stated that all emails were classified after the fact, I now know better. I sent it to him for two reasons, 1) because he never seeks out sources 2) because it shows that I was wrong, but includes the full context for him. He will still think she is a criminal, and that the FBI should prosecute but now he'll know why. I wish there was a way to "antiflag" a post that's being moderated to death.

197 points by whatok 10y ago

Sakes 10y ago

While I'm not happy about this outcome, at least it is consistent with the way that I assume our government/legal system operates.

wilkystyle 10y ago

"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." In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you can, too."

koolba 10y ago
> In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you can, too." Seems like that's reinforced by this line as well (emphasis mine): >> 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.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  >> how similar situations have been handled in the past Has there been anything like this before? If I work for the government and forward confidential and secret emails through to a server I'm running myself I imagine I'd have criminal proceedings against me.
  - adrenalinelol 10y ago
    Go get some political connections and/or $$ in order to join the next tier of our justice system.
  - cylinder 10y ago
    Petreaus was just in "similar circumstances" and was sanctioned and fined.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Petraeus worked for Defense, not State.
      - sbuttgereit 10y ago
        Actually, by the time they went after him, he had retired from the DoD and was the Director of the CIA, a civilian agency.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    I believe yes. Similar things occurred with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The precedent being set is: if you're a government officer or official, you're exempt from the law. And even though that may not be the full truth, its the perception that the public is picking up on and it's very bad to be occurring. Depending on who you are, who your friends are, and who you know, if you have the connections you can rest not having to know the law(s). You and I? We must always be on alert, vigilant, and know all the laws at all times lest we be prosecuted. No wonder trust in government is eroding. We need to either a) actually enforce the laws on the books or b) remove the laws from the books we don't intend to faithfully enforce. Selective enforcement is a tragedy.
    - gallonofmilk 10y ago
      eww this really makes me despise her
    - basch 10y ago
shawn-butler 10y ago
Honestly that paragraph is the biggest WTF I have read in like six months. Who approves this nonsense? This statement, his bald-faced lies to Congress during the Apple unlock testimony. We (as in, We, the People) need a housecleaning at the FBI and we need it fast. We have always had a two-tiered justice system and advocates working against it, but if it becomes accepted as fact like this, how can the public keep faith?
- weberc2 10y ago
  If Hillary is elected, I'll be particularly interested in her posture regarding FBI surveillance activities. I would be surprised if she didn't go to bat for them.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    Heh, yeah. Everyone knows nothing is going to change in this regard. I mean, she already thinks silicon valley can make strong encryption with backdoors. This is '...what [she's] heard. Let's leave it at that." Edit: Please, nobody misconstrue what I wrote as me supporting either party. I personally think, given the two candidates we have to choose from, that the U.S. is in a world of hurt.
  - padobson 10y ago
    This is the best argument I've heard to vote for Trump.
fweespeech 10y ago
> In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you can, too." Yeah, the whole statement had bits like that thrown in and its a terrifying example of corruption simply because its basically an admission: A) Clinton gets special treatment because she is politically popular. B) She stands a good chance of being President solely because A shields her from any criminal charges that would be leveled against someone without A. A shouldn't happen and the fact it leads to B is horrifying because its clear the political class, wealthy class will always receive special treatment unless there is a landslide rebellion that blocks her from the Presidency.
- amyjess 10y ago
  The alternative is that "prosecute Clinton" is basically synonymous with "use FBI and DOJ resources to put Trump in the White House". Taking out a major-party presidential candidate during the general election season is going to have very unfortunate implications for the way US politics works. Just imagine in 2020, when President Trump decides to have his re-election opponent investigated and orders an indictment during the general election season. Except that in 2020, it will be a targeted removal and not simply a coincidence. I don't want to live in that world, and indicting Clinton now will lead to that world.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > The alternative is that "prosecute Clinton" is basically synonymous with "use FBI and DOJ resources to put Trump in the White House". > Taking out a major-party presidential candidate during the general election season is going to have very unfortunate implications for the way US politics works. Just imagine in 2020, when President Trump decides to have his re-election opponent investigated and orders an indictment during the general election season. Except that in 2020, it will be a targeted removal and not simply a coincidence. I don't want to live in that world, and indicting Clinton now will lead to that world. Bullshit. You just have someone else run for the Democrats. The General isn't until after the Convention (which hasn't happened and wouldn't until 7/25, fyi) and they could have just said someone being indict'd was too much risk and they'd have to go with someone else. I think this represents ignorance on the way the system actually works. (i.e. She isn't officially a general election candidate until the Convention, merely the presumptive nominee until that point. )
chasing 10y ago
That is not at all what that paragraph means. It means: Although we recommend against criminal prosecution, we're not saying that this won't warrant some kind of sanctions. But this document is discussion criminal prosecution only, so we're not going to comment on or make a decision about what those sanctions might be. I suspect they're saying that because those sanctions would come from other organizations and are not a part of the FBI's purview. They are not saying "Hillary gets away with it, but you won't!"
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Exactly. In fact he seems to be recommending some kind of sanctions would be appropriate and deserved. Those won't be forthcoming, however, as she currently is not employed and so the only ramifications will be political blowback. In other words, politicians don't have the same career consequences for these types of things due to the transience of their postings.
  - fulldecent 10y ago
    To clarify, TS and TS//SCI clearances do not end the day you leave office, and your NDA still continues to apply. I have not read the law that discusses whether a person in this situation is eligible to be stripped of clearance.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      This is my understanding as well, but I've also read that the security clearance system does not apply at all once you become POTUS. Should be interesting whether she is cleared for the security briefings while running for President, though.
      - rdtsc 10y ago
        Interesting. And since she then becomes the head of the Executive branch, won't she technically be the boss of most of the apparatus that should supposedly be prosecuting her (DOJ, FBI, etc). Nobody will want to end up on that side of the table, so at this stage in the presidential race, everyone will be extremely careful and linient, trying to deflect responsability for tough decisions to someone else. I don't think short of impeachment, there is any mechanism to prosecute a President, or is there?
davidw 10y ago
What it means is that it would be a firing offense at a lot of companies, but it's not a criminal offense. But this is politics through and through, so I flagged the article in any case.
jusben1369 10y ago
My take, and I could be wrong, was "We were looking at criminal charges via the legal system. There are other forms of (less severe) punishment like security and administrative sanctions that are often applied."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
egl2015 10y ago
<humor>Why so much hatin' here? I thought the HN crowd would love someone who had their own email server.</humor>
- weberc2 10y ago
  Hillary probably lost HN support when it became apparent that her security policy was "Oh shit, we're under attack. Shut it off and hope they don't try again tomorrow." ;)
- buckbova 10y ago
  Like 2 years ago there was something on the front page daily about running your own email server. Obviously if you are of .gov employ, you should not do this. I do have my own email server, cloud server, etc hosted on DO and don't work for the government. But I have two phones, one for work and one for personal and do not mix work/personal data. Relevant mail-in-a-box link https://mailinabox.email/ https://mailinabox.email/
- aggieben 10y ago
  I think Hillary is better suited for jail than the White House, but +1 for a chuckle anyway :-)
aamar 10y ago
"Security or administrative sanctions": presumably things like: lose your security clearance for X months or until you complete Y training/attestations. He's implying that HRC could face those sanctions still. In some sense mooted by her not being at State at the moment. On the other hand, could be interesting to walk into the presidency having security clearance issues. (Not to say that that would necessarily be a big deal.)
jimbokun 10y ago
Probably right, but a more charitable interpretation would be "If Mrs. Clinton were still working as Secretary, security or administrative sanctions would be appropriate, but her actions do not rise to the level of a prosecutable criminal offense."

jswny 10y ago

It seems to me like Comey is basically saying that the FBI does not believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that Clinton's intent was to violate the law. Therefore, regardless of the effects of her actions which might have had consequences in a different context, the evidence is not substantial enough to prosecute her.

piker 10y ago
There's no question she intended to use a personal email server to exchange classified information--that's the violation of law.
- angelbob 10y ago
  Right, but they need criminal or treasonous intent, or gross negligence. "Broke the law" isn't enough, in the same way that old jaywalking charges don't generally get brought up against you, even if somebody can prove it with security camera footage. The bar gets higher when you're digging up old stuff.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Not only that, but there is mountains of evidence that she deleted emails that should have been turned over to the state. In the Judicial Watch case there's been plenty of emails attached to deposition's that weren't included in the public email release, so unless they simply "forgot" to release these emails or they were some of the few that were withheld due to containing "confidential" information then she deliberately worked to withhold these emails, who knows what else she considered "personal" and decided to not turn over to the State Department. "I'm the most transparent person I know how to be", well, just because frosted glass is semi-transparent doesn't mean it does a good job at it.
mattmanser 10y ago
He is saying more than that though: 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. You've listed one thing she didn't do, he's actually listed 4 different things that have previously resulted in a recommendation to prosecute that she didn't do, deliberate intent/wilfulness, scope of breach, obvious disloyalty or a subsequent attempt at coverup.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

equivocates 10y ago

TL;DR: She was careless, not criminal.

jrs235 10y ago
I tend to think she was/is cunning.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Contrasting the fall out from her actions compared to whatever possible gains from using private email servers, I don't see how to describe this whole fiasco as "cunning". She may still be elected, but this is making her campaign more difficult than it needed to be, even if she is not prosecuted.
- DKnoll3 10y ago
  Yes, clever as a fox for running a wildly insecure server that foreign nations could spy on her from, in order to dodge FOIA.
talmand 10y ago
In some cases being careless is criminal.
DKnoll3 10y ago
I hope you never have to experience a loss because of carelessness.
- malz 10y ago
  I certainly have. Who has experienced a loss due to HRC's email policy? I'm just curious. I mean, Benghazi had clear losses, but no firm cause that pointed to her negligence. Then we have emails with clear negligence but no obvious adverse consequence. Guess we luck out either way.
- equivocates 10y ago
  I hope so too.

sverige 10y ago

Did anyone really believe that the laws governing the handling of classified material applied to HRC? There was zero chance of an indictment. Snowden should be so lucky.

mindcrime 10y ago

So basically "the evidence says she broke the law, and we recommend no charges be filed". That makes perfect sense.

kordless 10y ago
Seems a good strategy. Given she wins, they can ask for things they want for themselves.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Yeah, I think you nailed it. It's just a little sad to be reminded, once again, how our legal system is hardly "blind" and unbiased. If you're a regular Joe (or Aaron Swartz, or Weev, etc.) you get the book thrown at you and the keys to the jail buried somewhere... if your name is Clinton and you happen to be Secretary of State and candidate for President, you get a wink and nudge and another opening for more "smokey back room" deals. Of course, this story isn't completely over yet, and the Justice Department could still choose to file charges. But still... I think we can largely see the writing on the wall here.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    >Justice Department could still choose to file charges. Not a shadow of a chance
hackinthebochs 10y ago
Since when did HN readers develop a problem with reading comprehension?

pgrote 10y ago

ThinkProgress posted an article attempting to explan why the bar is high in prosecuting: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-... "Yet, as ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase “relating to the national defense” to require “‘intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.’ This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.” That’s a high bar — there’s no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States."

jusben1369 10y ago
It feels like this was the bar: "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." Interestingly, those who are strongly opposed to HRC use the term "traitor" frequently. It'll be interesting to see if the more fringe elements pick up on "indications of disloyalty to the US" as the reason why they think this should be prosecuted.
- Glyptodon 10y ago
  If there turns out to be corruption with the Clinton Foundation it seems like that'd be the case.
- aggieben 10y ago
  I am strongly interesting in seeing her prosecuted less because of my political feelings, but more because I know without a shadow of a doubt that if I, as a person who once had to handle classified information, had done what she had done, I would have been promptly fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and probably then some). This gets at the root of the kind of unrest that has led to Trump: there is one set of rules for the elites, and another for the rest of us. There is nothing more un-American. P.S. - this is certainly not to say that Trump is or would be any better: he totally isn't. But this kind of phenomenon is partially to blame for the anger that has led to his candidacy.

tanderson92 10y ago

> 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. (emphasis mine) This seems like a clear contradiction of a common Clinton talking point, that none of the e-mails were classified at the time they were sent. Director Comey even goes so far as to use the same language the Clintons have been employing. Will we see a walk-back of that line in light of this?

noobermin 10y ago
When has Clinton ever flipped on an issue? cough
- DKnoll3 10y ago
  Glad you asked! http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-cl... From one of her biggest supporters, no less!
ZoF 10y ago
No, there will just be: >I was cleared of any wrong-doing by the FBI >At this point does it even matter
frankydp 10y ago
The more interesting fact would be to know the Original Classification Authority for each of those emails. As the SoS is one of a very short list of authorities. I would find if difficult to believe that some of those if not most were actually originated at State. Also, the argument that the action was not knowing or purposeful, seems very unlikely give the fact that the vast majority of executive level State Department correspondence would be classified by authority.

abhi3 10y ago

Basically what FBI is saying is that she broke the law, compromised national security, could have been hacked by foreign actors but we don't have enough evidence that she did it intentionally so no charges! 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. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. 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. 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. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence 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.

talmand 10y ago
>> "could have been hacked by foreign actors" I think we're past that at this point.

basseq 10y ago

Of the 30,000 (plus more found by investigators), 8 email chains were Top Secret, 37 secret, and ~2,000 confidential (a vast majority of those upgraded after the fact). I'm actually surprised it's not more, but that's still ~10% of the volume.* (* It's hard to compare apples-to-apples with individual emails vs. threads.)

revelation 10y ago

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. I don't think that's how this works. Information is born classified.

snuxoll 10y ago
The only people who make a deal about "but they were retroactively classified!" never held or considered getting a security clearance. Documents can be retroactively marked if they weren't properly marked to begin with, but that doesn't mean they weren't classified the moment pen was put to paper. A original classifying authority like the SoS should know this and it is no excuse.
talmand 10y ago
Someone has to decide to make the information classified, it doesn't do so on its own. It's possible information can go through the chain all the way to the President before it's marked classified.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Sure, but the SoS is a classifying authority, it's not like this is some grunt in the army that doesn't have any ability to classify information. I'm not going to insinuate that there's no possibility at least some of this information could have slipped under the radar and had no reason to be classified at the time, but I'm not enough of a fool to believe that applies to every instance.
throwanem 10y ago
Some information is, but it's not a requirement; there's no law or rule that says information not born classified can't be made so after the fact - indeed, this happens with almost all classified information, after evaluation to determine an appropriate level of secrecy to be applied.
Jtsummers 10y ago
Not in the case of actual security classifications. Take the helicopters used in the Bin Laden raid. People knew of them in the 90s, that's when the stealth helicopter program they came from got started. Then it went silent. Why? Because they got picked up for these particular types of missions, and consequently their development and existence was kept classified. Undoubtedly, any internal documents about it at the time that could be collected and reclassified as Top Secret were. A lot of programs go this way. "Oh, hey, we have X, it's kind of cool" (Confidential or FOUO at that point). "Oh, that's actually really useful, stop telling anyone about it" (Secret or Top Secret, past documents reclassified).

skyheim 10y ago

"...a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." How, as a U.S. Federal employee, does someone (Hillary, an aide, an admin, etc...) see classified markings on an unclassified system and not get goosebumps in terror let alone consult proper authorities in or outside chain of command escapes me.

Glyptodon 10y ago

TLDR: "Gross Negligence, but no case." Yeah....

zethraeus 10y ago
They certainly did not say that there was 'gross negligence'. That would have meant a case.
Bluestrike2 10y ago
That's not at all what they said. They said "Clinton and her colleagues...were extremely careless." Gross negligence is a term of art with a very particular legal meaning, even if there's some vagaries in the case law. The two aren't the same. Gross negligence can include extreme carelessness, but it's generally accepted to go well beyond just that.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

From the U.S. Code, 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. EDIT: IANAL & this might not be the correct code, though I believe it is.

jonwachob91 10y ago
No mention of intent... But read section A, first line says it all. (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense;

ihsw 10y ago

> I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Maybe I'm being overly paranoid but he doesn't say the same thing about any of the other emails. Is it plausible that this is intentional? That other emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them?

dlandis 10y ago

> "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." That is arguably the most important part of the statement -- since it is the explanation for why they recommend no charges. But it is also unfortunately the most vague and weasely. It basically says there are "considerations" around intent, context, and similar cases -- but it doesn't say what those "considerations" are. Text book example of weasel words.

venomsnake 10y ago

The piece is brilliant. He is giving ammunition for thousand kill shots while recomending not procecuting her. Brilliant.

Dolores12 10y ago

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. (c)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

elgabogringo 10y ago

If this occurred under the Bush administration there would have been a special prosecutor. In fact, there was a SP for a much more minor issue. What we are witnessing is the dismantling of the rule of law. Obama has politicized every branch of the executive.

jimbokun 10y ago
This isn't even in the same ball park as the long list of war crimes committed by the Bush administration, committed with the full cooperation of the Justice department concocting tortured legal interpretations to condone them. Not justifying what's happening here, but Bush administration is very bad comparison if you are trying to show Obama breaking new ground in "dismantling the rule of law".
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  This is worse. This is a secretary of State hiding her correspondence from the american public (eg. FOIA requests), letting it get stolen by foreign governments, lying about it, colluding with an existing administration to avoid prosecution while running for president. Bush "war crimes" were not political in nature, were bipartisan (evidenced by how little has changed under Barack Obama), are subject to FOIA, and did not put state secrets at risk.
  - devinegan 10y ago
    Subject to FOIA? Not so fast... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
    - elgabogringo 10y ago
      Yes, so fast genius. Was there any war-crime suspected, accused, or even hinted here? No. The Hatch Act prohibits the use of government resources, including email accounts, for political purposes. The Bush administration stated the RNC accounts were used to prevent violation of this Act.[2][26]

rdtsc 10y ago

There is probably a conflict of interest here. If Clinton becomes President, won't anyone at the FBI involved in the investigation be subject to retaliation. It would be in the best interest to try to not advise her prosecution and instead suck up to the future President.

rdtsc 10y ago

Saw this post being "flagged", wonder why...

beambot 10y ago
@dang... what gives? This is definitely HN-worthy.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  What is HN-worthy is decided by HN users. They voted enough to flag it. Probably because there's not anything very interesting or valuable to discuss about it. It will either be an echo chamber or flame baiting.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- whatok 10y ago
  Looks like it got unflagged. Thanks to dang if he was the one who did it.
  - natmaster 10y ago
    Only cosmetic. It's nowhere on any actual page.
    - r721 10y ago
      "Most active current discussions" link is quite useful for finding big heated (possibly flagged) discussions like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active
revelation 10y ago
Excuse me while I step on my soapbox, but as more of an outside observer this particular issue has really demonstrated the extremely toxic political culture that results from the two party system in the US. So many reasonable people are very happy to simply brush this away out of some "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" primordial thinking.

Jemaclus 10y ago

I'm not too surprised in this outcome. It has nothing to do with Hillary being rich and famous and everything to do with her being a Presidential candidate, and the front-runner, to boot. Imagine this scenario: The FBI indicts Hillary. The trial itself would derail the election cycle, and there would be a fantastic chance that it costs Hillary either the nomination or the general election. Then further imagine that the FBI fails to convict her through a jury -- or even if they did convict her, imagine one of the upper courts overturns on appeal. The FBI would have accused (indicted) a front-runner presidential candidate and destroyed her chance at winning... only to fail to convict. That would not only unfairly destroy a found-not-guilty Clinton's presidential ambitions, but it would obliterate any trust in the FBI to remain, at least to the public eye, apolitical. There's a reason the Attorney General passed the buck, and there's a reason Director Comey declined to recommend charges, and it's this: this is not a slam-dunk case. She may very well be guilty, but for Hillary Clinton, front-runner for the national election for President, the standard of proof is so high that there must be a 100% guarantee of conviction for the FBI to bring forth charges. Yes, if a normal person had done these things, they would be charged. But if a normal person had allegedly done these things, been indicted by the FBI, and then found innocent, the nation-wide and political trust in the FBI wouldn't go completely down the drain. In all likelihood, a normal person would settle out of court -- something that's not in Hillary's best interest. She needs to be found not-guilty to be President, and settling out of court would look guilty, so they'd go to trial -- again, there's a non-trivial chance that she'd be found "not guilty" by the jury, and the FBI can't risk that in such a high-profile case with such disastrous consequences. So again, this isn't super surprising when you think about the consequences of indicting Hillary but failing to secure a conviction. The risk to the American legal system just isn't worth it over a couple of emails. With that in mind, this isn't necessarily Comey declining to charge Clinton; this is Comey passing the buck to the Senate. Now, once she's a sitting President, the Senate can impeach her, and we're in different territory. The Senate is supposed to be political in ways that the FBI is not. TL;DR The problem isn't that she didn't commit enough of a crime to indict, the problem is that it isn't a guaranteed SLAM DUNK case, and since that's true, it's TOO RISKY to the election cycle and legal system to indict her.

amyjess 10y ago

chris11 10y ago

Out of curiosity, do people think that Comey made this recommendation based on politics? This report definitely proves that this scandal is serious. But I can't really think of any reason that I would find this report to be more credible from someone else. I'd expect that if this was a political investigation, that the recommendation would fall along party lines. But Comey is a Republican. I've heard that there is some personal animosity between the Clintons and Comey. And Comey has a reputation of being highly principled. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-should-be-terrified-that-jim-comey-is-investigating-her-email-crimes/ http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-should... (I don't normally read the blaze, but it does show what right-wing conservatives thought about Comey.) I definitely see how it could appear that Clinton was treated differently than other people, Comey admits that people would face administrative consequences for her actions and explains that away by saying the investigation was criminal and not administrative. But I think that Comey would have delivered a recommendation to prosecute if he believed that was the best decision.

mordocai 10y ago
My guess is it was as a political decision but not in the way you discuss. I would guess Comey knows that Clinton, due to being Clinton, would not be successfully prosecuted, so decided not to recommend prosecution and waste further resources on it.
- Upvoter33 10y ago
  yes, because repubs have been really good at avoiding waste in the prosecution of HRC...
  - mordocai 10y ago
    Yes, many politicians in general like to waste government resources on all kinds of things(republicans, democrats, and third parties). That doesn't have any relevancy to whether or not Cromey specifically is doing it to avoid waste.

jff 10y ago

Well, the post's been flagged--into the memory hole with it!

marcusgarvey 10y ago

>there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. >Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way What is the difference between "extremely careless", which he says she was, and "grossly negligent", which he implies she wasn't?

fulldecent 10y ago

This is the statement of the FBI and I respect the finality of their recommendation that comes with this letter and the authority of the person making the recommendation. If there is to be any debate against this outcome it shall be from a successful attack on one of the premises: * "... we cannot find a case that would support... " is a very strong statement. A single court proceeding meeting that criteria could invalidate Comey's recommendation. * Emails were deleted before State gave them to FBI. If a single email between Clinton and an aid related to "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information" this could change the outcome. NSA and adversary's signal collections may have a copy of such an email. A leak may change Comey's decision. * FBI was not given full access to Clinton's emails (they were whitelist-filtered first) and Comey does not believe this counts as "[effort] to obstruct justice". Another case which found "efforts to obstruct justice" based on a similar action could invalidate his reasoning. * "But that is not what we are deciding now." If there is any case of DOJ prosecution resulting in "security or administrative sanctions" then it would invalidate Comey's stance that "no charges are appropriate in this case".

bargl 10y ago

Why is this dead? This is relevant information directly from the source. Isn't this the kind of information that should be on the front page?

natmaster 10y ago
One can only assume, but PG is a big supporter of Hillary, and so is @dang.
- bargl 10y ago
  I like this post over the others because it is an "unbiased" source of information about the case. In that it is a statement directly from the investigation authority. Most news sources only provide sound bites from this and include a spin. However, this statement can be read either way based on how you feel. In a conversation with my dad I stated that all emails were classified after the fact, I now know better. I sent it to him for two reasons, 1) because he never seeks out sources 2) because it shows that I was wrong, but includes the full context for him. He will still think she is a criminal, and that the FBI should prosecute but now he'll know why. I wish there was a way to "antiflag" a post that's being moderated to death.