7 ms·

"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 ind

"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
      >Similar things occurred with Colin Powell not even close. he had a personal aol account he used to test internet connections abroad. he had separate classified and personal lines going into his office, connected to separate devices.
      - tzs 10y ago
        There was classified email in Powell's personal, non-classified email account [1] [2] [3]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-cla... [2] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes... [3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/...
        basch 10y ago
        there were two emails, sent to him, that were retroactively marked as classified. he personally reviewed them and said he has no idea why they are marked classified, and they shouldnt be. sounds like politics to me.
  - ryanczak 10y ago
    violating the terms of your security clearance agreement is not generally a criminal offense. You will almost certainly lose your clearance and your job but you have to have committed an actual crime to be prosecuted. If their is not evidence of classified material being leaked then there is no crime. My guess is that there is no evidence of a crime in this case. If she were still Sec. of State she would have bigger problems I imagine because she would lose her clearance at the very least and likely her job. Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president.
    - snuxoll 10y ago
      > Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president. Being elected POTUS automatically gives you the highest ranking clearance, end of discussion. You could have been a convicted felon with your security clearance stripped and no chance of getting it back, the moment you become POTUS all of that becomes irrelevant for your term.
    - beat 10y ago
      Indeed. If she were still SoS, she'd probably have to resign over this. But the idea that she could be denied a security clearance as president is kind of ludicrous - especially when you consider that the point of security clearance rules is not to protect the data, but rather to protect the nation. A president who couldn't see the data required to make sound decisions would be actively dangerous. It'd be like driving with a blindfold on. Of course, this won't make much of a difference to her partisan detractors. Haters gonna hate, and the email scandal is not so much reason as excuse for most of the people who already oppose her. But if she is elected, of course she'll get full presidential security clearance. To do otherwise is stupid. What matters most to me is that we make changes in both policy and process so this doesn't happen again - policy in that it becomes crystal clear that private email for public business is unacceptable, and process so that the "If you can do your job, we're not doing ours" vibe of the info security world doesn't make the Secretary of State (or anyone else) feel like they can't do their job properly using the official channels.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Get selected to be a Presidential nominee and that problem will just go away.
  - jonwachob91 10y ago
    I don't know about the exact situation, but plenty of times intelligence has been leaked accidentally. In fact, while I was in Military Intelligence we use to get regular briefings on call such and such number if you hear some dudes at the bar talking about classified information. I've had briefings on what to do if I discover classified material left at a bar. I've had a lot of briefings about classified material being leaked because something happened at a bar... It's a very real issue... It pretty much boils down to contact FBI CI (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence) or the CI agents on base (if it happened on a military instillation.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      And one of the big problems (doesn't seem to be the case here) is where aggregated information is at a higher [EDIT: classification] than individual pieces. For instance, you can know any two of the following and it might only be FOUO (for official use only): When a military deployment will happen Where it will be to Who will be going But all three, together, are considered classified. (Trivial case, usually not this small a data set, but this is the concept.) The result is that someone gets apparently safe information from several sources. They put this into a briefing, or talk about it at the bar. The accumulated information is now considered Confidential (or higher), but was developed entirely from non-Confidential (or higher) sources.
      - jonwachob91 10y ago
        >>When a military deployment will happen >>Where it will be to >>Who will be going Having all three aggregated is not classified, but it is critical information (AR530-1, para 1-5, section b(2) [1]). An entire deploying unit is given those 3 bits on information, but the entire unit rarely is 100% on security clearances. EXAMPLE: when 2BCT,25ID deployed in 2004 the entire unit was told when they were deploying and for how long, where they were going, and who units/personnel were going; everyone including that fresh 18y/o 11B PVT that graduated BCT 1 week prior were told. But yes I agree with you on the first statement about information aggregation. [1]https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    > 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. Unlikely. You would lose your job for sure, but typically for a criminal prosecution to result there has to be an element of willful unauthorized disclosure of classified info, or very high impact of the disclosure of classified info. In practice this means that the people who get prosecuted have almost always been people intentionally sharing secrets with foreign entities (spying). I only know of one case where charges were brought against someone who was not doing that. It was when the feds retaliated against Thomas Drake for whistleblowing against the NSA. Even then the charges got dropped.
    - steve_g 10y ago
      Kristian Saucier - https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier He took photos of a sub he was stationed on, apparently just for his own use, with no intention of "spying" He's going to jail for a few years.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Might want to edit that link to: https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier or flag it NSFW - when I clicked it, SafeSearch bounced me to the one I just posted. I'm actually at work, so don't intend to investigate, but my guess is "Kristen Saucier" is a different person in a different line of work.
        steve_g 10y ago
        Done - thanks.
      - GVIrish 10y ago
        In that situation, the military may sometimes be stricter than a civilian agency would be for the same infraction. Anything dealing with nuclear tech has a higher chance of turning into a much bigger deal. The other thing is that he tried to destroy evidence, which usually makes matter worse. Be that as it may, cases like Saucier's are fairly rare. It happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Her direct predecessor, and their direct predecessor back through five people also used private emails. So, it was practically policy at that point. Also, it's not like it was secret at the time. Refuge in audacity may seem like an odd defense, but for stuff like this it's actually relevant. I mean if they did try and prosecute it would come off as completely politically motivated. PS: If you disagree feel free to comment why.
    - dudifordMann 10y ago
      I disagree because "practically policy" is not policy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/ http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/
  - HoochTHX 10y ago
    Yes, go get digital copies of Stars and Stripes for the last ten years, and you will see many cases where Enlisted and Officers are brought up on charges, court martialed, and convicted, for things like this.
    - trentmb 10y ago
      Is the SoS subject to the UCMJ?
      - frankydp 10y ago
        No. The SoS is not subject to UCMJ.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case.
        koolba 10y ago
        > No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case. Simple. Because politicians transfer from the legislative branch to the executive branch. They (generally) don't entered the armed forces. If they did, I'm sure they'd make sure they have equal protections there as well.
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."

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
    >Similar things occurred with Colin Powell not even close. he had a personal aol account he used to test internet connections abroad. he had separate classified and personal lines going into his office, connected to separate devices.
    - tzs 10y ago
      There was classified email in Powell's personal, non-classified email account [1] [2] [3]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-cla... [2] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes... [3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/...
      - basch 10y ago
        there were two emails, sent to him, that were retroactively marked as classified. he personally reviewed them and said he has no idea why they are marked classified, and they shouldnt be. sounds like politics to me.
- ryanczak 10y ago
  violating the terms of your security clearance agreement is not generally a criminal offense. You will almost certainly lose your clearance and your job but you have to have committed an actual crime to be prosecuted. If their is not evidence of classified material being leaked then there is no crime. My guess is that there is no evidence of a crime in this case. If she were still Sec. of State she would have bigger problems I imagine because she would lose her clearance at the very least and likely her job. Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president.
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    > Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president. Being elected POTUS automatically gives you the highest ranking clearance, end of discussion. You could have been a convicted felon with your security clearance stripped and no chance of getting it back, the moment you become POTUS all of that becomes irrelevant for your term.
  - beat 10y ago
    Indeed. If she were still SoS, she'd probably have to resign over this. But the idea that she could be denied a security clearance as president is kind of ludicrous - especially when you consider that the point of security clearance rules is not to protect the data, but rather to protect the nation. A president who couldn't see the data required to make sound decisions would be actively dangerous. It'd be like driving with a blindfold on. Of course, this won't make much of a difference to her partisan detractors. Haters gonna hate, and the email scandal is not so much reason as excuse for most of the people who already oppose her. But if she is elected, of course she'll get full presidential security clearance. To do otherwise is stupid. What matters most to me is that we make changes in both policy and process so this doesn't happen again - policy in that it becomes crystal clear that private email for public business is unacceptable, and process so that the "If you can do your job, we're not doing ours" vibe of the info security world doesn't make the Secretary of State (or anyone else) feel like they can't do their job properly using the official channels.
- talmand 10y ago
  Get selected to be a Presidential nominee and that problem will just go away.
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  I don't know about the exact situation, but plenty of times intelligence has been leaked accidentally. In fact, while I was in Military Intelligence we use to get regular briefings on call such and such number if you hear some dudes at the bar talking about classified information. I've had briefings on what to do if I discover classified material left at a bar. I've had a lot of briefings about classified material being leaked because something happened at a bar... It's a very real issue... It pretty much boils down to contact FBI CI (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence) or the CI agents on base (if it happened on a military instillation.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    And one of the big problems (doesn't seem to be the case here) is where aggregated information is at a higher [EDIT: classification] than individual pieces. For instance, you can know any two of the following and it might only be FOUO (for official use only): When a military deployment will happen Where it will be to Who will be going But all three, together, are considered classified. (Trivial case, usually not this small a data set, but this is the concept.) The result is that someone gets apparently safe information from several sources. They put this into a briefing, or talk about it at the bar. The accumulated information is now considered Confidential (or higher), but was developed entirely from non-Confidential (or higher) sources.
    - jonwachob91 10y ago
      >>When a military deployment will happen >>Where it will be to >>Who will be going Having all three aggregated is not classified, but it is critical information (AR530-1, para 1-5, section b(2) [1]). An entire deploying unit is given those 3 bits on information, but the entire unit rarely is 100% on security clearances. EXAMPLE: when 2BCT,25ID deployed in 2004 the entire unit was told when they were deploying and for how long, where they were going, and who units/personnel were going; everyone including that fresh 18y/o 11B PVT that graduated BCT 1 week prior were told. But yes I agree with you on the first statement about information aggregation. [1]https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf
- GVIrish 10y ago
  > 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. Unlikely. You would lose your job for sure, but typically for a criminal prosecution to result there has to be an element of willful unauthorized disclosure of classified info, or very high impact of the disclosure of classified info. In practice this means that the people who get prosecuted have almost always been people intentionally sharing secrets with foreign entities (spying). I only know of one case where charges were brought against someone who was not doing that. It was when the feds retaliated against Thomas Drake for whistleblowing against the NSA. Even then the charges got dropped.
  - steve_g 10y ago
    Kristian Saucier - https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier He took photos of a sub he was stationed on, apparently just for his own use, with no intention of "spying" He's going to jail for a few years.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Might want to edit that link to: https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier or flag it NSFW - when I clicked it, SafeSearch bounced me to the one I just posted. I'm actually at work, so don't intend to investigate, but my guess is "Kristen Saucier" is a different person in a different line of work.
      - steve_g 10y ago
        Done - thanks.
    - GVIrish 10y ago
      In that situation, the military may sometimes be stricter than a civilian agency would be for the same infraction. Anything dealing with nuclear tech has a higher chance of turning into a much bigger deal. The other thing is that he tried to destroy evidence, which usually makes matter worse. Be that as it may, cases like Saucier's are fairly rare. It happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
- Retric 10y ago
  Her direct predecessor, and their direct predecessor back through five people also used private emails. So, it was practically policy at that point. Also, it's not like it was secret at the time. Refuge in audacity may seem like an odd defense, but for stuff like this it's actually relevant. I mean if they did try and prosecute it would come off as completely politically motivated. PS: If you disagree feel free to comment why.
  - dudifordMann 10y ago
    I disagree because "practically policy" is not policy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/ http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/
- HoochTHX 10y ago
  Yes, go get digital copies of Stars and Stripes for the last ten years, and you will see many cases where Enlisted and Officers are brought up on charges, court martialed, and convicted, for things like this.
  - trentmb 10y ago
    Is the SoS subject to the UCMJ?
    - frankydp 10y ago
      No. The SoS is not subject to UCMJ.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case.
      - koolba 10y ago
        > No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case. Simple. Because politicians transfer from the legislative branch to the executive branch. They (generally) don't entered the armed forces. If they did, I'm sure they'd make sure they have equal protections there as well.

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."