5 ms·

You don't need intent. From the press release [emphasis mine]: > Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly s

You don't need intent. From the press release [emphasis mine]: > 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, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

noobermin 10y ago
Given the small number of emails, I'd assume they reckoned it to be negligent but not grossly negligent.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  So they were "extremely careless" (his words) but not "grossly negligent"? Does anyone know what legal principle is supposed to separate those?
  - noobermin 10y ago
    Therein lies the fault. An investigation by the FBI is not a courtroom, so "legal principles" aren't their job, but determining whether they could move forward with a prosecution or not is. I suppose the two are not linearly independent, but IANAL so I don't know enough to make a judgement on it. It's hard really to tell from here whether this means Clinton is above the law or not, but I can definitely say this gives the appearance of it. Moreover, Trump won't give a shit what the FBI uses, he'll use it against her anyway and big portion of the American public, Trump supporters and non-supporters (ie., disaffected Bernie supporters) will agree with him on this anyway.
- frankydp 10y ago
  Keeping mind that HRC's attorneys screened the original emails collection for examination by the FBI. Seems she might need some better attorneys if they let 130 get through that screen.
  - DKnoll3 10y ago
    Enough to say "Yeah, but everyone else did it, and it wasn't that many, so..." ...and here we are.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    The entire thing seems fishy, sure, but playing devil's advocate, you'd wonder if they wouldn't screen out all the confidential emails. Of course, Comey did say even with the filtering, he did not see intentional obfuscation. The only thing in question now is how the public will view this, and I'm pretty sure the only people who will be convinced are Hillary supporters.
kordless 10y ago
I'm going to have to "up classify" your comment and get back to you later on that.
albinofrenchy 10y ago
My understanding is there is the statute and then there is the evaluating if a prosecution would be successful. From what I can tell, no one has been successfully charged for just gross negligence here. That being said I don't understand entirely why that is at play -- if past convictions under a statute were required to prosecute, then no one would ever be prosecuted for anything.
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  Last year a Folsom engineer and retired Navy commander was fined $7,500 and placed on two years of probation for transferring classified data from a government computer to a personal computer. The investigation “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article29506825.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article29506825.html

noobermin 10y ago

Given the small number of emails, I'd assume they reckoned it to be negligent but not grossly negligent.

jessriedel 10y ago
So they were "extremely careless" (his words) but not "grossly negligent"? Does anyone know what legal principle is supposed to separate those?
- noobermin 10y ago
  Therein lies the fault. An investigation by the FBI is not a courtroom, so "legal principles" aren't their job, but determining whether they could move forward with a prosecution or not is. I suppose the two are not linearly independent, but IANAL so I don't know enough to make a judgement on it. It's hard really to tell from here whether this means Clinton is above the law or not, but I can definitely say this gives the appearance of it. Moreover, Trump won't give a shit what the FBI uses, he'll use it against her anyway and big portion of the American public, Trump supporters and non-supporters (ie., disaffected Bernie supporters) will agree with him on this anyway.
frankydp 10y ago
Keeping mind that HRC's attorneys screened the original emails collection for examination by the FBI. Seems she might need some better attorneys if they let 130 get through that screen.
- DKnoll3 10y ago
  Enough to say "Yeah, but everyone else did it, and it wasn't that many, so..." ...and here we are.
- noobermin 10y ago
  The entire thing seems fishy, sure, but playing devil's advocate, you'd wonder if they wouldn't screen out all the confidential emails. Of course, Comey did say even with the filtering, he did not see intentional obfuscation. The only thing in question now is how the public will view this, and I'm pretty sure the only people who will be convinced are Hillary supporters.

kordless 10y ago

I'm going to have to "up classify" your comment and get back to you later on that.

albinofrenchy 10y ago

My understanding is there is the statute and then there is the evaluating if a prosecution would be successful. From what I can tell, no one has been successfully charged for just gross negligence here. That being said I don't understand entirely why that is at play -- if past convictions under a statute were required to prosecute, then no one would ever be prosecuted for anything.

marcusgarvey 10y ago
Last year a Folsom engineer and retired Navy commander was fined $7,500 and placed on two years of probation for transferring classified data from a government computer to a personal computer. The investigation “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article29506825.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article29506825.html