4 ms·

ThinkProgress posted an article attempting to explan why the bar is high in prosecuting: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-is

by 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.
  - overgryphon 10y ago
    What Comey writes is that other people in similar circumstances have faced security and administrative consequences- such as being fired, and their security clearance revoked. That sounds reasonable.
  - secstate 10y ago
    This. And it's disappointing to see more average power liberal citizens fail to appreciate that the lesson of "have power, will not prosecute" is well understood, almost as well understood as the realities of "driving while black." The longer those in liberal America pretend that Trump will destroy himself with his arrogance, the more difficult it becomes to have empathetic and reasonable discussions about issues that could improve our representative democracy. That includes ranked-choice voting, repealing Citizen's United, and a new Voters Rights Act reflecting 21st century problems.
  - jusben1369 10y ago
    The thing is, these are like conspiracy theories. Any rebuttal is proof you are hiding something! The Director of the FBI lays out very clearly what he found, why he won't prosecute, and that this was impartial. But you dismiss all that and say it's because she's an elite. I understand if you believe that - but it's apparent you have already made up your mind and that his response would just confirm one of your two conclusions. She should be prosecuted or she should be prosecuted but she won't because she's an elite.
    - aggieben 10y ago
      To my mind, the judgments that Comey represents in his report simply aren't believable ("there was no intent"). The Patraeus prosecution is a good example of a case that was very similar in many respects. Also, technically, in cases of gross negligence (which is surely applicable in this case), intent doesn't matter to the law. It's still criminal. It might have different penalties attached, but it's still criminal.
    - revelation 10y ago
      Eh, the director of the FBI doesn't prosecute, prosecutors do that. The job of the FBI is to collect and collate the evidence. Prosecutors in fact explicitly ask police and others they rely on to not substitute their own judgement for what merits prosecution and what not.
- basseq 10y ago
  > clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information This is the only one you could make a case on, I think. Setting up an external email server was "intentional". But maybe mishandling confidential information wasn't. After all, the campaign's message was that no emails were classified at time of transmission (a statement that turned out to be false). But if all you have to say to get out of this charge is, "I didn't mean to!" then I guess it's pretty clear cut.
- malz 10y ago
  > those who are strongly opposed to HRC use the term "traitor" frequently Those people also use the word "traitor" when they are cut off in traffic, or when the mailman accidentally delivers their Guns & Ammo subscription to their neighbor.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
The article addresses only one of the laws that Clinton may well have violated by her actions, 18 U.S. Code § 793, but doesn't address the other law that she likely violated: 18 U.S. Code § 1924. The FBI and the DoJ did bring charges against Bryan H. Nishimura under that law for something not dissimilar to what Clinton did. I've already posted the relevant bits in another comment on this story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12041283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12041283 And 1924 is short enough to just post here (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924): (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a). (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

by pgrote 10y ago

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.
- overgryphon 10y ago
  What Comey writes is that other people in similar circumstances have faced security and administrative consequences- such as being fired, and their security clearance revoked. That sounds reasonable.
- secstate 10y ago
  This. And it's disappointing to see more average power liberal citizens fail to appreciate that the lesson of "have power, will not prosecute" is well understood, almost as well understood as the realities of "driving while black." The longer those in liberal America pretend that Trump will destroy himself with his arrogance, the more difficult it becomes to have empathetic and reasonable discussions about issues that could improve our representative democracy. That includes ranked-choice voting, repealing Citizen's United, and a new Voters Rights Act reflecting 21st century problems.
- jusben1369 10y ago
  The thing is, these are like conspiracy theories. Any rebuttal is proof you are hiding something! The Director of the FBI lays out very clearly what he found, why he won't prosecute, and that this was impartial. But you dismiss all that and say it's because she's an elite. I understand if you believe that - but it's apparent you have already made up your mind and that his response would just confirm one of your two conclusions. She should be prosecuted or she should be prosecuted but she won't because she's an elite.
  - aggieben 10y ago
    To my mind, the judgments that Comey represents in his report simply aren't believable ("there was no intent"). The Patraeus prosecution is a good example of a case that was very similar in many respects. Also, technically, in cases of gross negligence (which is surely applicable in this case), intent doesn't matter to the law. It's still criminal. It might have different penalties attached, but it's still criminal.
  - revelation 10y ago
    Eh, the director of the FBI doesn't prosecute, prosecutors do that. The job of the FBI is to collect and collate the evidence. Prosecutors in fact explicitly ask police and others they rely on to not substitute their own judgement for what merits prosecution and what not.
basseq 10y ago
> clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information This is the only one you could make a case on, I think. Setting up an external email server was "intentional". But maybe mishandling confidential information wasn't. After all, the campaign's message was that no emails were classified at time of transmission (a statement that turned out to be false). But if all you have to say to get out of this charge is, "I didn't mean to!" then I guess it's pretty clear cut.
malz 10y ago
> those who are strongly opposed to HRC use the term "traitor" frequently Those people also use the word "traitor" when they are cut off in traffic, or when the mailman accidentally delivers their Guns & Ammo subscription to their neighbor.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

The article addresses only one of the laws that Clinton may well have violated by her actions, 18 U.S. Code § 793, but doesn't address the other law that she likely violated: 18 U.S. Code § 1924. The FBI and the DoJ did bring charges against Bryan H. Nishimura under that law for something not dissimilar to what Clinton did. I've already posted the relevant bits in another comment on this story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12041283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12041283 And 1924 is short enough to just post here (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924): (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a). (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.