4 ms·

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

by 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?
noobermin 10y ago
How ironic it is that any sanctions placed would come from agencies that she aspires to be the ultimate head of. Sanctions against a president? How does that make sense?

by chasing 10y ago

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?

noobermin 10y ago

How ironic it is that any sanctions placed would come from agencies that she aspires to be the ultimate head of. Sanctions against a president? How does that make sense?