3 ms·

FBI won't recommend Clinton be indicted over private email use

34 points by Evolved 10y ago

Evolved 10y ago
EDIT: Here are some non-paywall versions: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinto... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton/86702072/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/0...
- adam12 10y ago
  or just use the "web" link below the title.
bontoJR 10y ago
> To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally sent or received classified information — something that the F.B.I. did not find. Interesting, I won't pay the taxes this year and I will prove that was unintentionally and see what happens... I am quite sure the outcome is going to be different.
- Guvante 10y ago
  The law is quite complex. The specific things they were charging her for had a Mens Rea component, or in other words the intent to do wrong. Other things that you can do are strict liability (or no Mens Rea component). The simplest example is speeding, which can be a criminal charge without a Mens Rea test. Also note that many civil things don't require a Mens Rea test either, such as tax dodging.
  - adam12 10y ago
    What about the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act?
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      Simple: The FBI didn't find Clinton guilty of gross negligence. Just regular ol' run-of-the-mill negligence (the word "gross" is in there for a reason... it's not just flowery language). Unfortunately, at this point whether or not you believe in the ruling becomes a matter of faith.
      - adam12 10y ago
        To me "extremely careless" is the same as "gross negligence", but I guess that doesn't matter.
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        "extremely careless" was the description. I don't think it was explained how that is different from "grossly negligent", other than the characters used.
- phd514 10y ago
  Unclear why the parent deserves downvotes for the post. One of the points of criminalizing gross negligence with respect to the handling of classified information is to remove the element of intent -- just negligence is sufficient to convict. The FBI totally side-stepped the issue in its haste to exonerate Clinton when "lesser" people have been charged for less egregious handling of classified information. I don't see how anyone can claim there was no special treatment of Clinton in this case.
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    See your sibling post for why the GP is not, itself, a terribly insightful comment. As for yours (which raises a very legitimate question), Vice has an article that mentions that element: http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-the-fbi-for-her-emails http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-t... Basically, the key is that it must be deemed "intentional" or "gross" negligence, and nothing they found rose to that level (in their opinion). Of course, when mens rea is part of the sentencing criteria, there's lots of room for interpretation, which will ensure there will be a limitless source of fodder for Clinton's opponents and proponents to argue about for years to come...
15charlimit 10y ago
Well, yeah. Even if they can make a rock-solid case right now, why would they waste the chance to have a very powerful card they can hold over her head if (god forbid) she gets elected? Not surprising at all.
- Evolved 10y ago
  I just don't see them doing that to an elected (or even newly elected) President but I do think they're holding that card should she not win the presidency.

34 points by Evolved 10y ago

EDIT: Here are some non-paywall versions: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinto... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton/86702072/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/0...

adam12 10y ago
or just use the "web" link below the title.

bontoJR 10y ago

> To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally sent or received classified information — something that the F.B.I. did not find. Interesting, I won't pay the taxes this year and I will prove that was unintentionally and see what happens... I am quite sure the outcome is going to be different.

Guvante 10y ago
The law is quite complex. The specific things they were charging her for had a Mens Rea component, or in other words the intent to do wrong. Other things that you can do are strict liability (or no Mens Rea component). The simplest example is speeding, which can be a criminal charge without a Mens Rea test. Also note that many civil things don't require a Mens Rea test either, such as tax dodging.
- adam12 10y ago
  What about the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act?
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    Simple: The FBI didn't find Clinton guilty of gross negligence. Just regular ol' run-of-the-mill negligence (the word "gross" is in there for a reason... it's not just flowery language). Unfortunately, at this point whether or not you believe in the ruling becomes a matter of faith.
    - adam12 10y ago
      To me "extremely careless" is the same as "gross negligence", but I guess that doesn't matter.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      "extremely careless" was the description. I don't think it was explained how that is different from "grossly negligent", other than the characters used.
phd514 10y ago
Unclear why the parent deserves downvotes for the post. One of the points of criminalizing gross negligence with respect to the handling of classified information is to remove the element of intent -- just negligence is sufficient to convict. The FBI totally side-stepped the issue in its haste to exonerate Clinton when "lesser" people have been charged for less egregious handling of classified information. I don't see how anyone can claim there was no special treatment of Clinton in this case.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  See your sibling post for why the GP is not, itself, a terribly insightful comment. As for yours (which raises a very legitimate question), Vice has an article that mentions that element: http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-the-fbi-for-her-emails http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-t... Basically, the key is that it must be deemed "intentional" or "gross" negligence, and nothing they found rose to that level (in their opinion). Of course, when mens rea is part of the sentencing criteria, there's lots of room for interpretation, which will ensure there will be a limitless source of fodder for Clinton's opponents and proponents to argue about for years to come...

15charlimit 10y ago

Well, yeah. Even if they can make a rock-solid case right now, why would they waste the chance to have a very powerful card they can hold over her head if (god forbid) she gets elected? Not surprising at all.

Evolved 10y ago
I just don't see them doing that to an elected (or even newly elected) President but I do think they're holding that card should she not win the presidency.