4 ms·

I mean, some would say that a large FBI investigation clearing her, hours spent answering questions in front of congress, and every major media organization bei

by neaden 10y ago

I mean, some would say that a large FBI investigation clearing her, hours spent answering questions in front of congress, and every major media organization being unable to find anything criminal would be as clear evidence of her innocence as you could ever hope for? I mean, what are you looking for for proof at this point?

untog 10y ago
Yeah, but they're biased
- grandalf 10y ago
  I take seriously the idea that officials' email conduct should be 100% transparent and available to the public record. Clearly there were efforts made to circumvent the accountability measures that were in place. I don't care whether or not HRC is convicted or anything like that, but I think at present we don't really know, as some of the evidence was not available to the investigation. This kind of basic accountability and transparency is essential to the proper functioning of democracy.
  - pbreit 10y ago
    Probably email should just be immune from FOIA requests (like phone calls) and we could have avoided all this.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      I hope you're joking. Having all of the correspondence and conduct of our elected officials subject to archival (even if classified for several decades) is a crucial aspect of democratic governance.
      - pbreit 10y ago
        Not joking. It's not crucial at all. Lots of communication is not preserved (eg, phone calls, face to face).
  - neaden 10y ago
    Serious question, why do you think that when it comes to emails? Do you also think all of their phone calls should be recorded to make sure they don't just shift any illegal conversations to that? Should all politicians wear a body camera at all times, so we can make sure they aren't meeting lobbyists after hours?
    - grandalf 10y ago
      Yes, I do think all of their phone calls used for official business should be recorded, perhaps to be classified for a number of years but eventually released. I would also support the body camera idea, and would like them to wear one even in meetings to discuss classified material. The recordings would be classified, but could eventually be declassified a few decades later. Think about how much highly relevant American history is still classified. While there are some (narrow) cases where information should be secret for a limited time, I do not think that the public should give up its right to access the communications of elected officials. In the past, the minutes from a meeting would be recorded and classified. The modern equivalent is recording/archiving/classifying all official conduct. I'm not saying I want to read HRC's emails, but the idea that there were secret correspondences that she undertook while in office and took pains to hide from the public record should be troubling to all of us. The notion that historians might review the emails after they were declassified in 20 years is enough of a disincentive for corrupt behavior to warrant capturing and preserving the information. We've seen in the past dozen years that our officials have hidden and classified information simply to avoid embarrassment or as part of a disinformation strategy aimed at the American people. Doing this should not be possible and should not be a temptation to officials when deciding on a course of action.
    - julianj 10y ago
      I believe that all official records should be preserved. There are regulatory standards that apply to corporations regarding the retention of records -- including emails. One example is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These kinds of rules were put in place in an attempt to combat fraud. Why should the federal government be exempt from retaining emails?
MarkPNeyer 10y ago
The conclusion was "well, she was careless, but we can't find evidence of intent." We know she lied about "it was allowed." She's avoided intent by insisting that "I did it only for convenience, not for privacy reasons." If you have any doubt about that - if you think a desire to use a separate server was partially for privacy reasons - then she's committed perjury and obstruction of justice there. It's entirely reasonable to continue to be suspicious about this investigation at this point. I'm not going to argue "it's unreasonable to trust her" but i think there's plenty of reason to believe "she DID use a private server for reasons or privacy, and thus lied to the FBI to avoid criminal charges."
- neaden 10y ago
  So if I assume she's lying, then she's committed perjury? Is that really your argument? What are your reasons for believing that she used a server for reasons of privacy? Why do you think she would have done that vs. just having conversations on the phone or in person?
  - MarkPNeyer 10y ago
    > then she's committed perjury? Not just perjury. It's also destruction of evidence and conspiracy. Using the servers "for privacy" means anything that should be covered by FOIA but isn't available was destroyed intentionally. AFAIK the investigation didn't even touch FOIA liability. > What are your reasons for believing that she used a server for reasons of privacy? When they discussed moving her into the state system, she said explicitly that she didn't want the personal emails to become accessible: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-personal-email-worry-223559 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-person... So we have her on record saying (at the time) that she didn't want to risk any personal messages becoming exposed. She has every right to her personal privacy, but prioritizing that over "retaining all documents covered under FOIA" is both an abrogation of duty and an affront to transparency. On top of that, setting up a private email server is a huge amount of work. She could very easily have simply forwarded work messages to her personal account. She didn't do that, and she's well known for having a strong desire for privacy. I'm not saying "this is a slam dunk case and anyone who disagrees is clearly unreasonable." I'm saying there are perfectly valid reasons for believing that she committed perjury to avoid being charged with destruction of evidence and violating the FOIA.
ethanbond 10y ago
Certainly the FBI has never let a plutocrat off the hook before! In any case, the FBI said there were classified emails on her server. Classification is not an issue of markings it's an issue of contents. The question then becomes whether the presence of those files was due to negligence. I would contend that it takes obscene levels of negligence to remove classified information from SIPRNet and have it appear on your personal email. It's just not something that happens accidentally. I'd also contend that her use of an unsecured phone against the explicit guidance of the NSA qualifies as gross negligence. Most importantly, the question of guilt should be ascertained by a court, as it is with us peons. Anyone else would have been charged. Maybe not convicted, sure! A court could totally discover that it was an honest mistake that was easy to make. But many Americans feel that it's the court who decides that, as designated by our Constitution.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Most importantly, the question of guilt should be ascertained by a court, as it is with us peons. No, even with "peons", a prosecutor reviews the evidence available and determines if they justify prosecution before a court has a chance to ascertain guilt, and the court never gets the chance if the prosecutor decides that there is nothing worth prosecuting. > Anyone else would have been charged. That's not what those making the charging decisions have said, and given the amount of material that has been leaked about the detailed findings, I find it interesting that no one has even attempted to support this kind of claims with any comparisons of actual facts to cases where people have been charged.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. He then continues to say that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against her – not for lack of evidence, but just because they wouldn't. "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." ... "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. " ... "With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level." ... "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information [no one is saying she's a spy], there is evidence that they were extremely careless [gross negligence] in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." In fact, the FBI stated the exact opposite: there is evidence of legal violations, but due to "a number of factors," they don't recommend charges: "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." He goes on to explicitly say that these consequences would be different for other people: "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." Source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...
ZenoArrow 10y ago
Perhaps the FBI clearing her is more rooted in her position than her actions. Would suggest watching this for a different point of view: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptlTScIFIM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptlTScIFIM
cmdrfred 10y ago
The FBI director was quoted as saying "no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case". She clearly broke the law (It is not legal to handle state department business via private channels, end of sentence), just no judge would commit political suicide to bring her to justice.
vaishaksuresh 10y ago
What are you talking about? The FBI investigation clearly showed there was wrong doing. She was let go saying there was no intent, not because there was nothing wrong.

by neaden 10y ago

untog 10y ago

Yeah, but they're biased

grandalf 10y ago
I take seriously the idea that officials' email conduct should be 100% transparent and available to the public record. Clearly there were efforts made to circumvent the accountability measures that were in place. I don't care whether or not HRC is convicted or anything like that, but I think at present we don't really know, as some of the evidence was not available to the investigation. This kind of basic accountability and transparency is essential to the proper functioning of democracy.
- pbreit 10y ago
  Probably email should just be immune from FOIA requests (like phone calls) and we could have avoided all this.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    I hope you're joking. Having all of the correspondence and conduct of our elected officials subject to archival (even if classified for several decades) is a crucial aspect of democratic governance.
    - pbreit 10y ago
      Not joking. It's not crucial at all. Lots of communication is not preserved (eg, phone calls, face to face).
- neaden 10y ago
  Serious question, why do you think that when it comes to emails? Do you also think all of their phone calls should be recorded to make sure they don't just shift any illegal conversations to that? Should all politicians wear a body camera at all times, so we can make sure they aren't meeting lobbyists after hours?
  - grandalf 10y ago
    Yes, I do think all of their phone calls used for official business should be recorded, perhaps to be classified for a number of years but eventually released. I would also support the body camera idea, and would like them to wear one even in meetings to discuss classified material. The recordings would be classified, but could eventually be declassified a few decades later. Think about how much highly relevant American history is still classified. While there are some (narrow) cases where information should be secret for a limited time, I do not think that the public should give up its right to access the communications of elected officials. In the past, the minutes from a meeting would be recorded and classified. The modern equivalent is recording/archiving/classifying all official conduct. I'm not saying I want to read HRC's emails, but the idea that there were secret correspondences that she undertook while in office and took pains to hide from the public record should be troubling to all of us. The notion that historians might review the emails after they were declassified in 20 years is enough of a disincentive for corrupt behavior to warrant capturing and preserving the information. We've seen in the past dozen years that our officials have hidden and classified information simply to avoid embarrassment or as part of a disinformation strategy aimed at the American people. Doing this should not be possible and should not be a temptation to officials when deciding on a course of action.
  - julianj 10y ago
    I believe that all official records should be preserved. There are regulatory standards that apply to corporations regarding the retention of records -- including emails. One example is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These kinds of rules were put in place in an attempt to combat fraud. Why should the federal government be exempt from retaining emails?

MarkPNeyer 10y ago

The conclusion was "well, she was careless, but we can't find evidence of intent." We know she lied about "it was allowed." She's avoided intent by insisting that "I did it only for convenience, not for privacy reasons." If you have any doubt about that - if you think a desire to use a separate server was partially for privacy reasons - then she's committed perjury and obstruction of justice there. It's entirely reasonable to continue to be suspicious about this investigation at this point. I'm not going to argue "it's unreasonable to trust her" but i think there's plenty of reason to believe "she DID use a private server for reasons or privacy, and thus lied to the FBI to avoid criminal charges."

neaden 10y ago
So if I assume she's lying, then she's committed perjury? Is that really your argument? What are your reasons for believing that she used a server for reasons of privacy? Why do you think she would have done that vs. just having conversations on the phone or in person?
- MarkPNeyer 10y ago
  > then she's committed perjury? Not just perjury. It's also destruction of evidence and conspiracy. Using the servers "for privacy" means anything that should be covered by FOIA but isn't available was destroyed intentionally. AFAIK the investigation didn't even touch FOIA liability. > What are your reasons for believing that she used a server for reasons of privacy? When they discussed moving her into the state system, she said explicitly that she didn't want the personal emails to become accessible: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-personal-email-worry-223559 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-person... So we have her on record saying (at the time) that she didn't want to risk any personal messages becoming exposed. She has every right to her personal privacy, but prioritizing that over "retaining all documents covered under FOIA" is both an abrogation of duty and an affront to transparency. On top of that, setting up a private email server is a huge amount of work. She could very easily have simply forwarded work messages to her personal account. She didn't do that, and she's well known for having a strong desire for privacy. I'm not saying "this is a slam dunk case and anyone who disagrees is clearly unreasonable." I'm saying there are perfectly valid reasons for believing that she committed perjury to avoid being charged with destruction of evidence and violating the FOIA.

ethanbond 10y ago

Certainly the FBI has never let a plutocrat off the hook before! In any case, the FBI said there were classified emails on her server. Classification is not an issue of markings it's an issue of contents. The question then becomes whether the presence of those files was due to negligence. I would contend that it takes obscene levels of negligence to remove classified information from SIPRNet and have it appear on your personal email. It's just not something that happens accidentally. I'd also contend that her use of an unsecured phone against the explicit guidance of the NSA qualifies as gross negligence. Most importantly, the question of guilt should be ascertained by a court, as it is with us peons. Anyone else would have been charged. Maybe not convicted, sure! A court could totally discover that it was an honest mistake that was easy to make. But many Americans feel that it's the court who decides that, as designated by our Constitution.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Most importantly, the question of guilt should be ascertained by a court, as it is with us peons. No, even with "peons", a prosecutor reviews the evidence available and determines if they justify prosecution before a court has a chance to ascertain guilt, and the court never gets the chance if the prosecutor decides that there is nothing worth prosecuting. > Anyone else would have been charged. That's not what those making the charging decisions have said, and given the amount of material that has been leaked about the detailed findings, I find it interesting that no one has even attempted to support this kind of claims with any comparisons of actual facts to cases where people have been charged.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. He then continues to say that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against her – not for lack of evidence, but just because they wouldn't. "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." ... "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. " ... "With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level." ... "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information [no one is saying she's a spy], there is evidence that they were extremely careless [gross negligence] in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." In fact, the FBI stated the exact opposite: there is evidence of legal violations, but due to "a number of factors," they don't recommend charges: "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." He goes on to explicitly say that these consequences would be different for other people: "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." Source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Perhaps the FBI clearing her is more rooted in her position than her actions. Would suggest watching this for a different point of view: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptlTScIFIM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptlTScIFIM

cmdrfred 10y ago

The FBI director was quoted as saying "no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case". She clearly broke the law (It is not legal to handle state department business via private channels, end of sentence), just no judge would commit political suicide to bring her to justice.

vaishaksuresh 10y ago

What are you talking about? The FBI investigation clearly showed there was wrong doing. She was let go saying there was no intent, not because there was nothing wrong.