4 ms·

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

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...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. No, he didn't. > 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. He doesn't say it is not for lack of sufficient evidence. In fact, he strongly suggests it is exactly for that reason. > In fact, the FBI stated the exact opposite: there is evidence of legal violations Actually, it says -- in your own quote -- "potential violations". Which is saying that there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law, but falls far short of saying that there is evidence that demands that conclusion. And it goes on to say that that evidence is not such that a reasonable prosecutor would prosecute based on it. > He goes on to explicitly say that these consequences would be different for other people He goes on to explicitly say that consequences other the decisions on criminal prosecution ("security and administrative sanctions" being specifically called out as examples) would potentially be different for other people, but that those consequences which might be different are not the subject that the immediate discussion (focussed on recommendations on criminal prosecution) is about. Every one of your statements misrepresents the substance of the quote offered to support it.
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      How is "there is evidence of legal violations" substantively different from "there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law?" Now we're back to whether actual guilt is ascertained by a prosecutor or by a court. Ah, good. So maybe she wouldn't be charged if she were a normal person. She'd just lose her job and her security clearance, which totally doesn't affect her candidacy for POTUS. Anyways, someone actually was charged and sentenced for equivalent actions: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/press-releases/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news... Regarding his plainly stating that they broke the law: "a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." ... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation" Pretty direct, no?
julianj 10y ago
> remove classified information from SIPRNet or NIPRNet Small nit- IIRC NIPRnet should not contain classified information. Maybe you were thinking CENTRIXS instead? edited for clarity
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Good catch – edited!
grandalf 10y ago
> Certainly the FBI has never let a plutocrat off the hook before! This is the issue. Once an official takes measures to circumvent accountability and transparency, I think all bets are off. If it turns out that there were emails that got destroyed to cover up wrongdoing, I think it's a pretty big deal.
paulmd 10y ago
Just because it's classified now doesn't mean that it was classified at the time it was sent. And in fact it's possible for an email to be retroactively classified after the fact. A document doesn't even have to contain classified information to be retroactively classified. For example, let's say a merchant who once gave the USG a tip on something sensitive is petitioning the State Department for the release of some of his goods that are being unreasonably tied up in Customs. Someone else does a reply-all "oh yeah that guy has been helpful to us in the past, let's see what we can do for him" - thus revealing past involvement in a classified matter. Boom, that first email is actually now classified - despite the fact that it itself contains no sensitive information - because someone could look at that conversation and discern from the fact that it suddenly became classified that this obviously somehow had to do with a classified matter. The standards for handling classified materials are extremely strict and there's lots of ways to end up with classified materials in unclassified places that don't rise to the standard of gross negligence. The people involved are public figures whose job title straddles classified and unclassified spheres, they can't be locked inside a SCIF indefinitely, and reasonableness has to be viewed in that light.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  "For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)." - The FBI, emphasis mine
- grandalf 10y ago
  The standards for handling classified materials are extremely strict and there's lots of ways to end up with classified materials in unclassified places that don't rise to the standard of gross negligence. True, however it seems that all the relevant emails were not necessarily considered by the FBI, so completing the email archive (by adding any missing emails for consideration) would make that conclusion carry a lot more weight in my opinion.
losetherein 10y ago
Well, FBI Director Comey basically said she was grossly negligent and that people still in gov/mil service would suffer consequences for doing what she did, but that the FBI was not going to recommend charges because 1) they've only gone after those with clear intent in the past and 2) it would be a difficult case to win. Reasonable people can read many things into all the data that have been produced as a result, and her culpability is left as an exercise for the humble observer.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  > 1) they've only gone after those with clear intent in the past This guy would disagree: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/press-releases/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news... But yes I agree with the thrust of your comment. I'm just saying as a hard left dem, it pains me to be put in a position where my only real options are two symbols of how the rich and powerful are beyond reproach in this country.

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...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Direct from Comey's mouth, he said they actually did break the law. No, he didn't. > 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. He doesn't say it is not for lack of sufficient evidence. In fact, he strongly suggests it is exactly for that reason. > In fact, the FBI stated the exact opposite: there is evidence of legal violations Actually, it says -- in your own quote -- "potential violations". Which is saying that there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law, but falls far short of saying that there is evidence that demands that conclusion. And it goes on to say that that evidence is not such that a reasonable prosecutor would prosecute based on it. > He goes on to explicitly say that these consequences would be different for other people He goes on to explicitly say that consequences other the decisions on criminal prosecution ("security and administrative sanctions" being specifically called out as examples) would potentially be different for other people, but that those consequences which might be different are not the subject that the immediate discussion (focussed on recommendations on criminal prosecution) is about. Every one of your statements misrepresents the substance of the quote offered to support it.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    How is "there is evidence of legal violations" substantively different from "there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law?" Now we're back to whether actual guilt is ascertained by a prosecutor or by a court. Ah, good. So maybe she wouldn't be charged if she were a normal person. She'd just lose her job and her security clearance, which totally doesn't affect her candidacy for POTUS. Anyways, someone actually was charged and sentenced for equivalent actions: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/press-releases/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news... Regarding his plainly stating that they broke the law: "a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." ... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation" Pretty direct, no?

julianj 10y ago

> remove classified information from SIPRNet or NIPRNet Small nit- IIRC NIPRnet should not contain classified information. Maybe you were thinking CENTRIXS instead? edited for clarity

ethanbond 10y ago
Good catch – edited!

grandalf 10y ago

> Certainly the FBI has never let a plutocrat off the hook before! This is the issue. Once an official takes measures to circumvent accountability and transparency, I think all bets are off. If it turns out that there were emails that got destroyed to cover up wrongdoing, I think it's a pretty big deal.

paulmd 10y ago

Just because it's classified now doesn't mean that it was classified at the time it was sent. And in fact it's possible for an email to be retroactively classified after the fact. A document doesn't even have to contain classified information to be retroactively classified. For example, let's say a merchant who once gave the USG a tip on something sensitive is petitioning the State Department for the release of some of his goods that are being unreasonably tied up in Customs. Someone else does a reply-all "oh yeah that guy has been helpful to us in the past, let's see what we can do for him" - thus revealing past involvement in a classified matter. Boom, that first email is actually now classified - despite the fact that it itself contains no sensitive information - because someone could look at that conversation and discern from the fact that it suddenly became classified that this obviously somehow had to do with a classified matter. The standards for handling classified materials are extremely strict and there's lots of ways to end up with classified materials in unclassified places that don't rise to the standard of gross negligence. The people involved are public figures whose job title straddles classified and unclassified spheres, they can't be locked inside a SCIF indefinitely, and reasonableness has to be viewed in that light.

ethanbond 10y ago
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)." - The FBI, emphasis mine
grandalf 10y ago
The standards for handling classified materials are extremely strict and there's lots of ways to end up with classified materials in unclassified places that don't rise to the standard of gross negligence. True, however it seems that all the relevant emails were not necessarily considered by the FBI, so completing the email archive (by adding any missing emails for consideration) would make that conclusion carry a lot more weight in my opinion.

losetherein 10y ago

Well, FBI Director Comey basically said she was grossly negligent and that people still in gov/mil service would suffer consequences for doing what she did, but that the FBI was not going to recommend charges because 1) they've only gone after those with clear intent in the past and 2) it would be a difficult case to win. Reasonable people can read many things into all the data that have been produced as a result, and her culpability is left as an exercise for the humble observer.

ethanbond 10y ago
> 1) they've only gone after those with clear intent in the past This guy would disagree: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/press-releases/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news... But yes I agree with the thrust of your comment. I'm just saying as a hard left dem, it pains me to be put in a position where my only real options are two symbols of how the rich and powerful are beyond reproach in this country.