4 ms·

So on the timing....there's an interesting backstory here. James Comey was a lifelong Republican until this year [1]. He appears to be a Republican in the "ne

So on the timing....there's an interesting backstory here. James Comey was a lifelong Republican until this year [1]. He appears to be a Republican in the "never Trump" camp. Prior to the public disclosure of Comey's recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted, Loretta Lynch publicly stated that she would try to appear impartial by going with whatever the FBI recommended. This effectively put Comey - a "never Trump" man - in the position of appointing the next President of the United States. If he had elected to recommend prosecution, Trump was the guaranteed winner. If he didn't, most realized that Clinton would beat Trump. Perhaps this "reopening" is more the result of an attack of conscience than of the significance of any new information. It's possible that this is a halfhearted attempt to do what many legal experts considered to be the right thing in the first place. [1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/what-party-is-james-comey-registered-as-225223 http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/...

xenadu02 10y ago
Which legal experts? The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources. It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to allow things contrary to policy under certain conditions (though I don't think that was done in this case). The law doesn't provide for felony prosecution for using personal IT resources, no matter how much some people want that to be true for politically convenient reasons. The same people crying about Clinton would reject the charges out of hand if it were their favored political candidate. In the end she didn't do anything morally wrong which is why this whole email thing has been one big nothing-burger. Everyone has had to fight corporate IT's outdated and stupid policies at one time or another and almost all of us have subverted those policies to get our jobs done. The only reason we even know about this is because she disclosed it. Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice both used private email servers. So did the entire Bush administration. When confronted with requests for the data they just nuked it from orbit and no one gave a shit. Suddenly it's a huge scandal! The crime of the century! Trump has violated tax law by using is "charitable" foundation as a piggy bank. I'm not calling for an investigation and prosecution of him because that's banana republic territory.
- downandout 10y ago
  Ok, so I'll put aside for a moment the fact that she lied directly to the FBI when the former Secretary of State told them that she didn't know that "C" meant classified, along with the myriad criminal pay-to-play issues that the FBI has simply ignored, both of which are slam-dunk federal felony cases. The law provides for criminal charges when someone uses gross negligence in the mishandling of classified materials - no intent required. According to Comey himself, her conduct actually met the legal definition of gross negligence. He just didn't want to use the gross negligence statute instead of the statute that requires intent because it would have handed Trump the presidency.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >the fact that she lied directly to the FBI when the former Secretary of State told them that she didn't know that "C" meant classified She didn't have to lie should could of been grossly incompetent and negligent in her handling of her duties.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    (C), as a portion marker in a classified document (which it would properly only occur in if the document itself was at least as highly classified, with banners marking the classification in full words) means "confidential", not "classified". In email, the banner text is placed at the top and bottom of the body (the subject line of a classified email is portion marked to indicate the classification status -- including (U) for unclassified if that applies -- of the subject line itself.) [0] Any place that portion markers are properly used, the whole containing document is clearly marked as classified with a specific level, and the whole content -- other than parts portion-marked as unclassified -- is classified. It's kind of funny how the majority of the people who mock Clinton over this get it wrong themselves. And also omit the context, which was a (C) used in an email which had neither a portion marker in the header (as all classified emails should) nor classification banners. In that context, I think mlet's actually pretty reasonable to have no idea that a parenthetical (C) on a paragraph was intended as a portion marker of classification level. [0] http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Information.pdf http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Inform...
misnome 10y ago
You mean the legal experts... at the DOJ? Who apparently said "the move would be inconsistent with rules designed to avoid the appearance of interference in an election"? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37815558 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37815558
- downandout 10y ago
  Given their handling of the Clinton investigation, I wouldn't call anyone at the DOJ a legal expert.

xenadu02 10y ago

Which legal experts? The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources. It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to allow things contrary to policy under certain conditions (though I don't think that was done in this case). The law doesn't provide for felony prosecution for using personal IT resources, no matter how much some people want that to be true for politically convenient reasons. The same people crying about Clinton would reject the charges out of hand if it were their favored political candidate. In the end she didn't do anything morally wrong which is why this whole email thing has been one big nothing-burger. Everyone has had to fight corporate IT's outdated and stupid policies at one time or another and almost all of us have subverted those policies to get our jobs done. The only reason we even know about this is because she disclosed it. Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice both used private email servers. So did the entire Bush administration. When confronted with requests for the data they just nuked it from orbit and no one gave a shit. Suddenly it's a huge scandal! The crime of the century! Trump has violated tax law by using is "charitable" foundation as a piggy bank. I'm not calling for an investigation and prosecution of him because that's banana republic territory.

downandout 10y ago
Ok, so I'll put aside for a moment the fact that she lied directly to the FBI when the former Secretary of State told them that she didn't know that "C" meant classified, along with the myriad criminal pay-to-play issues that the FBI has simply ignored, both of which are slam-dunk federal felony cases. The law provides for criminal charges when someone uses gross negligence in the mishandling of classified materials - no intent required. According to Comey himself, her conduct actually met the legal definition of gross negligence. He just didn't want to use the gross negligence statute instead of the statute that requires intent because it would have handed Trump the presidency.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  >the fact that she lied directly to the FBI when the former Secretary of State told them that she didn't know that "C" meant classified She didn't have to lie should could of been grossly incompetent and negligent in her handling of her duties.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  (C), as a portion marker in a classified document (which it would properly only occur in if the document itself was at least as highly classified, with banners marking the classification in full words) means "confidential", not "classified". In email, the banner text is placed at the top and bottom of the body (the subject line of a classified email is portion marked to indicate the classification status -- including (U) for unclassified if that applies -- of the subject line itself.) [0] Any place that portion markers are properly used, the whole containing document is clearly marked as classified with a specific level, and the whole content -- other than parts portion-marked as unclassified -- is classified. It's kind of funny how the majority of the people who mock Clinton over this get it wrong themselves. And also omit the context, which was a (C) used in an email which had neither a portion marker in the header (as all classified emails should) nor classification banners. In that context, I think mlet's actually pretty reasonable to have no idea that a parenthetical (C) on a paragraph was intended as a portion marker of classification level. [0] http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Information.pdf http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Inform...

misnome 10y ago

You mean the legal experts... at the DOJ? Who apparently said "the move would be inconsistent with rules designed to avoid the appearance of interference in an election"? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37815558 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37815558

downandout 10y ago
Given their handling of the Clinton investigation, I wouldn't call anyone at the DOJ a legal expert.