上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]IDUnavailable [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

Interesting to look at how different groups report this news:

FOX:

FBI: Clinton 'extremely careless' about emails but shouldn't be charged

CNN:

FBI urges no charges against Clinton

RT:

Clinton hid thousands of emails, put classified data on her server, but shouldn't be charged - FBI

WaPo:

FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe

WSJ:

FBI Won’t Seek Charges in Clinton Case Despite ‘Careless’ Email Use

MSNBC:

FBI: No criminal charges against Clinton

Bloomberg:

Comey Recommends No Clinton Charges Despite ‘Carelessness’

Politico:

FBI recommends no charges against Clinton in email probe

ABC:

FBI RECOMMENDS NO CHARGES OVER CLINTON EMAIL USE

My personal favorite, Breitbart:

The Fix Is In!

FBI: No Charges

Comey Rips Clinton Repeatedly — Then Let’s Her Off Hook!

I guess none of these are actually that surprising, though.

[–]legacy_of_fail [スコア非表示]  (212子コメント)

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.

Okay, thanks for that.

[–]IVoteForTheHair [スコア非表示]  (85子コメント)

Emphasis on "security or administrative sanctions". No prosecution.

[–]aerosplat [スコア非表示]  (53子コメント)

Right. So if you and I did this as a government employee, we would have our clearance revoked, we'd be fired from our job, and we'd pretty much never work in government again or get another security clearance.

She did it, and she gets to run for President.

Lovely!

Edit: I'm not saying she should be disbarred from running for President. I'm just saying that FBI's conclusions prove that she's not fit to be President. It remains to be seen whether the party or the American people actually care about it though.

[–]JK--- [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Right. So if you and I did this as a government employee, we would have our clearance revoked, we'd be fired from our job, and we'd pretty much never work in government again or get another security clearance.

If we did it, we could run for President as well, and if we had a billion dollar war chest, we could make a real run at it.

[–]escapefromelba [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You could still run for President too

[–]MYGAMEOFTHRONESACCT [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Exactly. She no longer works for the State department. There's no other sanctions to be had. President is an elected position with Constitutionally mandated requirements, and nothing more. We could elect fucking OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony to President and Vice-President if we fucking wanted to.

[–]sunburntredneck [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

She isn't working for the government. We, as the American people, get to choose if that happens or not.

[–]fullonrantmode [スコア非表示]  (71子コメント)

Yeah, I'm not on the destroy-Hillary-at-any-cost bandwagon, but that statement is really fucking weird to me.

Do they show this much discretion when dealing with the "little" people?

[–]ghastlyactions [スコア非表示]  (28子コメント)

"It's not illegal but maybe her boss will punish her."

Sounds pretty normal to me.

[–]RevThwack [スコア非表示]  (31子コメント)

After having worked in the intel field for years, doing investigations like this one... yes. The requirements for pressing charges are pretty strict, so a lot of stuff just gets resolved with administrative action.

People do bad things a lot, but there's a big gap between bad and criminal when it comes to this sort of thing.

[–]armrha [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They do. Every case I could find online of someone accidentally breaching classification led to no criminal conviction and generally administrative sanction.

Even the guy at Los Alamos, a scientist, who copied the Green Book out of the system and onto a public Internet connected computer unintentionally only got 30 days suspension and did not even lose his security clearance. Green Book is about as classified and dangerous to distribute book there is, it's a major proliferation risk in document form.

[–]woo7 [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

That's for DoJ I think, not the FBI.

[–]allak [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That would be for the State Department: if she was still in the employment of State, State could impose an "administrative sanction".

But she isn't, so the point is moot.

[–]telestrial [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Actually, as painful as it is to say, it's for no one to decide. She doesn't work at the SoS any longer. What's the DoJ going to do to penalize her? She's out the door. The next job she'll hold will likely be their boss, and, until then, she can't be held accountable.

[–]InSOmnlaC [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I don't understand this. They say she didn't knowingly break the law, yet she sent 110 MARKED classified emails through unsecure email on servers she had setup to bypass government accountability.

How is that not knowingly breaking the law?

[–]Cekuro [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Welp, House of Cards just got its plot resolution for next season.

[–]anon902503 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Would be the most boring season of house of cards ever.

[–]grumpy_youngMan [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

maybe next season a clerical error will force the administration to file an embarrassing tax amendment.

[–]anon902503 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And they can spend one whole episode watching the chief of staff sit in a deposition room and plead the fifth 100 times.

[–]notscj [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Hillary's State Department recommended criminal charges against a career diplomat for mishandling classified information. He linked to a WikiLeaks cable on his personal blog and included three non-secrets in a book he submitted for department review:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/14/if-your-name-isnt-hillary-the-hammer-for-mishandling-secrets

[–]HelluvaNinjineer [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The highlights:

  1. It is a felony to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way
  2. It is a felony to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems
  3. 110 emails were classified at the time they were sent, 8 at the Top Secret level Outside of the scope of mishandling classified info, this is a violation of FOIA laws, as it's the destruction of government records - "The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014."
  4. TS/SAP programs are the most highly classified programs in the Military/Intelligence Community, frequently involving information that could literally get intelligence sources killed or result in permanently losing a source of critical intelligence - "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."
  5. It's highly likely that this classified information, and other sensitive information, was compromised by foreign intelligence services - "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account"
  6. HRC and every other person involved should have known what they were doing was wrong - "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"
  7. Despite all of this, no charges will be filed, as "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"
  8. Just because Clinton got away with it, other less powerful people should be warned they'll be prosecuted - "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

[–]terminator3456 [スコア非表示]  (314子コメント)

The r/politics meltdown begins!

[–]dyzo-blue [スコア非表示]  (152子コメント)

So many people were so invested in this nonsense.

People who think Hillary is going to the slammer are just like Charlie Brown, always thinking this time Lucy is gonna let them kick the ball.

  • White Water
  • Vince Foster
  • Travelgate
  • Gennifer
  • Monica

...

  • Benghazi

[–]philly_yo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would be "dead rich", to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I've spent covering just about every "scandal" that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I've launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I'm not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

From: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clinton-fundamentally-honest-and-trustworthy

[–]Llim [スコア非表示]  (214子コメント)

He went on at length about how negligent she was and about how hackers quite possibly could have gained access. And yet "no reasonable" attorney general would recommend charges?

[–]codeverity [スコア非表示]  (138子コメント)

I think he wanted to make it clear that yes, she fucked up. However, it wasn't a deliberate or intentional fuck up (or at least there's no proof that it was so the assumption is innocent) and that's why no charges.

Edit: Here is the FBI statement for people who are interested.

[–]klobbermang [スコア非表示]  (91子コメント)

Since when is ignorance of the law a free pass to break the law?

[–]codeverity [スコア非表示]  (74子コメント)

The reasons that they didn't bring charges are laid out pretty clearly in their statement:

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

[–]Dirigolaw [スコア非表示]  (27子コメント)

She willfully created a server knowing the security risks, and did so to avoid public documentation. It's hard to figure how that doesn't fit.

[–]irshadm2131 [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

If she didnt think at the time that doing so was "mishandling" classified info or that it exposed classified information etc, than she lacked the intentions for criminal liability. She may have broken the rules but it takes far more than simply breaking workplace rules to result in criminal prosecution.

[–]Lunched_Avenger [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But that means everyone else that willingly assisted in setting all that up for her had to also be oblivious of the illegality of it, which is very unlikely. (with virtually everyone pleading the fifth during questioning, I find that even more unlikely)

[–]IAMA_Ghost_Boo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well I think Dave Chappell put it pretty well. "I didn't know I couldn't do that officer."

[–]StalinsLastStand [スコア非表示]  (43子コメント)

Well, what does the statute say?

[–]CBEP [スコア非表示]  (37子コメント)

18 U.S.C. § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material — provides, in part:

(a)Whoever, being an officer… of the United States, and by virtue of his office… becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States”means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

[–]StalinsLastStand [スコア非表示]  (27子コメント)

The bolded part is a higher standard than negligence. That's why there were no charges.

[–]emily_brontesaurus [スコア非表示]  (20子コメント)

Would keeping the emails on a private server mean that she did knowingly remove documents and retain documents at an unauthorized location?

[–]mpark6288 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Knowingly requires that she have done so not just on purpose, but with knowledge that her servers were unauthorized locations. Given private servers were used by previous Secretaries of State (see, e.g, Powell saying he did the same thing), it would be tremendously difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she knew it was unauthorized and had the intent to retain.

[–]StalinsLastStand [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

Did she believe she had the authority to do so? Was she aware it was unauthorized?

[–]ShadowSwipe [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Anyone at her level goes through tons of briefings and trainings on what constitutes classified information and what is considered a secure environment for said information.

[–]Notverypretty-vacant [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Considering she sent out emails specifically saying her employees weren't allowed to use unsecure emails, yes, she was aware.

[–]Cedsi [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

"DID YOU DO THIS ON PURPOSE?"

"No, I was being negligent." - Michael Scott Hillary Clinton

[–]BIG_TRUKK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sad part is - one can surmise from the e-mails themselves that the server was intentionally set up to skirt FOIA law.

[–]GraphicNovelty [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

Tom Brady Guilty and Hillary Clinton innocent. What a lovely 2016.

[–]justessforall1 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Pretty much where I am at right now as a New Englander whose state overwhelmingly went for Bernie.

[–]rayhond2000 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Tom Brady didn't face criminal charges. He was reprimanded by his employer just like Comey said should have happened to Clinton.

[–]emr1028 [スコア非表示]  (73子コメント)

She won the FBI primary!

Edit: Just one more thing to point out, Comey said that there was no evidence of her server being hacked. Now, this obviously does not mean that it wasn't hacked, but I hope that it finally puts to rest this notion that "Guccifer" is some elite hacker who read her briefings during breakfast and such.

Edit2: Guccifer was extradited and interviewed, if he had really hacked the server they would have known about it. When they were talking about it being possible, they were talking about sophisticated state actors, not some basement dweller whose "hacks" involve guessing people's AOL account recovery passwords.

Edit3: I know what Comey said about other hackers, I am specifically referring to Guccifer because some redditors seem to think he's some sort of folk hero.

[–]Grease2310 [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

Comey said that there was no evidence of her server being hacked

And then immediately admitted that sophisticated hackers wouldn't leave such evidence and that she used her personal email on devices attached to foreign networks.

[–]RobosapienLXIV [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Arguable this one was more important than the generals.

[–]allak [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Guccifer could have hacked her server.

But there is no evidence that he, or anybody else, actually did it.

[–]anon902503 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Circle jerk gets it wrong again. Shocker.

[–]Direbane [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

As someone that could possibly be leading this country , Being called "extremely careless." should be scary enough.

[–]TopCuntMate [スコア非表示]  (127子コメント)

so basically she broke the rules but it's fine because she didn't mean to do it?

[–]wasabiiii [スコア非表示]  (68子コメント)

The laws require intent in this case. Disciplinary action, which isn't the FBIs thing, might not.

[–]Deanbledblue [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Didn't he say intent or gross negligence for a felony?

[–]gaydroid [スコア非表示]  (42子コメント)

That's how crimes work. Most of them require intent. See mens rea.

[–]crono1224 [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

Negligence is usually also acceptable in some things I am surprised it isn't here.

[–]gaydroid [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I think for the laws that Hillary could possibly have violated, they all required criminal intent, which is why most credible legal scholars were saying all along that there would likely be no recommendation of charges against her.

[–]crono1224 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Probably true, I have a suspicion the law has fallen behind the times. Her violation is essentially the same as leaving a brief case marked classified on the passenger chair of her car while she ran into a store, except anyone in the world could potentially access it.

[–]ShortFuse [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I don't think people understand what Comey said.

She broke acted against the law, yes, but it was:

  • not intentional
  • out of negligence

What he said was that they could not find a similar case with such a (relatively) smaller amount of negligence where the DOJ brought a case.

In my opinion, it's like prosecuting something jaywalking. Yes, it's illegal, but we've never really prosecuted it before. I'm not saying what she did was as small as jaywalking, but along the same vein there is a limit as to how far the DOJ prosecutes.

Of course, just because there isn't a precedent from a previous case doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted. It's just things of this (smaller) magnitude aren't generally prosecuted.

Edit: To clarify, the key is gross negligence, and nothing in known history, in previous cases, constitutes this as gross. I changed broke to act against. For the law to be broken, it would have to be have been gross negligence.

Edit2: You CAN try to prosecute, and it would go to a jury. The jury would have to decide whether this was gross negligence. Comey states, nothing in history shows that should could be considered gross negligence.

To clarify further. Some laws have a tolerance with negligence, the one is question does. Other laws (like murder) don't.

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession [...] (1) through gross negligence [...] or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

[–]Dimmadome [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I agree that's what he said. But it's not jaywalking. It's a serious issue. Once you get to this level, even though it was small compared to other examples it's still a really sensitive issue to start with.

Can I use this reasoning now to any law enforcement I come in contact with?

[–]NebraskaGunOwner [スコア非表示]  (189子コメント)

Hilariously I think Trump and Clinton both like this outcome. Comey lists all the ways she acted 'carelessly' but obviously no indictment.

So the race stays as is, but now Trump has ammo to hit her on judgement and qualifications, and Clinton gets to continue.

EDIT: This outcome is 100% acceptable. James Comey was pretty transparent in his briefing. Of course, there are questions I still have but I'm hoping more information will eventually come out.

[–]emr1028 [スコア非表示]  (30子コメント)

Trump definitely doesn't like this outcome. Most people will have forgotten the details within a few weeks, the key here is "FBI investigation concludes without indictment."

[–]Malaix [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Trump is running as the "outsider" hes going to drum this up as insider corruption getting away with it like crazy. Its not as good as indicting her, but it still gives him ammo.

[–]Nrussg [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Problem is then he has to attack Comey pretty hard as well which 1) will be tougher given Comey's established dislike for the Clintons 2) piss off Comeys friends( moderate republicans) who Trump is already pissing off and 3) come off fairly hollow given Comey's respected legal career and Trump's absence of any legal knowledge.

It will play well with the people who already like him, but not really anyone else.

[–]sparafucilee [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

People have tried that with the Clintons for 30 years. It doesn't work, and the voters don't really care.

"We get it, you hate the Clintons" is like the 90s "We get it, you vape"

[–]kgt5003 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

So do we all just ignore everything Comey said for the first 14 minutes and just talk about how there is no indictment and pretend Hillary did nothing wrong? Everything he said about her handling of classified information and how she ran the state department and all the lies she told and because Comey thinks there are no charges (though he said there should be consequences) we vote Hillary? How do you give top security clearance to a woman who should have her security clearance pulled?

[–]Qu1nlan [スコア非表示]  (60子コメント)

Christ, guys.

No, the FBI is not showing evidence of corruption. I feel like half the people in this thread didn't even watch the address.

Comey hit home for ten minutes straight how negligent Clinton was. He hammered time after time how she did wrong, she was foolish to do it, and a reasonable person would not have done so. He is hardly glorifying her.

He went on to say that, though she did break guidelines and was negligent, these actions are not the sort that would generally have prosecutors bring litigation against. She did bad, but would not typically be indicted according to history of other people doing similar actions.

The FBI isn't pro-Clinton. The law isn't pro-Clinton. The law is the law, the FBI did its job.

[–]blacksparkle [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

It's also worth pointing out that Comey basically outlined an entire culture of negligence within the State Dept. If anything it's evidence that in 2012 parts of our gov were still super behind when it came to digital security - not that there's a singular bad actor who is now running for president.

[–]PapaBat [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

"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," Comey said, saying the FBI could not find a single case in which a person was charged with crimes for similar actions.

This was the revealing quote for me. We already know many other government officials have been often careless with email security and weren't charged. Comey probably didn't want to open a Pandora's Box and have emails become the hot new tactic in ongoing political warfare.

[–]trianguline [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Honestly this is the thing that people quoting WW1 era statutes have been missing all along. Half the state department is guilty of any crime Clinton is.

[–]res1n_ [スコア非表示]  (104子コメント)

We have people serving lifelong sentences for marijuana possession and she grossly mishandled classified information "unintentionally" and her server could have very well been compromised thus exposing confidential information to our enemies and she walks.

This country is a joke.


Edit:

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;

This person has the opportunity to have access to our nuclear weapons. Hopefully she doesn't unintentionally press the wrong button. Oopsies.

[–]seraph582 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

her server could have very well been compromised

There is absolutely no way a machine hooked directly to the net with VNC, RDP, and outlook OWA all exposed to the Internet did not get hacked. It's just not possible.

[–]ShakespearInTheAlley [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

Those who hated her over this will continue to hate her. Those who didn't will waive it away. World keeps on spinnin'

[–]outlooker707 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And thus Bernie's last hope flutters away in the wind.

[–]dicelife [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

[–]here2red [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

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.

In other words. We're letter her go because she's Hillary Clinton.

[–]mrdilldozer [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Can r/politics get in on sports betting? I could make so much money by simply just doing the exact opposite of their predictions

[–]pocketjacks [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"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." ....

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.

If "any reasonable person...should have known" isn't the measure of "grossly negligent", I don't know what is.

[–]maybeshouldntsaythis [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm kind of blown away by how good that statement by Comey was. Authoritative, stern, reasonable, impartial. Delineated the facts clearly and got his point across. He came across as exactly the type of FBI director we would want running that agency.

[–]Barkey922 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I've worked with classified material before, and the first thing that should happen is her clearance should be revoked. I know folks who have worked for her at state and among the military, and they have all said she is terrible about keeping things confidential and has unwittingly given out information to people without clearance multiple times in her past.

They can't discipline her as a GOV employee, because she no longer works for the state department. They can't indict her on criminal charges, because her actions were in a really gray area that can be construed to not be criminal, so there's also that.

Can't punish her as an employee or charge her as a criminal? AT LEAST TAKE THE GODDAMN WOMANS CLEARANCE AWAY! I had a guy accidentally take his cell phone into an intelligence brief, and it rang. He got dragged out of the room, had his clearance revoked, and was sent back Stateside and discharged.

For a fucking cellphone, one time. And that isn't a special circumstance or anything. You get fucked for that sort of thing.

Hillary should not have any sort of clearance or access to classified information. Period. Despite not working for State anymore, I bet you her clearances are still technically active. They revoke that shit if you get a DUI or diagnosed with depression, why not for this?

[–]Vyceron [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Cue Walter Sobchak quote from The Big Lebowski: "Am I the ONLY one around here who gives a SHIT about the rules?!!!!"

[–]jayare9412 [スコア非表示]  (42子コメント)

Shit, what will r/politics flood the front page with now?

[–]recruit00 [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

Obviously how this was all a conspiracy and she is actually guilty and she paid off the entire FBI.

[–]madfrogurt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Thankfully the front page will only include one stickied post on the biggest political news of the month.

Wouldn't want to spam the same story 20 times!

[–]Pester_Stone [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They will move on to the next fake scandal that will no doubt surface in the coming months.

[–]SambalRahmani [スコア非表示]  (368子コメント)

Beautiful.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

[–]satosaison [スコア非表示]  (184子コメント)

You left out the next sentence, where he said those consequences would be administrative (e.g., official warnings, loss of privileges) and not criminal.

[–]crack-rock [スコア非表示]  (24子コメント)

Soo take her clearance away like any normal person would have happen to them.

[–]ChrisK7 [スコア非表示]  (20子コメント)

She doesn't have any clearances to take away.

[–]stevewmn [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

And to finish that thought, on Inauguration Day she'll get read in on all the biggest Top Secret level stuff anyway. It's a job requirement.

[–]Strawberry_Poptart [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes, she does. Your clearance doesn't just go away when you quit your job.

[–]Thefriendlyfaceplant [スコア非表示]  (24子コメント)

He's referring to 'administrative sanctions' not to criminal charges. Could anyone with knowledge about this elaborate what that would encompass?

[–]vivalabam13 [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

Revoking of security clearance, for one

[–]eaglebtc [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

She'd get it right back, assuming she won the election.

The one bright spot in all of this is that US Government employees will never be able to get away with using a personal email device ever again, and this shines a very bright spotlight on any agency or contractor that is not following this policy to the letter.

[–]CowboyNinjaAstronaut [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Like, if you were an employee of the State Department and you did what she did you would be fired, have your clearance revoked, and blacklisted from working in government again.

But you could also be prosecuted because she did technically break the law. They're just choosing not to because they don't usually prosecute unless the volume of material is exceptionally large or there was malicious intent, and they didn't find that here.

[–]suijuricide [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Former Army JAG here, so I can give you a military example. One of my duties was to prosecute courts-martial. Those were very rare, though (usually reserved for rape, battery, etc.). The vast majority of infractions were dealt with through "non-judicial punishment" (see Article 15, UCMJ), e.g., loss of rank, fines, suspension of privileges, etc. Alternatively, problem Soldiers could be involuntarily separated from the service through "adverse administrative action." Huge difference between those remedies and a criminal prosecution ending in prison time.

[–]TonightYeaBaby [スコア非表示]  (62子コメント)

You're leaving out the part where the punishment would not be criminal charges.

[–]J4nG [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

That was easily the best quote of the press conference. Following it,

To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

She's going to be the next president. Good luck with limiting her security clearance.

[–]boboguitar [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

He was talking about restrictions to classified materials, not criminal consequences.

[–]TheHanyo [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

You took the quote out of its context. He said that that person could lose their security clearances or job. Has nothing to do with criminality.

[–]chalbersma [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

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.

  • James Comey

[–]jestlolk [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I think special thanks should be given to Comey. I don't necessarily enjoy hearing his conclusion, but damn if he didn't deliver it in a way that made it seem as unbiased and a-political as possible. He even went out of his way to say this particular situation required an above and beyond level of transparency.

He reiterated what people already knew, which is the unfortunate thing. No malice in her exposing secret information, but it was exposed. It's "possible" that foreign intelligence agencies had access to her server. The server contained above top-secret information, which she consistently said it did not. She lied in saying she sent nothing that was classified at the time.

He exposed a couple of blatant lies she'd been feeding the media, but I doubt anybody will be talking about that. He said they didn't have enough evidence to proceed with criminal indictment, and the mainstream media will take that as a sign that she's done nothing wrong.

Unforunate.

[–]yuyuyayu [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

COMPARE

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.

WITH

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

What I am having trouble reconciling is that "extremely careless" sounds, to me, like recklessness, which is a higher standard than both ordinary negligence and gross negligence. Recklessness is found when someone knowingly disregards a substantial risk, which it is clear from Comey's statements that the standard was met. See

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

To me it seemed like Comey only focused on the "intentional" mishandling of classified information and seemed to totally overlook or ignore the "gross negligence" standard in the statute when deciding not to recommend indictment. Whoever believes that this decision was not made with politics in mind is a fool. As the man himself so kindly clarified for us all:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that, in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

In other words, she and others like her can get away with this, but that doesn't mean you can.

And before people start calling me an arm-chair lawyer, I am not. I am actually writing this a few minutes before I walk into a courtroom.

[–]Downbound92 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Bonus good news: After being wrong when he reported in March about these interviews happening in April with a recommendation soon to follow, and wrong when he reported this weekend about an indictment happening, we can now officially write off David Shuster as a partisan hack who isn't so much a journalist as an unemployed professional Twitter shitposter.

Oh, and CNN was right.

[–]GudSpellar [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

This seems like it sets a dangerous standard for future handling of classified material.

[–]Renarudo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

As a late-20s black male born and raised in NYC under Guilliani, Stop and Frisk, cops getting off for the murders of Amadou Diallo and Eric Garner (among others), and even getting off for the assault and sodomy of Abner Louima, I want to warmly welcome everyone saying "The Justice System is rigged" to reality.

There's plenty of space here, get cozy.

[–]crono1224 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Last thing I want to say is, forget if this was a person in the military or a lowly employee for the government. Imagine if this was a contractor for the government that was found to be storing classified information so negligently, charges or not, would they still be contracting for the government? I think not.

[–]MrInRageous [スコア非表示]  (140子コメント)

Hillary wants to be president of the United States--yet the FBI has just outlined an incredible lack of judgement on her part. It doesn't matter charges won't be filed. Clinton makes terrible decisions, and she is unfit for office on this reason alone. She should not be president. IMO Obama is showing gross partisan decision-making in supporting her.

[–]PotentiallySarcastic [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

IMO Obama is showing gross partisan decision-making in supporting her.

This just in, Democratic President is supporting Democratic Nominee for President in a clear sign of partisan behavior in the most partisan part of governmental system.

[–]BattleStag17 [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

Do you honestly believe that any of this is still going to be on the public's mind once the polls open?

[–]Sam_Munhi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The general lack of trust toward the Clintons isn't going to magically disappear.

[–]Cooljoe95 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

If you think for a second that trump will let you forget it...

[–]ProgrammingPants [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This investigation has been ongoing for quite some time now and the story hasn't stuck. No reason to believe it will all of the sudden now. The emails just aren't a good avenue of attack, primarily because most of the country has no fucking clue about the severity of the situation or can even grasp what the situation entails.

I'd be willing to bet that this will negatively affect Hillary maybe a little more than some zany thing that Trump says or does on a given Tuesday

[–]TrippyTheSnail [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

now I really want to know what Loretta Lynch and Bill talked about.

[–]HappyNazgul [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Season Finale of Game of Thrones.

"I knew that [Insert popular theory] was true!"

[–]UnseelieAccordsRule [スコア非表示]  (66子コメント)

I hope everyone who was bootlicking Comey's fairness because "he has been burnt by the Clintons before" accepts the final conclusion of this charade

[–]captainAwesomePants [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I do. I bought the "Comey seems impartial" argument and the "Clinton seems like a scumbag who clearly appears to have been doing something wrong here" arguments, and I'm prepared to accept that what she did was really, really stupid but probably not criminal based on his say so.

[–]UrukHaiGuyz [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

I don't like the result, but I accept it. I didn't and still don't have a problem with James Comey. Nothing left to do but settle in for the upcoming shit show over the next few months.

[–]UnseelieAccordsRule [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

I just ask you to take a look at those who have been praising Comey's integrity and now are slamming him as crooked.

[–]WeJustOrderedBisque [スコア非表示]  (96子コメント)

What will all of /r/politics's budding lawyers say?

[–]EFalcon [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Lawyer here, when the FBI said 2 months ago that they had no evidence of intentional conduct, that was pretty much a clear signal no indictment.

[–]stevebeyten [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

as an actual lawyer on /r/politics... I will say this is what I tried to tell people would happen for over a year...

[–]FoamHoam [スコア非表示]  (45子コメント)

That the American legal system doesn't apply to the rich and powerful?

EDIT: I got banned, but maybe this will make it through to everyone complaining about intent:

Run someone over while driving 100 miles an hour on a curvy road in a car you know has no brakes and see what happens.

[–]HandSack135 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

My guess on polling: Hillary will take a hit 3-4 points (need to make sure poll was conducted after these points were made), Trump picks up 1-2. He will then get a further bump from the VP pick and the GOP convention, so they are back to being neck and neck. At which point with this behind her and the Democratic Convention, she starts getting her lead back again slowly, but surely.

[–]luckyjames99 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I remember reading about some low level government grunts who were fired/charged for improper handling of classified information.

Does anyone know of such a story? Please reply with link.

[–]beelzuhbub [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Well leakers have a new Avenue to do it without consequences. They just need to set up an unsecured server.

[–]SunriseSurprise [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

How is knowingly sending emails that had classification markings on them, something Hillary denied denied denied, not full well showing intent to expose classified information to people without the clearance to view it? How is it any different at all than what Petraeus did for a misdemeanor?

[–]FrankBullitt68 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I really don't understand. I read this analysis from an attorney (https://beckandlee.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/why-hillary-clintons-emails-matter-a-legal-analysis/) who thinks Trump is terrible, but he said the relevant law is Title 18 Section 793, Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793) which says:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

So the law says that intent is not required, but gross negligence. Comey says that Hillary was negligent in her behavior. So why no indictment? Anecdotally, I served in the military and can't imagine anyone not getting criminally punished for behavior like this. It's quite shocking.

Edit: On actually reading the entire statement, he basically said she did violate the text of the statute "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information", but that a prosecutor would be unlikely to bring charges because she didn't intentionally violate the law. Not the answer to the above I was expecting...

[–]d3adbutbl33ding [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, it's over. Whatever you were hoping for (indictment or not) we have our answer. What the people of this sub (and voters in our country in general need to do is look at all that has transpired and make an informed decision). On one hand, the FBI said that while there was definitely wrong doing, it appears unintentional and not worth recommending jail time over. On the other hand, the FBI also (in so many words) said Clinton was careless and stupid. I know to a lot of people this election is Trump V. Clinton, but there are other choices if neither feels right to you. Each of us has a voice and a vote. Don't like Trump? Don't vote for him. Don't like Clinton? Don't vote for her. Read up on issues that matter to you and make an informed decision that way. See where all of the candidates stand on said issues. If you feel voting for third party is the right thing to do, do it. That is your right as an American. You have the right to write in a candidates name. Hell, you have the right to stay home and ignore the general election. Don't vote for someone out of spite or because of party lines. Vote who you think will do the country the most good. Now, enough shit posting about e-mails. Enough calling people names on the internet because they like candidate "x". We need to get back on track and start discussing and posting about actual issues that are affecting this country.

[–]TsarPerhaps [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Passive aggressive as fuck. I do think he had his hands tied, and wanted to throw as much shit he could at her politely without sinking her with an indictment.

[–]kurtchella [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Today I learned that people in poor areas smoking some weed are going to get more punished than someone rich leaving information out in the open for terrorists.

[–]fleentrain89 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Watch this not be controversial at all.

[–]VeritasWay [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Secret meeting on a plane proved to be effective!!

[–]eroggen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Everyone should remember that at the beginning of this investigation, the Clinton campaign went through the emails and deleted 30,000 of them because they were "personal." No one in the FBI or anyone else ever had a chance to see these emails. Clinton unilaterally went through and decided which ones SHE decided were personal.

The idea that a person under investigation should have the ability to decide what evidence is relevant is ludicrous. This is particularly infuriating because it is well documented that the purpose of maintaining the private server was specifically to avoid FOIA. This whole investigation is a farce.

[–]Pester_Stone [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

ITT: People who don't know what "criminal intent" means

[–]Knowakennedy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So here's what I don't get.... Publicly available was this:

turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.

How is that not intent?

[–]ancientappleiic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

To those who believe that this will somehow bring order and balance back to /r/politics, because the major participants here have been so focused on this case and a potential indictment, I do not think the resolution you hope for will happen.

I expect those who hope for this to return to a subreddit with more balanced coverage, think the same way as people who respond to trolls with the idea that: "obviously this person doesn't have all the information, all I have to do is explain it to him/her calmly and articulately using supportable facts and he/she will surely come around."