1662
1663

F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email (nytimes.com)

ReesesPieces19 が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Beckett151 732ポイント733ポイント  (407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."

[–]Reset_Assured 454ポイント455ポイント  (329子コメント)

This is criminal. He is literally saying that there is not equal treatment in this case.

[–]Amaroc 266ポイント267ポイント  (117子コメント)

In government positions there are two separate forms of punishment criminal and administrative. In order to charge or punish someone for a criminal offense you need to prove wrongdoing beyond a shadow of a doubt beyond a reasonable doubt, the person is afforded all of their rights, and a full investigation is pursued.

On the other hand if you do not pursue criminal charges, you can still fire the employee for various charges (incompetence, pattern of misconduct, etc.) and you don't have the same requirement of proof that criminal charges have.

The director is basically saying that she should be administratively punished/reprimanded for being incompetent, but it doesn't rise to the level of a criminal act.

*Edit - Used the wrong phrase, thanks to many that pointed that out.

[–]Reset_Assured 130ポイント131ポイント  (66子コメント)

But, she is no longer and employee and cannot be punished by the administration. The best that they can do is prevent her from getting a position with classified information, but that can't happen because she is running for president.

[–]Amaroc 87ポイント88ポイント  (40子コメント)

Exactly, and I'd add that this was a criminal investigation not an administrative investigation.

[–]ghastlyactions 74ポイント75ポイント  (39子コメント)

Right. And the criminal investigation found evidence to.suppport an administrative punishment (not their job) but not a criminal indictment. That's how an investigation works - they find evidence of a crime, or not.

[–]ShitlordX 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pretty much the only possible job she can now hold that would make her eligible to access classified information is President.

[–]hazie [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The best that they can do is prevent her from getting a position with classified information

No, that's now the best we can do. Don't make her president.

コメントをもっと表示する (21 返事)

    [–]AuthoritarianPersona 30ポイント31ポイント  (7子コメント)

    But it took conscious and premeditated action to set up the private server. There's no way to set up a private email server by accident.

    [–]libbylibertarian 40ポイント41ポイント  (24子コメント)

    In order to charge or punish someone for a criminal offense you need to prove wrongdoing beyond a shadow of a doubt, the person is afforded all of their rights, and a full investigation is pursued.

    That's to obtain a conviction, not to get an indictment. Seems clear there was plenty to indict Hillary Clinton on, but the rules simply do not apply to her. Remember, there is evidence she instructed classified markings to be removed so documents could be tranferred via non secure means. That's not a whoops kind of thing...it speaks to intent....and it doesn't take a law professor to see it.

    Besides, we can totally trust her with classified now...right guys?

    [–]plazyx1 45ポイント46ポイント  (9子コメント)

    This is exactly why this rubs so many people the wrong way.

    She's not even going to trial. She just walked away from it all despite there being mountains of wrongdoing.

    It's a complete farce.

    コメントをもっと表示する (14 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)

        [–]Dadalot 56ポイント57ポイント  (27子コメント)

        those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

        He's saying they're not deciding on those now, not that they won't happen

        [–]ShitlordX 91ポイント92ポイント  (26子コメント)

        They can't happen. Those sanctions are what the government does to punish employees. Clinton is no longer an employee. It isn't like they can revoke her access, demote her, or dock her pay.

        [–]gasgesgos 17ポイント18ポイント  (13子コメント)

        Yeah, it's hard to fire the boss, even harder when they quit...

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

        She probaby has a huge pension and benefits.

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

        This is untrue. She still holds security clearance.

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

        The shit you sign to get a clearance is good for life. Not just for the term of employment.

        コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

          [–]jcchurch 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

          He didn't say "charges". He said "consequences" (like she lost her refrigerator privileges in the company break room).

          [–]PLxFTW 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

          He is saying that there is no evidence to support deleting emails to intentionally cover her tracks which is what they were looking into.

          He also says there is evidence of willful negligence which they are not deciding on today and anyone that acted similarly while handling classified materials would be subject to "administrative sanctions" which would likely come in the form of losing Top Secret clearance.

          [–]2tofu 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

          If you haven't understood this growing up that the rich and powerful are treated differently. The FBI director just spelled it out for you.

          [–]Bbrhuft 42ポイント43ポイント  (44子コメント)

          No, he explained that she acted carelessly, and carelessness is not sufficient for a criminal charge.

          She didn't break federal law, unlike, he went on to explain, an individual who deliberately dumps large troves of classified data on the Internet (a whistle blower), an individual who physically hands over classified information to a spy, or a individual who shows by giving away classified information that they are disloyal (a double agent).

          Given her use of a personal email server and the sending of 110 classified emails was careless not criminal cooperation with an adversary, she would instead if a government worker, face internal work related sanctions.

          [–]proteuscoreg502 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I think people are annoyed because it doesn't matter what her intent was, by doing that she still broke the law.

          [–]Digital_Kahn 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

          No, he explained that she acted carelessly, and carelessness is not sufficient for a criminal charge.

          Unless it was you. Then your ass will have a one-way ticket to "pound you in the ass" Federal prison.

          [–]libbylibertarian 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

          No, he explained that she acted carelessly, and carelessness is not sufficient for a criminal charge.

          What do you make of the evidence which suggests Hillary Clinton told underlings to remove classified markings in order to send them via non secure means? Don't you think that instructing others to remove classified markings rises above the level of carelessness, and into the level of criminal intent?

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

          I'd sure as fuck think so, but apparently someone has Comey's balls in a vice about this. There's no way he didn't want to finally nail Clinton to the wall (via stake driver)

          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

            コメントをもっと表示する (37 返事)

              [–]ntn2 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

              No, he's not. They are being treated equally under the law. What he is saying here is that if she was still a government employee there might be workplace action taken.

              [–]AuthoritarianPersona 33ポイント34ポイント  (8子コメント)

              He also said they consider "various factors."

              One factor is whether she broke the law. By his own direct statement, she did. Another factor is whether she's Hillary Clinton.

              [–]warmshower 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

              No, he's literally not.

              He's saying that they don't recommend pressing charges, and that someone may face security or administrative sanctions. He's not saying they don't recommend security or administrative sanctions, he's not saying that other people would have charges pressed against them.

              Don't jump to sensationalize.

              コメントをもっと表示する (113 返事)

                [–]jackwoww 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                So....Nixon was right?

                [–]Deviant_Tech 62ポイント63ポイント  (22子コメント)

                Therefore, HRC should be unable to hold a security clearance and have her current one revoked, therefore exempted her from ever holding office in the future. If seen clearances pulled and paperwork written for much less, all inadvertent as well.

                But hey, if your Presidential election predictions included any scenario in which Hillary was indicted, you haven't been paying attention. The elites take care of their own.

                [–]ConquerorWM 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

                You can't disqualify her from the presidency without a criminal trial involving due process. The FBI's opinion is the exact opposite of that.

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

                Technically, she would be eligible for presidency even if she was indicted, convicted, even if she was in prison.

                Only tests for office of the president are: be a natural-born citizen of the United States; be at least thirty-five years old; be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years; not being served as a president for two and a half terms.

                コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                  [–]9Eaero 34ポイント35ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  All this announcement says is that, in the worst case scenario, if the federal government had an HR department, it would have fired her and blacklisted her from being hired at any of its subsidiaries.

                  Of course, the FBI specifically noted that such a federal employee probably wouldn't be fired so much as reprimanded, with loss of security clearance, mandatory retraining, or some other form of administrative punishment implied. Except you can't punish an employee who no longer works for you, and the President isn't hired by the federal government; they're elected.

                  So no, this has nothing to do with any elites or special treatment. Sorry.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

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

                    And that right there is why people get angry and lose all hope and faith in the system. Initially, I couldn't care any less about the emails - i thought it was a slap in the wrist kind of situation - but the fact that a regular person would likely face consequences for this and she didn't makes me care.

                    [–]bolenart 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    This should be read as "these individuals are not without blame and often face legal consequences from their employer, and we do not disagree with this. We do not however recommend criminal charges be brought against her".

                    The unfortunate part of the statement is the "but that's not what we're deciding now" part, which may seem like they apply a different standard to Hillary for whatever reason. The intended meaning on the other hand is to make clear that they're not the ones deciding on administrative sanctions. FBI can recommend criminal charges, but it's not their place to make recommendations on administrative sanctions.

                    [–]praiserobotoverlords 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    "Rules for thee, not for me!"

                    [–]cbuivaokvd08hbst5xmj [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                    We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. 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.

                    This is the part that really outlines her incompetence. I bet they wanted to swap that last "possible" for "probable".

                    コメントをもっと表示する (46 返事)

                      [–]HelluvaNinjineer [スコア非表示]  (3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

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

                      "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

                      If he doesn't want his career ended and a bar bell dropped on his neck he wouldn't. Anyone with an ounce of self-preservation would definitely consider this path to be unreasonable.

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

                      I feel like hillary should be portrayed as the joker, not two face, after reading all this.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                        [–]saltman241 46ポイント47ポイント  (6子コメント)

                        TIL Extreme carelessness does not equal negligence.

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

                        Relevant portion:

                        "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…

                        …there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

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

                        ... For you and me, it does.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                          [–]igacek 168ポイント169ポイント  (61子コメント)

                          there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally sent or received classified information

                          Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but we can pick and choose whether someone gets charged based on if they intended to or not? What if I accidentally went over the speed limit and got a ticket. How is this different than me saying "Sorry Officer, I was looking at the road and didn't realize my speed. I know you have proof that I exceed the speed limit, but I promise it wasn't intentional"?

                          edit: not trying to be an armchair lawyer. Genuine question :)

                          [–]marfalight 147ポイント148ポイント  (19子コメント)

                          Some crimes are strict liability (like speeding, usually), where your intent is wholly immaterial. Other crimes, however, require mens rea or some level of mental culpability for you to be charged. So yes, prosecutors do pick and choose to file cases based on whether or not the requisite intent is shown through the evidence so long as it's a crime requiring some level of intent.

                          [–]igacek 29ポイント30ポイント  (9子コメント)

                          Understandable, and makes sense. Thank you.

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

                          I think a good way to view the alternative scenario, and thus understand the determination of intent, might have been if she had only deleted emails that were classified, but not deleted many that were not classified.

                          [–]marfalight 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

                          No problem!

                          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

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

                            Didn't she send an email explicitly saying "remove the top secret header and send insecure." That sounds like intent dead to rights...

                            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                              [–]_ara 34ポイント35ポイント  (11子コメント)

                              There actually is a legal distinction in certain crimes between action and intent. Some laws are judged by perceived intent, and some are judged purely based on the act of the crime itself. Compare accidental or negligent manslaughter of someone with a vehicle to purposely running someone over - these are different crimes. In some cases, not having criminal intent might absolve you of the crime itself. I'm not sure if this is one of those cases, but thought I'd offer the info.

                              [–]igacek 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

                              So is this a binary issue, as in if there's intent she'll be charged but if there isn't, she's off free? Or are there other possible yet lesser charges like Manslaughter vs Intended Murder?

                              [–]ghastlyactions 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

                              In this case she's off because they didn't find evidence to indict her, such evidence necessitating intent as part of the charge.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                [–]coelomate 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but we can pick and choose whether someone gets charged based on if they intended to or not?

                                What you think and feel is critical under U.S. criminal law - it's referred to as the mens rea. One easy example: your mental state is all that matters when determining if a killing was justified self defense, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, or 1st degree murder.

                                Ignorance of the law itself isn't an excuse, but most serious crimes do require intent to engage in some specific illegal conduct.

                                Things like traffic violations are much different, and are often considered strict liability because you can suffer consequences based on your objective actions, regardless of your mental state/intent at the time, and those consequences are often less severe (fines, license points, etc.).

                                For real crimes, the kinds people often get jury trials over, intent is everything. Whether your conduct was intentional, reckless, negligent, or unintentional routinely makes all the difference in our criminal justice system.

                                [–]manimal28 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Intent can make it a different degree of crime or not a crime at all depending on the act in question. I don't think intent matters as much as she will be all of these peoples boss in a few months.

                                [–]ivsciguy 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                All the time. Many laws require intent. That is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

                                [–]candyappleman 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Difference between murder and manslaughter = intent. Just as an easy example.

                                [–]LordoftheLemmings [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.

                                Mishandling classified material is a felony even without intent. Basically he admitted she committed a felony but they couldn't prosecute her because she is too powerful.

                                [–]AuthoritarianPersona 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                The difference is that Hillary only endangered US national security, not something serious.

                                コメントをもっと表示する (18 返事)

                                  [–]Brad-Armpit 161ポイント162ポイント  (70子コメント)

                                  Internet Lawyer checking in. This will make Dems happy and GOP angry.

                                  [–]greeny214 107ポイント108ポイント  (28子コメント)

                                  Not all democrats, many Bernie supporters hate her as much if not more than GOP.

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

                                  I was kind of hoping she'd get indicted or something to force her to drop out while Bernie was still in, defaulting the nomination to him. Kind of last chance sort of thing.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (26 返事)

                                    [–]Shinranshonin 38ポイント39ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                    Can confirm. Source: I am an internet plumber.

                                    [–]ixiduffixi 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    As a plumber, can you verify whether this is complete and utter shit?

                                    As a keyboard warrior, I need to make sure my anger is justified.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                      [–]Sqwirl 23ポイント24ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      Am Democrat. Am unhappy.

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

                                      Dem here. Fuck Hillary. That is all.

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

                                      Are you going to join us R's in begrudgingly voting for The Living Meme slash seeing if a third party can get 15%?

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (28 返事)

                                          [–]Emperor_Aurelius [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

                                          I'm a lawyer with some experience in criminal law, and my reading is that the FBI didn't think they could get a conviction on the intent requirement. Most criminal laws require some form of intent in order to get a conviction (the legal term is "mens rea," or "guilty mind"). This is why if you purposely swerve your car to hit someone you'll be charged with vehicular homicide if he dies, but if someone runs into the street from between two parked cars and you accidentally hit him, you won't. I recall reading that the standard for the criminal laws regarding classified information is recklessness, though I haven't read the actual statutes. Recklessness is a legal term that, if memory serves, stops just short of intent. And while it's easy to say she was reckless in the colloquial sense, it's harder to get twelve jurors to unanimously say it's beyond a reasonable doubt that she was reckless.

                                          If I were to play mind reader here, I would guess that the FBI's thinking is that if you're going to recommend charges against a major party candidate for president, you'd better be damned sure the grand jury will vote to indict, and that a petit jury will vote to convict. Otherwise it's a massive black eye for the FBI - perhaps the biggest in the history of the agency: they've changed the course of the presidential election only to fail to get a conviction. Comey was focused on the intent requirement during his press conference, so it appears they just didn't think intent would be a slam dunk before the grand jury and, if they vote to indict, the petit jury.

                                          Frankly, this is probably the best result from Trump's perspective. Sanders consistently polls better than Hillary in a one-on-one matchup against Trump, so he's better off facing Hillary, who likely would have had to step aside if the FBI had recommended charges. And there was plenty of red meat in Comey's press conference for the Trump campaign and his super PACs - the linked article itself notes that "Mr. Comey delivered what amounted to an extraordinary public tongue-lashing." I guarantee you'll see attack ads playing parts of Comey's statement ad nauseum. So Trump supporters shouldn't be too disappointed by today's events.

                                          And just for the record, I'd sooner write in deez nuts than vote for Hillary, so don't construe this as a Clinton apologia. It's just my interpretation of events.

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

                                          Most criminal laws require some form of intent in order to get a conviction

                                          Yes, but this isn't one of them. To quote Comey; "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"

                                          [–]seigex [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                                          I'm a lawyer with some experience in criminal law, and my reading is that the FBI didn't think they could get a conviction on the intent requirement.

                                          FBI doesn't adjudicate, they just file charges if evidence exists that the crime was committed and all elements have been met, not up for them to decide whether or not a conviction is possible. That's the job of DOJ prosecutors.

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

                                          There is no intent requirement.

                                          The 3 pertinent laws here include negligence, as well as intent: 18 USC 793(f): 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...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 18 USC 798: Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 18 USC 1924(a):

                                          [–]high-and-seek [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                          Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?

                                          Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?

                                          Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out objection.

                                          Vinny Gambini: Thank you, Your Honor.

                                          Judge Chamberlain Haller: [firm tone] Overruled.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                            [–]__Noodles [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

                                            Someone please help me with the timeline here...

                                            1999 - Bill Clinton appoints Loretta Lynch as a US Attorney.

                                            June 29 - Bill Clinton secretly meets with AG Lynch in an airplane hanger and discusses for 30 minutes. AG Lynch is caught lying and says they spoke only for a few minutes about grand children.

                                            June 30 - DoJ all of a sudden states they will not release Clinton emails until 2 years AFTER the election.

                                            July 2 - Hillary Clinton meets with the FBI for a final interview

                                            July 5th - FBI says Clinton is not up for criminal charges despite gross negligence in handling secret info.

                                            Ok... I just wanted to make sure that was right.... Fucking bullshit.

                                            [–]Ofactorial 46ポイント47ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                            I wonder if there will be resignations from FBI, CIA, etc. over this. I believe people have gone on record as saying they'd resign if Clinton got off of this like she just did. Definitely sounded like Comey wanted to indict her but couldn't due to politics.

                                            [–]ZapPowerz 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                            That would be perfect for clinton. It would rid the CIA and FBI of "problem agents" that she could then replace with agents that will be more to her liking and do what she would want them to do as president.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                              [–]-er 22ポイント23ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                              How can anyone in good conscience vote for this person?

                                              [–]ZapPowerz 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              The government has investigated itself and has determined the government didnt do anything wrong.

                                              This is like every police dept that investigates misconduct by a police officer and decides the officer didnt do anything wrong.

                                              Ask any mafia member if they are doing anything wrong. They will tell you no as well.

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

                                              We have watched minorities be over-policed for years, while upper class Americans and corporations have been able to afford better lawyers, etc. Finally the left has been making a push to stop that type of thing. It makes me sad to see the majority of the left on my social media outlets then saying that this instance of the legal inequalities they have been rallying against, is just fine with them.

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

                                              If it was a Republican nominee that was cleared - I bet you dollars the media tone would be extremely different.

                                              That's the problem, people are OK with corruption when the result favor's their beliefs.

                                              [–]0ban 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                              What will it take for people to wake up and realize what has happened to their nation?

                                              [–]chferguson 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                              People are too busy playing "political warfare" to actually give a damn.

                                              The fact that fucking Trump and Hillary are the two candidates should be a major red flag. Unfortunately you have the Republicans trying to bring lawsuit after lawsuit over frivolous matters and the left sitting there acting like a spoiled child...

                                              Its sickening. This is really the final nail in the coffin for me. Such blatant injustice and all the left is saying "the Republican tears are tasty".... I mean how fucking idiotic can one be?

                                              We all lose today yet no one sees it

                                              [–]avidworks 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                              "He said there was no evidence that Clinton or his staff deleted emails with the intention to hide contents."

                                              I could be wrong, but, weren't servers destroyed and e-mails wiped to try and cover her tracks?

                                              [–]GiveMeNotTheBoots 95ポイント96ポイント  (48子コメント)

                                              They essentially admit she broke the law but "well she didn't mean to" (she did) so we're not charging her.

                                              It's great that that's how that works for everyone else, too:

                                              "Oh, you didn't mean to? Ok, you're free to go."

                                              "Thanks, officer, have a great day!"

                                              "You, too, kiddo!"

                                              [–]gasgesgos 45ポイント46ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                              That's the difference between murder and manslaughter and negligent homicide. In each case, someone died, intent is a major piece of this.

                                              Some charges require proof of intent, others don't...

                                              [–]Fartologist 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                              From my understanding, the laws pertaining to classified information are geared toward espionage, where someone takes classified information and gives it to someone without classified access. Hillary did not do this. What she did do was put sensitive information on an insecure network. This however, while stupid and reckless, does not violate the laws that are currently enacted.

                                              [–]nonameallstar 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              I'll just put this link here so that you can see what laws apply to this situation and that they are not all to protect against espionage. http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                [–]kinkyslinky 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                "Sorry officer I didn't know I couldn't do that"

                                                [–]citizenkane86 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                That's literally how any specific intent crime works. This is nothing new.

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

                                                You obviously know nothing about the law. One time I ran over two children in my car. The police questioned me, but I calmly explained that I didn't know what I was doing because I was drunk. They congratulated me on having learned my lesson and sent me on my way.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (28 返事)

                                                  [–]slash64 23ポイント24ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                  I see. Security policy and protocol for thee, not for me....

                                                  Guess we're clear to start sending secret emails over gmail!

                                                  [–]Pun-Master-General 137ポイント138ポイント  (56子コメント)

                                                  For those who didn't watch it, the conference can basically be summed up as ten minutes of "the investigation found lots of evidence that she's guilty" followed by five minutes of "we aren't recommending charges, but make no mistake, anyone else would be facing consequences for this."

                                                  Edit: I'll admit I have something of a bias here. If you want to come to your own conclusions, here is the transcript of the conference, courtesy of /u/HImainland

                                                  [–]9Eaero 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                  The press release makes it very clear that "consequences" includes administrative measures such as mandatory retraining, loss of security clearance, firing, etc. Legal or criminal measures, due to lack of intent or gross criminal negligence, aren't relevant.

                                                  HRC no longer works in the federal government, so no punitive measures can be taken. Your boss can't fire you for screwing up an order if you quit three months prior.

                                                  [–]CrazyHighOrdinaryGuy 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                  This is because the Executive Order establishing the classification system we use is to be determined by the president and his designated officers at the agency level. Like the Secretary of State. Of course classification procedures and penalties differ for high-level executive officials when the action is determined to not have criminal intent or negligence. Everyone with an ounce of neutrality in government knew this information and today's news conference was totally unsurprising; if you don't like it, then change the legal boundaries to criminalize this behavior prior to the crime committed.

                                                  [–]dave603 33ポイント34ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  And then not answering any questions from the press

                                                  [–]Digital_Kahn 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  The mark of a totally above-board operation. ////////////////s

                                                  Now it's time to get back to busting some old hippie for growing pot....because that is the serious crimes right there.

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                    [–]bvlshewic 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    He also said that her behavior is typical of the state department.

                                                    [–]Boiscool 45ポイント46ポイント  (28子コメント)

                                                    No it can't? It was more along the lines of "She didn't break any laws because there was no criminal intent, she was just extremely careless, and if she was still an employee of the government her clearance should be revoked."

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

                                                      [–]IsmellShart 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Different rules for different people.

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

                                                      Maj. Jason Brezler sent one unsecured email. One. Simply trying to stop boys being raped.

                                                      [–]Verminax 23ポイント24ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                      So the democratic Presidential nominee wasnt indicted by the democratic appointed FBI director or the Democratic appointed attorney General during the tenure of a Democratic President. This, despite the FBI director stating that there was clearly wrongdoing.

                                                      I am shocked.

                                                      [–]YMDBass 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                      She intentionally wiped her server, yet was found to have no malicious intent...I feel like I'm taking fucking crazy pills.

                                                      [–]Arwizzel 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                      An FBI director appointed by the Democrat President Barack Obama is not going to press charges against the next Democrat presidential hopeful. Big surprise there.

                                                      [–]Ragnar__Danneskjold 103ポイント104ポイント  (50子コメント)

                                                      Let's see how long this thread remains up.

                                                      As for the revelation, is anyone shocked? The fix was in. Clinton is above the law.

                                                      [–]Jetstream_Sam 23ポイント24ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                                      I'm not surprised, it was an uphill battle from the beginning since it would be difficult to prove she had some agenda or malicious intent rather that just being careless.

                                                      [–]ZapPowerz 31ポイント32ポイント  (20子コメント)

                                                      Clinton is above the law.

                                                      As president, what could possibly go wrong?

                                                      [–]24811812513198111524 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                      Whatever goes wrong, it'll be fine since it probably wasn't her intention for it to go wrong.

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (14 返事)

                                                        [–]DarkTussin 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        TIL that rich people involved in politics are often above the law

                                                        [–]TheWanderingSuperman 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                        They deleted the r/WorldNews one (maybe because it was a USA news thing, dunno).

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)

                                                          [–]Cardiff_Electric 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          Rules are for the little people.

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

                                                          In a move that surprised no one a Democrat controlled executive branch declines to press charges against the Democratic presidential nominee despite admitting in the press release that laws were indeed broken. Should we expect anything less? No one ever answered for Fast and Furious either, and I'd think that compelling FFLs to illegally sell guns to Mexican nationals in FBI/DOJ approved straw purchases in order to "track cartels" is worse by an order of magnitude.

                                                          [–]jean-claude_vandamme 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          Criminal acts of the powerful go unpunished, nothing has changed for hundreds of years

                                                          [–]lostandsafe 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          what a bunch of horseshit, i figured comey would puss out and resign before he'd bend over and take it in the ass like this

                                                          [–]TenOutOfTenBen 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                          Can anyone recommend a good pitchfork company I can buy shares in?

                                                          [–]lurkerr23 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                          Be sure to vote people, it really matters!

                                                          [–]Epistemify 20ポイント21ポイント  (25子コメント)

                                                          Well there you have it. President Clinton.

                                                          [–]Ni_Cho 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                          I honestly don't know now. Republicans are going to have a field day with the FBI statement. That 3 am phone call will pale in comparison to "Will she keep our secrets safe?" or whatever.

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

                                                          I'm not sure. Maybe. On the other hand Republicans have been running on this HARD for a long time now so I'm not sure if they'll be able to move anyone who hasn't already been moved.

                                                          I think if they were running a more trustworthy candidate themselves it would be a much easier sell. Plus, there have been a bunch of quotes the Clinton camp will use to demonstrate how republicans have been "out to get her". Especially quotes like the one from Kevin McCarthy.

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                            [–]24811812513198111524 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            This was decided in 2008.

                                                            This year really highlighted the lack of democracy in the primary process and the insane amount of corruption as well.

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (21 返事)

                                                              [–]Devaney1984 45ポイント46ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                              Wait what, the armchair lawyers of /r/politics assured me for the last 5 months that she was definitely going to prison for this?!?!

                                                              [–]Rowlansm 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              You try and get a US Attorney to charge someone who could soon be able to fire them.

                                                              [–]jacksonsmashon 28ポイント29ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                              You do realize the FBI today proved that she has been lying all along right? You realize he said she transmitted classified and top secret information?

                                                              He also said this

                                                              "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."

                                                              She's too big to jail, he said it

                                                              [–]Devaney1984 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              Exactly, it was clear to most people she wouldn't be indicted. Like when 5 million emails disappeared from the Bush administration.

                                                              [–]Generic_Reddit_ 24ポイント25ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                              That's not what he said. He said, she didn't break the law, that doesn't mean what she did wasn't deserving of sanctions at work. A teacher has sex with an 18 year old student, it's not against the law, but they could face administrative sanctions and it's poor judgement.

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

                                                              "security or administrative sanctions" =/= jail

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                [–]JurijFedorov 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                the armchair lawyers of /r/politics

                                                                You mean the angry teenagers?

                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                  [–]science_andshit 53ポイント54ポイント  (31子コメント)

                                                                  My favorite part is at the end when he says, "make no mistake, if other people did exactly this, then they'd be in big fucking trouble!"

                                                                  Obviously not a direct quote, but shockingly similar to what he said. What a fucking joke.

                                                                  *EDIT: as some are pointing out, I'm faux-quoting Comey's statement, not the article itself.

                                                                  The actual quote (thanks u/jacksonsmashon et al.):

                                                                  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.

                                                                  [–]SSHeretic 81ポイント82ポイント  (23子コメント)

                                                                  Not what he said at all:

                                                                  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.

                                                                  It the difference between getting arrested and getting in trouble at work. He's basically saying she should be punished but it's not law enforcement's job to do so.

                                                                  [–]schultz100 30ポイント31ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                  Exactly. He's saying if she worked in my department I'd take whatever actions I could (e.g., dock her pay, write her up to ensure she never gets another promotion, etc.) but she wouldn't go to jail.

                                                                  [–]SSHeretic 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                  write her up to ensure she never gets another promotion

                                                                  This one kind of feels like the rub in this case, huh? Almost like the director of the FBI is suggesting she shouldn't be president?

                                                                  I'm probably reading to far into it, but that feels like the logical progression here.

                                                                  [–]9Eaero 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                  It's no secret that the director of the FBI dislikes the Clintons. Additionally, he's also a conservative. With that said, this press release was incredibly fair, with reasonable criticism and recommendations for future action throughout.

                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)

                                                                      [–]jacksonsmashon 12ポイント13ポイント  (0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.

                                                                      Close enough

                                                                      [–]JacksonBollocks 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                      Obviously not a direct quote.

                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                        [–]TheresNoTimeForLight 17ポイント18ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                                                        Why are so many people shocked here? This is how the system works. If you aren't going to march down to the White House and demand for change by rioting in the streets (like all other countries do) then just sit back and enjoy whatever happens to be on Hulu. Presidential pardons, CIA shenanigans, Regime Change, apparently still in the Cold War, creating ISIS and every world problem with bad foreign policy, and the ridiculous cartoonish list of failures goes on. If you want "your country back", stop voting and start burning their fucking buildings down. Is this inciting violence? :/ I don't condone any form of violence (that gets me tortured in Guantanamo Bay).

                                                                        [–]Transgendered_Kitten 41ポイント42ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                        No surprises here. The laws are only for the common folk. The Clintons are allowed to do as they please.

                                                                        [–]ZapPowerz 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                        The Clintons are allowed to do as they please.

                                                                        Well, once she is president she will change her ways!

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

                                                                        Sure she will, while storing the nuclear launch codes in her Blackberry.

                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                          [–]KillerAceUSAF 19ポイント20ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                                          Pretty much how I feel about this bullshit recommendation No wonder Lynch said she was going to follow the FBI's advice! She probably knew the decision days ago. But seriously, she committed crimes 100s of times worse than what Nixon did, and yet she has a good chance of becoming president AFTER the crimes!

                                                                          [–]JohnZoidberg1985 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                                                                          But seriously, she committed crimes 100s of times worse than what Nixon did

                                                                          Tell me what you think Nixon did.

                                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                                                            [–]FatCr1t [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                                                                            This honestly makes me want to cry. I love this country and am currently in service. It sickens me even more that she has enough popularity and acceptance to win the next Presidential election on top of breaking the law multiple times. How can people be so blind...what can we do about this

                                                                            [–]KnopflerisGod 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                            "Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king." B. Dylan

                                                                            [–]d3fq0n 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                            Yet more proof democracy in this country is long dead. Replaced by the parasite of the reigning plutocracy

                                                                            [–]AyeMatey 20ポイント21ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                                                            Audacious. I always thought that it would be impossible for an Obama FBI to recommend an indictment of an Obama Sec/State. The real puzzle was always How are they going to explain the decision to not indict? But the reasoning Comey presented here.... amazing in its audaciousness.

                                                                            "No reasonable prosecutor..." would bring a case? Wat? There's a significant rule in place to allow transparency and security, and it states that people must use government systems for communication. She knowingly and purposefully flouted that law. Why? we don't know, though we surmise she wanted to avoid FOI search requests. But the why is irrelevant. Any underling who conducted their business this way would be prosecuted, and quickly found guilty, fired, and maybe slapped with more serious punishments. General David Petraeus was fired and sanctioned for a similar violation of information security laws.

                                                                            Clinton? .... Nothing. "No reasonable prosecutor."

                                                                            Audacious.

                                                                            [–]adelltfm 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                            She knowingly and purposefully flouted that law.

                                                                            This is what I don't understand. What are we to make of her not wanting to go through the proper channels? Why isn't this enough?

                                                                            [–]ivsciguy 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                            Partraeus purposely and knowingly gave classified info to a thrid party.

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

                                                                            Even Patraeus got off easy compared to people without big influence.

                                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                              [–]Ericbishi 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                              Oh cmon this should come to no shock to anyone. Some IT guy will take the fall.

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

                                                                              No, it was the server's fault. Inanimate objects are inherently evil.

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

                                                                              Wifi server: live Jasmine.

                                                                              Has been indicted.

                                                                              CNN headline

                                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                                [–]pretty_sunflower 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                This election has taught me that you can be a criminal your whole life and still become President of the United States of America. Why should I obey the law if she doesn't have to?

                                                                                That being said, anyone need any cocaine?

                                                                                [–]Said-Dis-Sticks 26ポイント27ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                                                Utterly disgraceful... Incompetence is not an excuse for breaking the law. Intent, is not an excuse. Had this been anyone else, they would have been charged and jailed already.

                                                                                So she's not going to be charged. Because she was just massively careless. How does that help her case for being in charge of the entire nation?

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

                                                                                Hillary Voters see her as an embattled hero. They don't even consider the idea that she's actually a terrible choice for president because of her negligence in the past.

                                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                                  [–]Rowlansm 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  Because of the "special circumstances"

                                                                                  Translation: They can't convince a US Attorney to bring charges with the knowledge they will get replaced if she gets elected.

                                                                                  [–]fusionblade 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  I'm ashamed to be represented by this government. Seems like the young and the poor are still trapped by the systemic corruption our parents voted into office.

                                                                                  [–]Fanshelpmesleep 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                  Welp, gotta add the FBI to the list of government agencies with no balls.

                                                                                  [–]cow_moo_moo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  They will go after "their" adversaries, meaning people who threaten to cut their funding only.

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

                                                                                  Sad day for America.

                                                                                  How many times will we witness high profile individuals get off scott free while the rest of the nation suffers the consequences? This will create an even greater divide between the US government and the people.

                                                                                  AMERICAFIRST

                                                                                  [–]JurijFedorov 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  Did anyone honestly expect anything besides this? I wish they would go after people like Hillary instead of people like Snowden. But that's not how the system works.

                                                                                  [–]TheLaluna 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                  Guilty or not, the entire thing was futile. Obama would have pardoned her in solidarity against Trump.

                                                                                  [–]blissplus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  All hail the teflon queen!

                                                                                  [–]rileyluck 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  I think either outcome would fuel Trump's campaign. Either she gets away with it because she is above the law, which his supporters are avidly tired of seeing, or she should be charged and therefore not run for office. Myself I hate both candidates. I could just see a bunch of people on the fence looking at this and thinking here's another person who's above the law, untouchable that they won't connect with. Just my 2¢

                                                                                  [–]cecil6 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  Wont be the first time this country was run by a criminal.

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

                                                                                  Is this like when a grand jury decides not to prosecute a police officer?

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

                                                                                  Is this really a surprise?

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

                                                                                  Now put her on a list of people who have been investigated and don't let her do shit for 5 years.

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

                                                                                  If i mishandled info like that at my job, i get fired. It is called willful negligence.

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

                                                                                  suddenly /r/news is allowing politics?

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

                                                                                  Oh well, back to Benghazi we go.

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

                                                                                  Unauthorised retention of classified data on an unclassified network is a form of "spillage". Hiding spillage is one of the most egregious security violations, just under unauthorised disclosure. At a minimum, her SECRET and TS access was supposed to be suspended pending a review of the incident. Willful action or inaction should result in a revocation of one's security clearance.

                                                                                  Any lower level federal employee would've faced revocation. Any military member would also likely face UCMJ punishment, likely loss of rank/pay + extra duty followed by other-than-honorable discharge. Possible but unlikely prison time, depending on the individual and the command climate.

                                                                                  Here's a relevant excerpt from SF312, which all government employees must sign to be granted SECRET access. (TS further requires a read-on).

                                                                                  1. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

                                                                                  2. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

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

                                                                                  The folks voting for hillary have no integrity.

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

                                                                                  Very similar to this story: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/convicted-somalian-rapist-attacked-two-084627605.html

                                                                                  Neither Hillary or this Somalian intended to do anything illegal so they get off. At least with the Somalian it happened in a backwater shithole European country but in the US I was always under the impression that ignorance of the law was not an excuse.

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

                                                                                  So there's no prosecutor that will take the case.

                                                                                  If you or I committed the same actions, we would have prison time. Period.

                                                                                  What should the people do when there are no arms of government that serve them anymore?

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

                                                                                  Thank God! For a minute I thought President Hillary was going to have to run the country while wearing an ankle bracelet.

                                                                                  [–]Captain_Nemo_2012 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                                  So, any Political Candidate running for President is NOT subject to obeying the law? Something is WRONG with this country.

                                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (313 返事)