FBI: Clinton 'Should Have Known' Private Email Server 'No Way To Handle Classified Info', But No Charges Will Be Sought
from the not-even-the-sting-of-a-wrist-slap dept
FBI Director James Comey just held a press conference detailing the FBI's findings during its investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. The findings are irrefutably ugly.
The FBI, "painstakingly" reassembling emails scattered to the digital wind by device abandonment, multiple server upgrades, lawyers' brute-force attempts to separate personal emails from work-related emails, and a general lack of professionalism across the board, found that Clinton's private email server contained :
- 110 classified emails in 52 chains
- 8 top secret emails
- 36 "secret" emails
- 8 "confidential" emails
All were clearly designated as such at the time sent or received. Additionally, another 2,000 emails had been "up-classified" to confidential after being sent or received.
It also found several work-related emails Clinton's staff did not include with the 30,000 handed over to the State Department for release to FOIA requesters.
There was no built-in archival function in Clinton's private server setup, a basic feature considered essential by professionals. This slowed the FBI's investigation as it was forced to reconstruct emails from the digital detritus left behind by "routine purging" and device deactivation.
As noted above, Clinton's lawyers made several efforts to delete "personal" emails, but they did so by using searches and header info, rather than actually reading the emails' content. The FBI did read the content of what it could recover, finding it likely that some work-related emails vanished during these purges. It also discovered Clinton hired some smart lawyers: "lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."
But at the end of it all, the FBI found Clinton's use of private email server to be severely stupid, rather than criminal. Comey says the FBI found no signs of "intentional misconduct" by lawyers during personal email deletions or routine purges. Likewise, there was "no clear evidence of intentional misconduct by staffers," but Clinton's emails were "clearly mishandled."
The FBI's final conclusion is damning, but only in terms of harsh words, not actual punishment. Clinton and her staff "knew or should have known" a private email server was "no way to properly handle classified email" -- especially when housed on private server with "no full-time staff" or anything approaching the level of service one would equate with email services like Gmail. Comey also noted that Clinton used her personal domain "extensively" outside of the US, needlessly exposing sensitive information in the "presence of hostile actors."
James Comey also took a little time to bash her agency, stating that the FBI found the "security culture" of the State Department to be "lacking."
But for anyone who was hoping this would result in criminal charges, the FBI has nothing in the way of good news. Comey says it's not the FBI's call to pursue prosecution, but stated that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton, despite her repeated careless handling of sensitive info via her barely-competent private email service.
Final call, according to Comey: Clinton, staffers may be subject to security or administrative sanctions, but "no [criminal] charges are appropriate" in this case.
Clinton walks. The FBI has determined there was no malice in her actions. Being stupid and dishonest is no crime, at least not as far as the FBI is willing to push it. The DOJ has the final call, but it's highly unlikely it will override the FBI's recommendation. The decision is one that people in Clinton's position are far more likely to receive. Others lower on the political ladder -- or, god forbid, just average voting Americans -- are far less likely to receive this much deference from the nation's top prosecutors.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fbi, hillary clinton, james comey, state department
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She should be seeing prosecution for this, at the very least. But, it doesn't surprise me at all that she isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
The outcome should have been the same for Snowden given the lack of malice, but wasn't.
Now that he has been charged, he can be a fugitive or he can face the charges. Unfortunately, there is no malice requirement to those charges, nor is there any kind of whistleblower defense.
The court simply asks the prosecutor if he can prove that confidential files were leaked, and if the answer is yes that's a guilty verdict. No defense possible for Snowden in that kangaroo court.
If Clinton had been charged with the same crime Snowden was, her conviction would have been equally guaranteed. But she was not charged with that crime and therefore is innocent. See how that works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
Snowden, greatest whistleblower ever, gets charged for exposing the illegal, unconstitutional and traitorous acts of the agency he worked for.
Hmmm - hold up, wait, what? WTF? Seriously?
This in and of itself dramatically shows how bad things are in Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
Techies = Misogynists
And just look at their hiring practices if you don't believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
I know farm girls that would say the same thing about Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
You should be ashamed of yourself for immediately associating "fat ass" to women. You've apparently got some serious anger towards women you've been repressing. Seriously, get some professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
No, it wouldn't have. I can guarantee you that even under the exact same law they'd have found some way to let her walk, some 'mitigating circumstance' that meant a guilty verdict wasn't handed out. Clinton has connections and power, Snowden doesn't, which means while he is accountable for his actions, she and anyone like her isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!
it would make Hoover turn in his grave to know that someone has more info than him on the FBI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Today the internet is awash full of losers showing their sorry-ass misogynistic ways.
Colin Powell used his AOL account for this stuff when he was Secretary of State. What do you have to say about him, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And misandrists as well.
Colin Powell used his AOL account for this stuff when he was Secretary of State. What do you have to say about him, eh?
Citation, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another overused meaningless perjorative.
You are trying to belittle someone's position by simply insulting them rather than describing what's wrong with their argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I might help if you provided a citation to a source that actually provided evidence to support your accusations. More unsupported accusations just don't cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/1422/2015/08/01/august-2015-secretary-of-state-powell- received-two-classified-emails-but-under-very-different-circumstances-than-clinton/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being stupid or dishonest...
I guess that means if she's elected president there will be another private email server set up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being stupid or dishonest...
But to avoid detection, it will be hosted under the "definatelynotclintonemail.com" domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being stupid or dishonest...
She'll probably mandate them for her entire cabinet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary & Bill's attitude towards the little people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
The imaginary one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...
The ideal replacement would be a voting system based on the Condorcet method, but there are several ranked-choice voting systems (in which each voters lists the candidates in order from most preferable to least preferable) which would be far better than what we have now. (And which have the advantage of being easier for the layman to understand at a glance.)
There's essentially no chance of getting this adopted at the federal level from the start, but if we can get it adopted at the city, county, and (later) state level, we can mitigate the problem at the lower levels - and the more lower-level jurisdictions have that type of voting system already in place, the easier it will become to get it adopted at higher levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all clear to me, now...
- the police: the laws they're paid to enforce;
- politicians: things like The Geneva Convention, your government's laws, policies and procedures, the electors' wishes, etc, etc;
- journalists: all of the above;
- Level-one/phone tech support: how the stuff works;
- the public: things like, y'know, science, basic math, etc;
and you don't know that stuff, all you need to do is .. nothing. Nothing will happen to you.
Unless, of course, you're a standard-issue citizen, then YOU pay. Through the nose!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI establishes standard for handling classified information
Mishandling of classified information must be intentional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information
Will be interesting to see how fast that argument is laughed out of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information
Reagan's own head of an intelligence agency accidentally leaked much more serious info then this, and leaked the information to pretty much every government in the world. Yet he was not prosecuted either.
It would be a complete 180 and violation of that precedent to have charged Hillary over something much more minor then that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like the woman didnt know having a personal email server was a bad idea. Like we don't know the main reason to have her own server was to HIDE emails.
You want to know why the average citizen has disdain for politicians... here ya go. The woman knew she was having an email server built to hide emails. Period. It is no small undertaking to run and maintain an email server. All the effort and cost was specifically done to be a sneaky bitch. Period. And it appears to have worked. Intent is nowhere in the law. This is absolutely disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and that is the fucking problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Not That Unbelievable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Clintons have been hounded by people looking for bogus scandals for over 20 years now. I'd hide my email shit as well if I were her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Poor little Clintons. I feel so sorry for them. Not.
As a commoner I've spent practically every single day of my entire life with people like the Clintons looking for any reason to bring the hammer down on me. If I had done what she did I would be spending the rest of my life in prison.
The rest of your sexually offensive, misandric comments only go show what kind of person you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But she didn't just hide "her" emails, she hid government emails. That can't be condoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
The current administration will go down as the most corrupt in history. The next administration, assuming it is Hillary, will break that record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
Data in support of this allegation is forthcoming because ...
OP always delivers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
Well, on second thought, I suppose I should have been paying attention back in the day .. that way I would have first hand knowledge pertaining to all the goings on of prior administrations since 1776.
Ummm, yeah, anyone who does not immediately agree with everything you say is a liberal who ignores data (which was not presented). Either way I am the bad guy here because I made a statement that twisted someone's panties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
That's actually an idea Hillary supports, for other people. She has stated that any woman accusing a man of sexual assault should be automatically believed, except when it comes to Bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
As opposed to being laughed at and called a slut?
Imagine if that was your daughter - you believe her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
Imagine if it was your son being falsely accused. I get the feeling you probably wouldn't care, so long as it wasn't your daughter, would you? Boys are disposable, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
What kind of idiot are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
Yeah, only an idiot would even ask. Of course boys are disposable. That's what prisons are for after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't like it but...
So you expect charges could be brought after she's elected President and personally appoints her own Attorney General? Seriously? If it's not happening now, it's not happening.
I do appreciate that it's problematic to bring charges against someone running for President, but it's more problematic to bring charges against a sitting President. And it's also problematic to not bring charges against someone just because they are running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Do you honestly expect a trial to be handled for completion BEFORE the next president is sworn in? We can't finish trials for misdemeanors in less than 4 months in this country.
It's best the DoJ/FBI stay out of the election and in the long-shot that she isn't elected, then handle it at that time, period. Indicting now would ONLY have political ramifications and not result in anything being completed legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't like it but...
That's the very definition of corruption.
Regardless of the law, she did violate policy. She did so in a way that is pretty common. It's one of those obvious examples of how there are two standards. There's one for the CxO class and another for the rest of us.
Democrats may be smug about the legal finding but the underlying problem still remains.
They're too busy drinking their own Kool-aid to perceive the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't like it but...
No need for her to appoint her own AG. As soon as she is sworn in as president her first two words:
"Pardon Me"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't like it but...
So that means there are 2 possible results:
1. She's elected, then under presidential immunity, unable to prosecuted normally (only via congress - not going to happen), and Comey and Lynch will be destroyed politically.
2. Trump is elected and the indictment can go forward.
These were the only 2 possibilities pretty much ever available. I don't like it, but the only chance she is prosecuted was always ever going to be her losing the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Should she be prosecuted? Hell yes she should, but the realities of the situation are the realities. There is no way it can happen and to try is a waste of time, effort, and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
A republican who tried to run for office accused of what she was accused of would have faced a continuous drumbeat to leave the race until they did so. That would have taken just a few weeks.
Double standard. Rule of Law dead in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Double standard is SOP
Rule of Law is only for the poor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
The Hillary's are out in force today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condole ezza-rice/
- enjoy -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Yeah, that must have been someone else using your computer that posted the link to the article about her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't like it but...
Although the real problem is that Hillary has a long history in public life and that includes a lot of people not liking her. She came to this with a lot of baggage. The same people that want her head for this would hate her either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't like it but...
Imagine her not being allowed to be in most meetings that she as president should be in, she would be completely at a loss and could not do the job as president..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't like it but...
And that is why she is unqualified to be President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Desperately trying to change the subject, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Almost as common as trying to change the subject when on the loosing end of a discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...
What? Equal treatment under the law? You're kidding, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't like it but...
Wishful thinking. Classification authority derives from the President -- she would have the authority to de-classify anything she would want to.
Letting that bitch become president would be awful in many, many ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not criminal, but very guilty
She broke no laws regarding her e-mail server, but her time at State leaves much to be answered for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not criminal, but very guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not criminal, but very guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not criminal, but very guilty
I think you should ask Thomas Drake about that.
Willful Retention of National Defense Information 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) (5 counts)
(793(e) is a modification of the Espionage Act of 1917 made under the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950)
He was looking at 35 years by going through proper channels with top secret information. Hillary was sending information to non vetted personnel, through non secure channels, and basically broke a hell of a lot more laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: the "no intentional misconduct" and no "vast quantities of materials exposed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So obvious that Trump called this a few days ago!
I think the fbi has failed on this, at least they should have recommended her security clearance is revoked thus making her ineligible for the presidency.
Americans have tow choices and both are not the type of people anyone would want in office.
Anyone else would immediately have there security clearance revoked or would be jailed for a long long time, the least they can do is at least make it look like there is a fair punishment, but i am sure republicans will start another committee into her emails this time and from there maybe another hearing into what they find in her emails and from there maybe ..well you get the idea.
If republicans had not dropped the ball and not spread so many damn rumours as fact the FBI might have been pressured even more if only facts were discussed and the FBI could be questioned over them.
No matter how you look at it she did wrong, knowingly and should be punished for that not by a fine which her supporters would pay for her but with real punishment that enraged her as she has enraged so many others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So obvious that Trump called this a few days ago!
Maybe they considered the very possible alternative and though "Oh hell no..."
However unpalatable this outcome, it might actually be in everyone's best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Too powerful to prosecute."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to start handing out the cash.
I have never lost so much faith as I have today.
How embarrassing it must be to be an fbi agent now days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May God, Ganesha, Buddha, Allah and whoever have mercy towards the Americans. And honestly, include us all while at it because things are going from bad to worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There doesn't need to be intent
This is fundamental to how they pursue these types of things. You are told repeatedly after you have your clearance and when you begin working with classified material that you don't need intent to be subject to prosecution. Your incompetence is enough to get you prosecuted.
This is Obama interfering with the election process. When someone is guilty of a crime and they are in the process of running for office using the justice system, as Obama has, is an interference with the process. Hillary is his club member (democrats club) afterall.
She's guilty of a crime, the same type of crime that others have been found guilty of for doing less (including even Bradley Manning -- who didn't have any intention other than to let American's know what crimes the government had committed). If no criminal charges are to be filed against her then Snowden needs to be allowed to come home and Manning needs to be released. Neither of those two had an intent to harm national security nor commit treason.
What Obama is trying to do is to keep Trump from using her as cannon fodder. Clearly Trump is going to, and had intended to, use this against her. If no criminal charges are hanging over her head then what is Trump to do? I thing Trump will use this to show incompetency. I'm sure Hillary and the DNC are busily working on talking points in order to overcome anything Trump throws at her.
If no one else can see the process I'm baffled. Obama says emails aren't going to be released till after the election, then he has the investigative teams put Benghazi to rest, and now he has them put to rest the criminal negligence (which it is at least) case, is interference then we are a nation of lemmings. He's using his power to get things all lined up for Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There doesn't need to be intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There doesn't need to be intent
We The (little) People have it as evidence, nobody needs Trump or anybody else to point it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There doesn't need to be intent
Comey et al just re-wrote the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There doesn't need to be intent
Well, just for some people. The "regular" law still applies to the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scope?
The entire freakin' government routinely dodges FOIA requirements on a regular basis in order to hide government misconduct, and as such that isn't considered a serious matter in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President 2020
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're too busy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
most transparent administration because guilt is see through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clintons Mens Rea
Too bad federal law almost never provides mens rea for us commoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When reading that in context it seems to imply the messages were designated classified when sent, or "marked" classified. In reality the FBI is saying some scrap of information *within* the message was designated classified by some government office prior to transmission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being stupid and dishonest is no crime...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frothing at the mouth about today's villain's indiscretions is short sighted. You should be looking at what would cause Clinton - and those who held the office before her to do this. Just the same way you should be looking at why hospitals have lousy security practices.
Your ideal security practices do not exist in a vacuum. If the people you are trying to make secure are actively working against you, you're not doing your job right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comey says Hillary is a very special snowflake
W.T.F.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did any classified get our?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did any classified get our?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did any classified get our?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look out West Virginia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look out West Virginia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look out West Virginia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bernie kicks Trumps ass, then what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How knows what happens with clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How knows what happens with clinton
Sitemap
SEO Guide
Traffic
SEO Tutorials
Product Creation
Make Money
Internet Marketing
Is HRC a client of yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinton's email server
1. Clinton was really smart to use her own servers, since otherwise she would have been hamstrung by unending and expensive (to the taxpayers) "investigations" by Congress.
2. All the classified documents found were STATE DEPT. classified, which she controlled, so no crime. If there had been even one SECURITY document in the pile, Comey would be required to (and eager to) prosecute.
3. Clinton evidently handled her emails professionally, no evidence of GOP hackers getting in to steal stuff.
Wow! I am going to vote for her!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clinton's email server
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She can't be held responsible for not knowing whitehouse security policy right?
My guess is they laid out the dirt they had on eachother on the table, and Clinton won. Either that or they compromised and the DOJ under Clinton will be an FBI franchise complete with shake machine.
I can see it now. The DOJ will be run like the Soup-Nazi's kitchen. "What? No Constitution for you!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now this is the sort of foolishness...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LACK OF F.O.S.S AND F.O.S.H. ON CAPITOL HILL
-----
This is not an indictment of Hillary Clinton!... THIS IS AN INDICTMENT OF THE P-R-O-P-R-I-E-T-A-R-Y C-R-A-P THAT MILLIONS OF NETIZENS ARE USING ON A DAILY BASIS TO COMMUNICATE WITH! GIVE US A BREAK WITH THIS N-O-N-E-S-E-N-S-E!
-----
If leaked info compromised the security of America, I wouldn't be going after Clinton!... I'D BE GOING AFTER THE JERKS WHO ALLOWED THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CLINTON'S CELL PHONE AND SERVERS ANYWHERE IN THE US OF A!!
-----
Have a look at the Google result, titled, Volkswagen scandal Confirms the Dangers of Proprietary Code, by David Bollier!
-----
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]