Originally Posted by
Daved
[B]>> That IS gross negligence
No, it ISN'T. I mean, I honestly don't know, but that's what we have FBI investigators and attorneys general for. The gist of Comey's statement on why she shouldn't be indicted was that gross negligence has been interpreted to mean seriously poor judgment that leads to a large breach in security or providing classified information to those who aren't cleared to see it. That didn't happen here. Therefore, not gross negligence by historical precedent and interpretation.
>> Not to say that Trump does, but Trump is a successful businessman who knows to delegate technical matters to people with that expertise, and to not override them.
Umm... I don't think that's true at all, but it's irrelevant here. The larger point is that Clinton's behavior, while disappointing, doesn't come close to the type of behavior that should disqualify her from being considered for my vote. The things the investigation says she did are things that previous secretaries of state also did, and also the type of stuff that people and politicians do all the time. I just don't see it as a big deal.
>> She was the secretary of state, how the hell do you not know about cybersecurity?
I think this is a red herring. She (and her team) knew about cybersecurity. They had a reasonably secure system, especially compared to other systems in use at the time. They had very few classified messages on their system, most or all of which can be reasonably be concluded as emails that shouldn't have been sent rather than breaches in security. Again, of course this stuff sounds horrible when you embellish what actually happened so that it sounds horrible.