Thread: FBI recommends not to indict Hillary

I wouldn't necessarily be against enforcing these restrictions more strictly (although there is currently a problem with overclassification that makes me not super gung-ho about the idea). However, for this or any other case I'm not in favor of arbitrarily changing precedent. Instead, if one wanted to start enforcing these rules more strictly, one should make clear that such enforcement was going to take place and only apply it to individual actions made after that announcement. Regardless of political power or affiliation, I'm not in favor of making an example out of one individual.

As far as intention versus actions, I think it's a combination of those as well as results. And intention does matter if you read the text of the relevant law. Basically, it's a crime if you intended to leak classified information, or if your actions resulted in classified information getting into the wrong hands by "gross negligence". In this case, there was apparently not enough evidence of either.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Dunno, it's precisely dumbness that sends people to jail, daved. It's not the intention, but the actions that should dictate due process. The intention will only determine the level of the charge. And one more reason why "but no one has been indicted before" doesn't hold water. Well, this happened with other secretary of states before her and will continue to happen precisely because no one is doing their job and indict one of these people to once and for all put an end to it and leave a clear message to future ones.

And it is just not future Secretaries of State that are off the hook. What happened here is that the lawyers of the next less important, less money-ridden, and who is seating in a much lesser chair, that unintentionally but deliberately (I love to say it) leaked top secret information and ignored the instructions and rules in place, will have a field day getting him a free green pass because before him Hilary and others before her also got away with this crap.

To you it may seem personal. To me, Hillary is seating exactly on the right chair to be indicted. Unless you think that Secretaries of State should be held accountable to their actions with the same leniency you will give, say, the guy doing the daily backups of Malia and Sasha ipads.

Agree 100%, especially with the last bit. To me, it's kind of BS to say that she's not guilty because the negligence wasn't willful. She was the secretary of state, how the hell do you not know about cybersecurity? She has to be playing dumb.

>> An indictment would help clear the waters around this entire issue. Either her innocence or guilt.

If there isn't evidence of breaking the law, you don't indict just to make it more settled by going to trial. That doesn't make sense. The FBI investigated and decided that the evidence showed that there should not be a trial. The attorney general agreed. That should clear the waters, except for the people who don't want to listen to their professional opinion. (And the inevitable not guilty verdict at trial would be just as scrutinized as this decision, so that wouldn't even make things clearer after all.)

>> 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.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Are you serious? The guy who is racist, wants to close off US and belittles people and generally doesn't know what he's talking about?

I don't live in the US, but if I did, I'd pick ANY other candidate over that idiot. He is exactly the kind of guy who would ruin USA.

Your opinion. In my eyes, Hillary is a much larger idiot. Obama himself said back in 2008 when they were competing for the dem spot that she would say anything to get elected. Julian Assange has and is going to release more dirt on her, and usually delivers. The Clinton foundation has apparently taken some questionable contribution in past years. That's enough for me. On the other hand, Trump is a successful businessman. But, as I said before, I don't like either candidate, but my choice between the two is Trump. By no means am I trying to glorify him. I would've voted for Bernie if he had beaten Hillary.

I don't really think Trump is more racist than anyone else (everyone is racist to an extent, anyone who says otherwise is full of ........). I don't support his idea to close off the US to muslims, but at the same time don't really care that much because ........ muslims. I don't see how anyone, liberal or conservative, can back up muslims unless they simply don't know about Islam. Islam is directly against women's rights, and that's not what America is about. The Quran commands men to strike women who get out-of-line, among other things. Surah An-Nisa [4:34] - Al-Qur'''an al-Kareem - القرآن الكريم

As far as his comments about Mexicans and building a wall, I think a wall would be a waste of money, but don't fault him for wanting to or anything he's said regarding illegals. In reality, I severely doubt that it would happen if he were elected. It's easy for people who don't live in the states that border Mexico to dismiss illegal immigration problems. Not all ____ are ____ (mexican illegal immigrants are criminals, hasty generalizations in general). That being said, there is still a fair amount of criminal activity coming over here with these illegals. Just for kicks: (U) U.S. Southwest Border Smuggling and Violence - National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 (UNCLASSIFIED)

As a last note, the US was ruined decades ago. Lol @ thinking any particular president is going to ruin the country, we've pretty much had piece of ........ after piece of ........ since JFK was shot in 1963.

Originally Posted by Epy

3. Define "reasonably secure". Assange got ahold of over 30,000 of her emails from her private server: WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Umm... Did you read that link? Assange got a hold of those emails because they were made available by the US State Department as a result of an FOIA request.

Oops.

Also...

>> Trump is a successful businessman.
You say this, but is it true? I mean, how many bankruptcies, how many failed ventures, etc, has he had? Sure, he's wealthy, and he does have some skills in generating wealth. But his business record is not what I'd look for in a top executive.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Straight from the mind of a true racist, I see.
It's alright.

Not really, I should've put racist in quotes. What I meant is that under the colloquial definition of racism, everyone is a racist. Everyone generalizes in some shape or form. As humans, we're built to do that. Our neural networks recognize things based on what we know about them, appearance, senses, etc. and implicitly calculate the probability of those things falling into some sort of category. For instance, because of what I am saying here, the reaction of many libs here in the states would be that I automatically love guns, am against abortion, etc., which is not true. That's BS from the sad fact that politics are getting more and more partisan over time.

True racism is the thought that any race is better/worse than any other race, or treating others differently solely because of their race, and that's not how I think. I am 100% for equality for all races, sexual orientations, gender, etc. Additionally though, I am for equality, and get ........ed when any particular group tries to get special treatment in some way. But that's a different conversation.

Back to what I originally said ("I don't really think Trump is more racist than anyone else (everyone is racist to an extent, anyone who says otherwise is full of ........).") and what Trump said:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

So of course, his statement is open to many different interpretations. But the way I interpret it is exactly what he said. There's are criminals coming from Mexico, which, living in southern California, I can say is true. But he also says that some are good people, which is also true. I know that many just want a better life. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the criminals.

That's how he's "racist", at least as far as that statement goes, and that's how I am "racist"--based on statistics and facts. Based on statistics/facts, there are a portion of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico who are criminals. Therefore, if you are a Mexican illegal immigrant, there's an increased chance (whatever % is based on those statistics/facts) that you are a criminal. BUT, that does not mean all illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals.

Originally Posted by Daved

Umm... Did you read that link? Assange got a hold of those emails because they were made available by the US State Department as a result of an FOIA request.

Oops.

Touché, but it's no matter, I still say it was less than secure. Re-read what I said in a previous post:

2. Caused state IT to disable spam filters because her emails were being blocked -- a clear indicator that her server is/was infected with malware (went through 3 years of hell dealing with company-wide infections and keeping our domain name off of the spam lists...that's how you get on those damn things--infected PCs sending out spam/malicious emails)

Originally Posted by Daved

Also...

>> Trump is a successful businessman.
You say this, but is it true? I mean, how many bankruptcies, how many failed ventures, etc, has he had? Sure, he's wealthy, and he does have some skills in generating wealth. But his business record is not what I'd look for in a top executive.

Whether or not it's true is a matter of opinion, which is what both of our statements are. "Successful" would have to be quantitatively defined in order to see whether or not it's true.