Thread: FBI recommends not to indict Hillary

  1. #1
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413

    FBI recommends not to indict Hillary

    The FBI Recommends Not To Indict Hillary Clinton For Email Misconduct - Slashdot

    FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

    Not surprised, but still irritated. If a defense contractor (or anyone else for that matter) did this, they'd be in prison.

    The irony is that liberals are always highlighting the disparity of justice in the US (i.e. minorities more likely to be incarcerated, and for longer sentences, etc.), but somehow they're willing to look the other way for Clinton. Still shocked that dems chose her over Bernie in the primary.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,445
    The law is for thee, but not for me.
    What can this strange device be?
    When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
    It's got wires that vibrate and give music
    What can this thing be that I found?

  3. #3
    Registered User MutantJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,665
    Tbh, I supported Bernie but I kind of knew from the start that he wouldn't win. Too much awesome stuff at once for America to handle.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Angola
    Posts
    8,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Epy View Post
    The irony is that liberals are always highlighting the disparity of justice in the US (i.e. minorities more likely to be incarcerated, and for longer sentences, etc.), but somehow they're willing to look the other way for Clinton. Still shocked that dems chose her over Bernie in the primary.
    There are many liberals over there in USA looking at this case in utter disgust.

    That's another thing with the Democratic Party; the structure no longer mirrors or even represents its electorate. And situations like this are going to only aggravate the problem. If you are a Republican, rejoice with Hillary not being indicted. The DP is in a collision course. Shouldn't take many more years before the party crashes so hard it will take them a decade to recover.
    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  6. #6
    Registered User MacNilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    466

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Epy View Post
    Not surprised, but still irritated. If a defense contractor (or anyone else for that matter) did this, they'd be in prison.
    I've seen people say this, but yet I haven't seen good evidence for it. Comey specifically said their reason for not recommending indictment was that nobody had ever been indicted for anything as minor as this.

    The only evidence I've seen thrown out there is the Nishimura case, but that seems to have several additional factors involved.

  8. #8
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by MacNilly View Post
    Some people have way too much time on their hands...

  9. #9
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    I've seen people say this, but yet I haven't seen good evidence for it. Comey specifically said their reason for not recommending indictment was that nobody had ever been indicted for anything as minor as this.

    The only evidence I've seen thrown out there is the Nishimura case, but that seems to have several additional factors involved.
    Doesn't matter, people have been indicted for less to be sure. The private sector equivalent would be making personal copies of trade secrets. You would be fired, sued, and/or charged.

    I don't agree with the "minor" qualifier. Have you kept up with all that came out about it? Basically:
    1. Had emails designated top secret on her server
    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)
    3. Sent/received emails concerning planned drone strikes

    Cyberwarfare isn't exactly at a low right now. That's a lot to leave exposed.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    I'm aware of some of the details, sure. But none (including the ones you mention) come all that close to level of an indictable offense. And again, given that the reason for not indicting was specifically that nobody else has ever been indicted for a similar offense, I don't buy your assertion without good evidence.

  11. #11
    Lurking whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    9,612
    What's silly is how much she lied about it. I don't think she came a single hearing or interview prepared to mediate facts.

  12. #12
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    I'm aware of some of the details, sure. But none (including the ones you mention) come all that close to level of an indictable offense.
    See (f)
    18 U.S. Code SS 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    And again, given that the reason for not indicting was specifically that nobody else has ever been indicted for a similar offense, I don't buy your assertion without good evidence.
    My assertion is based on (f) above and the fact that the former attorney general said that criminal charges would be justified.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    Yeah, turns out that "extreme carelessness" doesn't exactly meet the standard for "gross negligence" mentioned in (f). Or at least it hasn't ever been that way previously and they don't want to randomly change precedent.

    As far as another attorney general saying criminal charges would be justified, I don't know that I'd trust him or her (whoever it was) more than the current FBI directory and attorney general who are closer to the actual investigation, especially since the FBI director is not exactly a Democrat. Doesn't mean I'd dismiss that opinion, but again, this all seems like flimsy evidence for the claim that people are specifically looking away because it's Clinton.

  14. #14
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Yeah, turns out that "extreme carelessness" doesn't exactly meet the standard for "gross negligence" mentioned in (f).
    By definition, that statement is correct, however I don't buy that no one involved with her email server ever raised the ethical/legal implications of doing what was done. If she's not guilty, someone who works for her is.

    Doesn't mean I'd dismiss that opinion, but again, this all seems like flimsy evidence for the claim that people are specifically looking away because it's Clinton.
    I don't think people are looking away because it's Clinton, I think they're looking away because she's of important status in the US. Politicians/celebrities/high-power businessmen get away with things that "ordinary" citizens can't.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    >> Politicians/celebrities/high-power businessmen get away with things that "ordinary" citizens can't.

    I won't deny that in general, but at the same time, I don't like to apply it to individual cases unless there's significant evidence of it. In this case, the evidence seems to show that Clinton and at least some of her advisers were dumb. They were warned of various risks but didn't take them seriously. It appears they thought they could avoid problems by simply trying not to send any emails with classified information. It seems like they largely succeeded (I think it was less than one half of one percent of the emails provided had any classified information in them). And while 99.5% isn't good enough to avoid criticism, I think it does indicate a lack of willful flouting of the law.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Tags for this Thread