Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="anonymous2112" data-cid="768658" data-time="1467738828">
<div>
Clinton had a couple dozen emails about classified material on a non-approved server, and then deleted them at an appropriate time. This is just flat out wrong. They are numbered well above 1200 and included Top Secret and SAP information on targets and code names of operatives for upcoming missions. When is the appropriate time to delete emails on a non-approved server? She was attempting to bypass Federal Law.
</div>
</blockquote>
Comey said it was 110 total, varying from "Classified" to "Top Secret". These emails weren't sent to the wrong people, just stored on the wrong server.
I'm gonna memorize Comey's statement, because it's one of the most concise I've ever seen out of a public official.
Quote:Comey said it was 110 total, varying from "Classified" to "Top Secret". These emails weren't sent to the wrong people, just stored on the wrong server.
I'm gonna memorize Comey's statement, because it's one of the most concise I've ever seen out of a public official.
As far as the number of classified emails clearly mishandled, it doesn't matter if it was one, "a couple of dozen" or 110. The fact of the matter is the law was clearly broken, the FBI even agrees to that and they even stated that if anyone else did such a thing there would be repercussions. Yet their "recommendation" is to not pursue charges.
Quote:As far as the number of classified emails clearly mishandled, it doesn't matter if it was one, "a couple of dozen" or 110. The fact of the matter is the law was clearly broken, the FBI even agrees to that and they even stated that if anyone else did such a thing there would be repercussions. Yet their "recommendation" is to not pursue charges.
They saw the emails.
We didn't.
The inappropriate storage of the emails in question did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors in the opinion of Director Comey. He didn't think a prosecutor would win the case of United States vs. Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen the emails, so I'll take the man's opinion at his word. I'll also take the other opinions he voiced regarding the conduct of the SOS at his word, too.
Guys, lose the "Comey's incompetent" line, because there's plenty he's laid out on which you can seize. The system worked, and when you say it hasn't, you sound like Gore supporters circa 1999.
Forgive me, but hadn't other Secretaries of state done the same thing? I could of sworn I heard that somewhere...
Quote:Negligence with classified material is criminal.
Not if your last name is Clinton, or you serve in the Obama administration.
Comey's press conference was damning on many levels, but not surprising that they would not pursue charges. This is a good old boy network that makes sure the elite are protected no matter what they do. Comey even made it clear in the presser that if this was someone else, charges most likely would have been brought, but they somehow managed to use intent as the defense for why they didn't indict her.
Quote:I'll agree to disagree with you regarding whether or not the FBI Director did his job correctly. However, I will say that his recommendation that no charges be pursued was very much inappropriate.
As far as the classified material "simply being on the wrong server", that's total "male cow feces". Anyone that knows anything about emailing classified information knows that proper encryption should be used, and for a lot of us, that means also using networks that are secure such as SIPRNet which was specifically designed and set up for use by DoD and the Department of State.
Sorry, didn't see this one and should have acknowledged it before posting last response.
After watching Hillary work technology, I honestly don't believe she knew what the hell she was doing, and sure don't think she had the same understanding of the way email works that you do. I'm pretty tech savvy, but before this whole fracas, I didn't either. Perhaps I still don't. Before your link, I had no idea what SPIRNet was either.
Maybe she was preoccupied with the other important parts of her job. And next time, maybe carry an extra phone or two.
Rand Paul hits on all cylinders:
<p style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">Today the FBI announced Hillary Clinton violated classified procedures, carelessly and recklessly endangered national security - and had done so repeatedly, over 100 times.
The FBI then announced she would face no charges. This is an outrage and the rule of law has been turned upside down.
This weekend, we learned former President Clinton met with the Obama Administration Attorney general - the FBI director's boss - in private.
Three days later the FBI director announces no charges are being brought against Hillary Clinton.
The appearance is terrible. The decision is astounding. People have gone to jail for less severe breaches of classified information and national security.
Today Director Comey and the Obama Administration Department of Justice made it clear to the American people, and all those being unfairly prosecuted by the DOJ, that there is no accountability, no justice, and the Clintons are allowed to live by a different set of rules.
This is a loss for the rule of law and further degrades Americans' faith in the justice system.
Quote:
As far as the classified material "simply being on the wrong server", that's total "male cow feces". Anyone that knows anything about emailing classified information knows that proper encryption should be used, and for a lot of us, that means also using networks that are secure such as SIPRNet which was specifically designed and set up for use by DoD and the Department of State.
Just a quick question, and I swear I'm not using this as a defense of Hillary's idiotic choice to use a personal server:
Didn't "Chelsea" Manning compromise SPIRNet? Would the "illegal" emails on Clinton's server have gotten out then?
Quote:They saw the emails.
We didn't.
The inappropriate storage of the emails in question did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors in the opinion of Director Comey. He didn't think a prosecutor would win the case of United States vs. Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen the emails, so I'll take the man's opinion at his word. I'll also take the other opinions he voiced regarding the conduct of the SOS at his word, too.
Guys, lose the "Comey's incompetent" line, because there's plenty he's laid out on which you can seize. The system worked, and when you say it hasn't, you sound like Gore supporters circa 1999.
When you say "they saw the emails" it brings up other questions.
Were Hillary's lawyers who went through the emails to determine which were "work related" and which were "personal" cleared to access the information?
Quote:Sorry, didn't see this one and should have acknowledged it before posting last response.
After watching Hillary work technology, I honestly don't believe she knew what the hell she was doing, and sure don't think she had the same understanding of the way email works that you do. I'm pretty tech savvy, but before this whole fracas, I didn't either. Perhaps I still don't. Before your link, I had no idea what SPIRNet was either.
Maybe she was preoccupied with the other important parts of her job. And next time, maybe carry an extra phone or two.
Whether or not she was preoccupied with other parts of her job is irrelevant. It wasn't just her, it was her staff as well. Why did the IT person that set up her server take the 5th? Could it be because he knew what he was doing was wrong? Could it be because he would have to reveal being directed (ordered) to do so came directly from Clinton?
That's just speculation on my part, but it certainly seems to fit.
Quote:Just a quick question, and I swear I'm not using this as a defense of Hillary's idiotic choice to use a personal server:
Didn't "Chelsea" Manning compromise SPIRNet? Would the "illegal" emails on Clinton's server have gotten out then?
Manning didn't really "compromise" SIPRNet or any other secure network. He had access to it because he was cleared to be on it. That's different from "hacking" it.
Quote:![[Image: 67025438.jpg]](https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/67025438.jpg)
Fantastic! I did read Comey's statement. It seems that he didn't recommend charges against her because she didn't have 'intent' to do harm. Thats weak sauce, and you know if it had been someone lower they would have lost all security clearance and been fired/fined, but at the same time I can accept it. Whats interesting is that the state department won't say if she still has security clearance.
Quote:Forgive me, but hadn't other Secretaries of state done the same thing? I could of sworn I heard that somewhere...
The only one who used email extensively was Colin Powell, and while he used a private email account, he didn't use a private server that he was hosting in his basement with all of the security turned off. There's a big difference.
According to
this article on Politifact, hardly a conservative group, only 4 Secretarys of State have served since the dawn of email as a primary form of communication. Albright didn't use email. Rice almost never used it. Powell did as I referenced above.
Powell didn't email top secret SAP documentation as the FBI confirmed Clinton did from her unsecured email server many times.
At a minimum, Clinton's mismanagement of top secret data is a good indication that the lack of trust people have in her is validated. If you or I did anything even remotely close to this, we would be hoping our lawyers could cut a deal that kept prison to a minimum. We darn sure wouldn't ever be able to obtain a top secret clearance.
kids who grew up with the internet think email has just existed forever
Quote:Fantastic! I did read Comey's statement. It seems that he didn't recommend charges against her because she didn't have 'intent' to do harm. Thats weak sauce, and you know if it had been someone lower they would have lost all security clearance and been fired/fined, but at the same time I can accept it. Whats interesting is that the state department won't say if she still has security clearance.
Her clearance should have been revoked once she left her position. That would be standard protocol.
Quote:Clinton was negligent, just not criminally so. Something I've been saying for a year, confirmed by James Comey.
Don't do it again, Hillary.
The part about not being criminally so has more to do with her position as a high level politician than anything else IMO. But I agree with the findings. Comey is well known to be honest, so unless he has turned a different way this is probably what happened. However, if she had been some lower level assistant, she would have been fired and lost security clearance long ago.
Quote:The FBI says she is guilty of all accusations, but they don't recommend indictment. Huh? So because they didn't feel it was intentional, so it's okay? When it comes to classified, there is no grey area. As Secretary of State, she was an Original Classification Authority. This is assigned per the President of the United States and comes with great responsibility. She was well aware of what she was doing and the laws associated.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...nformation
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-authority
In my opinion, the FBI has lost what remaining credibility they had.
Agreed about the first part completely. That is exactly what he said. I didn't know of there being any restrictions based on 'intent' or not. It definitely feels like a 'laws for thee, but not for me' situation. That being said I believe what Comey says, and I believe he was recommended not to charge.
Quote:Yep and the FBI just stated as such in the conference. Look what happen with Gen. Patraeus!
The argument against this is that Pataeus intentionally leaked classified documents to his girlfriend/reporter. That is why he made such a big deal out of intent. Patraeus got a slap on the wrist also.
Quote:Patraeus voluntarily GAVE troop movements and exceedingly sensitive information to his girlfriend.
Snowden leaked classified information in attempt to sabotage the federal government.
Clinton had a couple dozen emails about classified material on a non-approved server, and then deleted them at an appropriate time.
It's OK to be upset, as thin skinned tweetmaniac Donald is, but there are no parallels with Clinton, Patraeus, and Snowden. There are other ways to show displeasure over the ruling, and plenty on which to fault Clinton (you can call her careless or clueless, for example), but her conduct was not deemed to be criminal by the FBI, and I have no problem with the ruling.
I completely disagree about Snowden. He didn't leak info to sabotage, he leaked info because he wanted to change what were widespread abuses of power by homeland security. He had tried to go through the proper channels and was ignored. He was trying to help, not sabatoge and he is very much a good example of how someone who is NOT an elite is treated.
Although I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, if Hilliary did what Snowden did, the media would call her a hero. And if Snowden did what Hillary did, he would be in jail.
Quote:The argument against this is that Pataeus intentionally leaked classified documents to his girlfriend/reporter. That is why he made such a big deal out of intent. Patraeus got a slap on the wrist also.
That slap on the wrist ended any political aspirations he might have had down the road. He might be able to resurrect it, but he'd have to change his last name to Clinton or Obama.