Hillary Email issues

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

FBI drops the ball IMO

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-d...ns-emails.html

as her path is fixed by corruption plain as day

How can you suggest charges when there isn't a case you can prosecute?

Most important is it looks like there was no evidence of mal intent or attempts to cover anything up.

[Slipknot]

inappropriate and negligent
if it were anyone else, they would be fired, fined and in jail

it's up to prosecutors now

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

it's up to prosecutors now

Huh? Legally speaking this story is dead.

[JohnR]

I listened to the press conference, I will post the transcript later and highlight key items. Had ANYONE else done that than the political uber elite they would have been prosecuted.

There will be significant protesting form the Intelligence Community.

The FBI has said either :

Nobody will be prosecuted for mishandling intelligence information if you say it was not intentional

or

The rules still apply to the peasants.

Both have significant, negative impacts on information storage.

Any thoughts on a 3rd possibility - those of you with a Security clearance (that can comment?)

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The FBI has said either :

Nobody will be prosecuted for mishandling intelligence information if you say it was not intentional

or

The rules still apply to the peasants.

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?

Here ya go - I know you will find problems with it though

http://www.navytimes.com/story/milit...lker/30907091/

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Here ya go - I know you will find problems with it though

http://www.navytimes.com/story/milit...lker/30907091/

Because I like you I'll give you a mulligan. This is your oppy to bring some game...do it!

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?

You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not how the law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not what Comey said.

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

i.e. the felony standard for gross negligence was not met.

[DZ]

Originally Posted by spence

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?

Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by DZ

Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?

and


I would venture to say she would not be able to pass a Top Secret Clearance Test at this point and how can you elect a candidate for President that doesn't have one?

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?

I'm note sure that's such a clean cut decision. Executives are often given more wiggle room on matters like this out of respect for the weight and complexities of their responsibilities...and in this case responsibilities born out of public service rather than shareholders.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Huh? Legally speaking this story is dead.

Yep. It's worth noting that the FBI doesn't have a history of being overly political. I think it was worth doing the investigation, you have to investigate to determine whether or not any laws were broken.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yep. It's worth noting that the FBI doesn't have a history of being overly political. I think it was worth doing the investigation, you have to investigate to determine whether or not any laws were broken.

Laws were broken, they just apply to the little people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Laws were broken, they just apply to the little people.

I don't know NEARLY enough about the technical stuff to conclude, for myself, if laws were broken, of if she received preferential treatment. This FBI director is known as being a straight shooter (I think). I had long ago accurately concluded about the character of this woman and her husband, this does very little to move the needle either way for me.

The FBI did say she was extremely careless in her handling of sensitive material. Is that who we want as POTUS when, whether she will say it or not, the civilized world is at war with jihadists? In a fair world, having the FBI say that you can't be trusted to handle sensitive intelligence, should be more than enough to lead people to conclude that she isn't nearly up for the job. She doesn't have the brains, she doesn't have the character.

And the fact that the FBI would release this, right after her husband had a secret meeting with the AG, is mind-boggling. The optics could not be more sleazy.

She's a moron, and she's morally bankrupt. I knew that already, and if anything, the outcome of this scandal (the latest of many) cements that.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Huh? Legally speaking this story is dead.

Huh?
The FBI stated it was illegal but legally speaking the story is dead , HUH?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Huh?
The FBI stated it was illegal but legally speaking the story is dead , HUH?

Yes dead...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politi...ges/index.html

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes dead...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politi...ges/index.html

Not quite
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Not quite
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've got to believe that a guy like Comey did plenty of homework before he went in front of the cameras yesterday. Just because Rudy is misusing legal terms to mislead people doesn't make for a case.