Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
She didn't tell any lies about the server. She didn't know details any more than a major corporation CEO knows what actual physical server their mail runs on.
She has enough plausible deniability and can answer with enough vagueness to not be chargeable.
"That is what the people who run the thing told me."
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Maybe you could make a system that makes it easy but that system apparently doesn't exist. And you could treat everything as clas
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and the
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".
This should be good for a laugh.
1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”
Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.
2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”
Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.
3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.
So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.
4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”
Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?
I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.
This one was actually hilarious:
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
Not a damn dime.
I just get really pissed off when everyone buys into a bullshit narrative and I refuse to let the bullshit artists dominate the conversation.
Seriously, the paranoia over paid shills to comment on message boards is kinda stupid anyway. The last thing Soros or any political actor would want is some idiot they were paying $10/hr to post on a/. message board to say something outrageous and have it traced back to them.
And even if they did pay a few there's already hundreds of thousands of people
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
Basic horseshit. Even the DOJ that's prosecuting him agrees he had no intent to distribute the images from his cell phone. You know, the same DOJ that was threatening Aaron Schwartz with 35 years in prison for unauthorized network access.
So no, not a comparable incident.
Damn straight it's not a comparable incident - Hillary had thousands and thousands of em
Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them
You mean 113 [politifact.com]? Out of tens of thousands?
an unauthorized, insecure private email server.
As opposed to an unauthorized, insecure state department email server?
The private server is a complete red herring, the confidential emails weren't supposed to go over the standard state dept email either. And she was definitely not the only one to have sent or received confidential email on an unauthorized account.
Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:-1, Troll)
Why isn't she in jail???
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:0)
What about all the lies she told about the server to the FBI? Is that not a criminal offense?
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
She didn't tell any lies about the server. She didn't know details any more than a major corporation CEO knows what actual physical server their mail runs on.
She has enough plausible deniability and can answer with enough vagueness to not be chargeable.
"That is what the people who run the thing told me."
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Maybe you could make a system that makes it easy but that system apparently doesn't exist. And you could treat everything as clas
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance [navytimes.com] on the subject [washingtonpost.com] is not [thepoliticalinsider.com] our problem.
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your ignorance [navytimes.com]
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
So no, not a comparable incident.
subject [washingtonpost.com]
Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.
Not a remotely comparable incident.
not [thepoliticalinsider.com] our problem.
Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".
This should be good for a laugh.
1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”
Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.
2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”
Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.
3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.
So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.
4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”
Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?
I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.
This one was actually hilarious:
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
Re: (Score:2)
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
Not a damn dime.
I just get really pissed off when everyone buys into a bullshit narrative and I refuse to let the bullshit artists dominate the conversation.
Seriously, the paranoia over paid shills to comment on message boards is kinda stupid anyway. The last thing Soros or any political actor would want is some idiot they were paying $10/hr to post on a /. message board to say something outrageous and have it traced back to them.
And even if they did pay a few there's already hundreds of thousands of people
Is the cognitive dissonance engine fusion-powered? (Score:2)
Basic horseshit. Even the DOJ that's prosecuting him agrees he had no intent to distribute the images from his cell phone. You know, the same DOJ that was threatening Aaron Schwartz with 35 years in prison for unauthorized network access.
Damn straight it's not a comparable incident - Hillary had thousands and thousands of em
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them
You mean 113 [politifact.com]? Out of tens of thousands?
an unauthorized, insecure private email server.
As opposed to an unauthorized, insecure state department email server?
The private server is a complete red herring, the confidential emails weren't supposed to go over the standard state dept email either. And she was definitely not the only one to have sent or received confidential email on an unauthorized account.
And also destroyed evidence without authorization, something that Sandy Berger went to prison for. [wikipedia.org]
He stuffed the docs into his pants, it's pretty obvious he knew he was violating the law.
Intent does not matter, only the action matters.
Yeah, why let one of the basic factors in criminal law influence yo