
Clinton Emails: FBI Recommends 'No Charges' - wolfwyrd
http://news.sky.com/story/1722032/clinton-emails-fbi-recommends-no-charges
======
rrggrr
I wonder how John Deutsche and Samuel Berger feel about this. Both were
charged for retaining classified data. And the many regular people whose
clearances have been revoked or who faced administrative sanctions and lost
jobs. The FBI recommendation is statutorily correct, but the absence of any
accountability doesn't seem just.

~~~
simbalion
Statutorily correct, what does that mean? They claim a lack of precedent. The
only reason there's a lack of precedent is that email is a young technology.

~~~
rrggrr
No, they claim no evidence of intent, which is key for proving criminality.
Gross negligence is an impossible prosecution where a defendant at a jury
trial is a 68 yr old grandmother and the central issue is an email server. The
upside here - if there is any - is that now Comey has all the credibility he
needs to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

~~~
simbalion
The defendant is not a 68 year old grandmother, the defendant is a former
secretary of state with a staff of "experts", and everyone knew better.
Ignorance is not a defense in any court of law.

------
wesnerm2
The difference between Hillary Clinton and others who were charged for
retaining classified data is that Hillary Clinton had the authority bestowed
to her by Executive Order 12958 and 13526 to classify and declassify
information at the "top secret" level that originated from the State
Department.

Source: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-
checker/wp/2016/02/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-
checker/wp/2016/02/04/how-did-top-secret-emails-end-up-on-hillary-clintons-
server/)

~~~
tynpeddler
I guess we would have to read the emails to know if she had the authority to
reclassify them. Otherwise “This authority(...) did not extend to information
generated by other agencies, such as CIA.”

~~~
hga
And the very worst stuff we've learned about is some of Sid Blumenthal's
emails, who shouldn't even have access to this stuff, forwarding highest level
NSA stuff, the sort that can get people killed in real time, the stuff that's
protected at as or higher a level than, say, nuclear weapons secrets (I have
friends who've worked for both the NSA and LLNL).

There is no possible way she has the authority on her own, or the State
Department by itself, to allow her kitchen cabinet blow the covers of these
people and methods, she in fact had a duty to report such breaches.

------
devillius
I'll just leave this here. Eerily similar:
[https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-
na...](https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-
reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-
retention-of-classified-materials)

~~~
arkem
I wouldn't call the two cases eerily similar.

One is about operating a private email server and using it for official
business that occasionally included sensitive information that shouldn't be
held on internet connected computers.

The other is removing classified information from secure systems (I think it's
implying SIPRNET) and keeping copies of them in your home.

One case is a person not saying "hey guys, we shouldn't talk about this here"
when topics get sensitive and the other is a deliberate copying of classified
information.

One constitutes careless handling of sensitive information, one constitutes
intentional mishandling of classified information.

------
appleflaxen
This isn't fair to the men and women charged for the same or similar actions.

~~~
nikdaheratik
Nothing about the process is fair, and neither outcome in Clinton's case would
change that. The government needs to stop classifying material
indiscriminately, and stop treating all whistleblowers like criminals. And
that's just for starters.

------
PopsiclePete
Gotta be careful, don't wanna piss off your future boss.

