
FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case - jvrossb
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/fbi-recommend-charges-clinton-email-matter-40349756
======
MrZongle2
Two Americas, indeed.

One for you and I, and one for the elite.

I held a clearance for 20 years, during which time I was in-briefed multiple
times, received annual security refresher training, and de-briefed when I no
longer required access to particular material. The regulations regarding the
handling, processing, classification and storage of such material was made
crystal clear on every occasion.

I have no doubt that had I done the same as Hillary Clinton, a "reasonable
prosecutor" (to use the FBI's theoretical situation) would be easily found to
go after me.

Some animals are more equal than others.

------
potatoman2
No surprise here, the fix was in. Very odd conference though, he lists all
manner of violations then says no prosecutor would take the case.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The people who are determined to believe the fix is in, will believe the fix
is in.

Because what could be harder to believe than that Hillary Clinton is basically
an honest person trying to do her job?

~~~
MOARDONGZPLZ
I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying
to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was
serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by
supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she
did something wrong.

~~~
projectramo
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private
servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it
against her?

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-
email...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-
classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/)

Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and
retroactively labelled as such?

~~~
MrZongle2
_" If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private
servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it
against her?"_

Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean
that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped?

 _" Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally
and retroactively labelled as such?"_

The regulations for declassification of classified material are quite clear
about who is authorized to do it and when. Whether material is
_overclassified_ or not is as irrelevant as arguing that the quality of the
diamond in a stolen ring should determine whether or not theft charges are
filed against a suspect.

Edit: I cannot reply to @projectramo in the thread, who asked _" Well, you can
still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also
prosecute Rice and Powell?"_ My answer: yes, if the statute of limitations (if
one exists in such a case) has not expired.

The law MUST be applied equally for all, or it is tyranny.

~~~
projectramo
It seems it would be just as tyrannical to apply the law as it is written and
not as it is intended.

Here is a law intended to keep vital secrets out of the hands of enemies who
might do harm to the national interest. And you want to apply it, broadly, to
government officials who are trying to do their job.

I don't think Rice or Powell intended to do any harm, or wanted to give any
secrets out to any enemy. I also think the likelihood that their use of non-
government servers on a tiny number of emails really caused such an issue.

Yet you are advocating to end their careers, put them behind bars, subject
them to years of trouble.

Doesn't something seem off here?

(I am putting aside Hillary for now because she is just such an emotionally
supercharged example at the moment that it is hard to talk about her and just
discuss the facts, so I am using the other two as examples).

~~~
MrZongle2
(I'm not sure why I can reply now but not earlier. Anyway...)

 _" It seems it would be just as tyrannical to apply the law as it is written
and not as it is intended."_

I don't know if there is a difference here. The laws and regulations
surrounding the handling, storage and transmission of classified information
essentially boil down to: "Protect classified material from disclosure to
unauthorized individuals, follow established procedures, and in the event you
wish to stray from those keep in mind you're likely not authorized to make
that final decision so consult with your security officer and ensure your
bases are covered."

Let's assume that I, as a soldier or contractor, started using my private
email server for work purposes that on occasion involved classified material.
Maybe I didn't know what _exactly_ was classified (or how high), but that
doing so was definitely something I was advised _against_ doing during my in-
briefing and my annual security refresher training. Perhaps even _explicitly_
told that such a thing was not authorized.

I am, at this point, negligent in my duty to protect said material and I have
violated an agreement I have signed with the United States government. If one
or more unauthorized parties (whether contractors _I_ hired to set up the
server or somebody else) accessed my server and saw that material, _I have
broken the law_ even if I didn't pull a Manning or Snowden or intentionally
give material to a foreign intelligence service.

You can bet that _my_ career would be in jeopardy and _I_ would be put behind
bars and subjected to "years of trouble". Hell, I would likely be held in
custody _during the investigation_ over concern of being a flight risk.

There's a reason why people who have had clearances are generally up in arms
about this: mishandling and negligence is something they are repeatedly warned
about and fearful of. To see the same rules and regulations that governed our
activity (and in some cases really made our jobs difficult) so casually
ignored and allowed to go without so much as a wrist-slap is infuriating.

It's not about a witch hunt. It's not a political thing. It's about seeing
other people being treated differently in the eyes of the law. It's far from
being the first time in America, but it's as disgusting and discouraging as
any bit of fraud one hears about in the worst third-world countries, and for
it to be given a free pass at such a high level (and be dismissed by so many
for political reasons) I think indicates the poor state of health our
democracy is in.

------
choko
As soon as Loretta Lynch announced that she would follow the recommendations
of the FBI, I had a very strong feeling that there would be no charges filed.

------
jessriedel
HN Discussion of actual FBI statement:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042)

~~~
Tycho
That thread has been flagged, despite being clearly a reputable source and in
scope for 'hacker news'.

There seems to be a cabal of down-voters to take politically undesirable
stories off the HN homepage. For instance, a while ago there was a story
called 'The Myth of the Lone Wolf Terrorist.' I read it, then when I clicked
back to HN to look at the comments, there was no sign of it.

~~~
Shendare
Happens far too commonly. I'll see a great link in the RSS feed and come to
look for discussion about it after reading, but the article will have been
removed. I've learned to search site:ycombinator.com with the article's title
in order to track it down and see if there was any discussion before it was
binned.

------
wahsd
What a travesty of both justice, democracy, and government.

Too big to jail, I guess. Ignorance is an excuse when you have a president
running interference for you to undermine democracy, even if you knowingly and
intentionally weakened and exposed the whole country and then lied about it
and played it off.

But let's make a crooked, incompetent, and dangerous person our leader.

~~~
Roboprog
Honestly, the 2016 presidential election really does feel like the 1996
Simpsons Halloween special. (only without bothering with the meat-suit
disguises)

It's a two party system; you have to vote for one of the green tentacled
monsters.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

