New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

No, it's not. With classified information if you screw up then it's a felony, if you steal classified information, it's also a felony.

The law on this specifically states that gross negligence is the same as having harmful intent. In a lot of the law intent matters, when it comes to mishandling classified information your intent is irrelevant other than you can also be charged with treason if you have intent to harm the US.

As I've said before, even without charges being brought, the results of this investigation is enough to prevent Hillary from ever holding any job that would require any level of security clearance.....but she can still be president even if she's not qualified to sweep the floor at a scif or be the president's personal secretary.

 

How do you tell someone's temper through internet postings?

I'm fascinated to know.

 

It's just low level trolling.

 

How do you tell someone is upset by what they say? Is that a real question? Alright dude.

 

I'm not saying it. I'm typing it. Saying implies speaking.

Anyways, I'm done with you. Troll away...won't reply again.

(apologies to all others for the off topic nonsense)

Back on topic:

For those that seem to think this is no big deal.

A precedent has been set. Future military personnel, government employees, and contractors now potentially have a new defense to use concerning classified information cases. For example, if a future spy is caught using private servers in order to funnel information to an enemy of the United States.... has a precedent been set for acquittal?

 

This precedence had already been set.

 

So what's the next controversy that the loonies will latch on to now?

 

By 'loonies' are you referring to those who had legitimate concerns about Hillary's handling of her email, which the FBI report completely validates?

 

There is a difference between not warranting criminal charges, and not something a prosecutor would prosecute. Something could be one but not the other, which seems to have been the case here. Small difference, maybe, but a difference, and since we were parsing words, lets parse them correctly.

This is fair. Politically, I find the report extremely damaging to Hillary. Hard for her to be 'the only one you can trust' now.

 

most likely back to transgender restrooms

 

In a perfect world, I wouldn't call those people loonies.

But it's hard to differentiate them when they chose to bark alongside the loonies on the wrong side of the road.

 

Was chatting with someone else earlier that this was a piece of information that I would find very crucial in determining if what happened here was 'objective' or not. If indeed no one had been prosecuted based on similar evidence, the FBI statement seemed fair. But if they had been, then it clearly seems to have been a swayed decision.

To be honest, though, this example has some issues:

Destroying the laptop and cell phone provides strong evidence of intent. Intent is not necessary to prosecute, but it does lend a lot of weight to it. The particular images he took also seem to show an intent...why would someone 'casually' take pics of those things.

This is what was missing from the Hillary case. According to the FBI statement, neither the scale nor her actions indicated an intent. Personally, I was surprised at the latter...I was quite sure they'd find evidence that emails were purposefully deleted to avoid handing them over. But that didn't seem to be the case. So, the difference between this example and Hillary's case seems important.

 

So you're not saying it, you're typing it. Well... there ya go. :grin:

I accept your apology.

 

Reasonable reply. FWIW, I didn't bark so much as point out that Hillary was clearly lying about her reasons for doing this, and that it was ridiculous (but not really Hillary's fault) that such a thing was allowed in the first place. Pretty much every major corporation has policies preventing this, and has for a long time. Wouldn't the State Department have similar concerns??? Or the government in general?

 

He destroyed them because he was being prosecuted. Meaning it had nothing to do with him being prosecuted. It only shows intent of not wanting to be in jail.

Comey did not prosecute Hillary the same way this guy was.

 

intent pertains to pre-crime.

deleting the e-mails pertains to CYA

#notapoliticalstatement

 

The problem a lot of people have is that intent is irrelevant when it comes to mishandling classified information. Her doing so out of negligence is the same as her doing so out of ill intent.

 

How many major corporations would tell you that your job involves 80% travel but oh - you can't check your email out of the office or on your phone?

 

You know... Most corporations would have a private email client or even a work phone right? That's a common practice- to have a work device- going back to the beeper