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

I am aware of corporations that have that requirement. If you have a company laptop, you are not supposed to access the Internet using that laptop unless you VPN into that company's network. That doesn't mean that folks don't, but the company requirement is to not do that.

 

This is very true. Hell, even some top-tier research universities require VPN for all employee work.

There is really no excuse for what she did, even though I support and acknowledge the FBI recommendation. The only thing surprising in this whole business is that she did it in the first place. I'll never know what she was thinking, absent wanting control and avoidance of enemies within the federal government.

 

Out of curiosity, should HRC win the election, are these offenses impeachable? Do the offenses have to occur during her time as president?

Ignoring all possibilities of this actually occurring, I'm just curious if it COULD be done.

 

Not that any of the rabid angry people care about reality, but FWIW. This is from April.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted

A POLITICO review shows marked differences between her case and those that led to charges.



It’s the most explosive question of the 2016 presidential campaign: Could Hillary Clinton get indicted for her handling of sensitive materials through her home email server?

A POLITICO review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it’s highly unlikely — but not impossible.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.

“They always involve some ‘plus’ factor. Sometimes that ‘plus’ factor may reach its way into the public record, but more likely it won’t,” one former federal prosecutor said.

A former senior FBI official told POLITICO that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases.

“If you look at the history of what they pursued, you really had to have a slam-bam case that met all the elements,” said the ex-official, who asked not to be named.

Statistics support the view that prosecutions in the area are sparing.

Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show.
The cases indicate that a strong dose of prosecutorial discretion is involved, partly because the laws on mishandling classified information are written broadly.

 

If a case were brought on the charges the FBI director admitted there is evidence of, and there was a conviction, Hillary would be ineligible to run for president. If the charges were brought, it would effectively end her race which is why it didn't happen.

 

So am I understanding this correctly in that the reason there is no punishment is as follows:

- Clinton is not employed by the state anymore
- They could not find malicious intent, only gross incompetence

?

 

And the FBI director didn't want to suddenly end up dead under mysterious circumstances.

 

Yes, but I'm wondering if she were to be elected, could Congress themselves act -- if they had the votes -- to impeach her, since the FBI/DOJ have decided not to?

 

I don't think so, and even if they technically could, there won't be the votes for it.

 

In government and politics, they don't want the smartest but the most 'loyal'. Drones and grunts that are smart enough to do their job but also be loyal to the cause. Including keeping wraps dirty business for the sake of themselves...

 

It seems Congress is calling in the FBI director to testify about the investigation, should be interesting to hear him answer some hard questions when it comes to the logic of admitting evidence of guilt yet recommending no charges.

 

There are two layers to this topic. First, there is a distinct class difference between politicians and 'everyone else'. Regardless of what one believes the punishment should be, and in the very least, anyone else would have their TS clearance revoked. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Politicians can get away with it, everyone else can't.

Secondly, if politicians are never held accountable, what is going to keep them from continuing to be loose with state secrets? People make mistakes, I get it. But there is a difference between making a mistake and being willfully negligent. Clinton is the latter. I dont think she should be locked up and thrown in prison, but some form of punishment should come about.

 

There is the difference. I can see lots of cases involving misdemeanor mishandling being handled without prosecution. Gross mishandling, which Comey stated is what Hillary exhibited, is a felony charge, and as such, would and should be handled differently.

 

I'm not sure about that, but this is sure to be a really strong one in the election, and the debates. Trump is sure to announce that he will appoint an Attorney General who will prosecute this. If you thought this election was strange before, now we will see how one contender can talk, legitimately, about prosecuting the other should he win. Further, Hillary won't be able to get a security clearance. In every debate, she will be asked about this, and how she can perform her job without it. Trump will surely follow up many questions with this issue in mind...and Hillary can't really play the 'I'm the only one suitable for President' card anymore, which was her strongest play.

 

I believe Congress can vote to impeach if they don't like the color of your pantsuit. Seriously, if we elect reps that are partisan and/or nutty enough, they can do anything if they have the votes. Am I wrong about that?

So anyway, yes, if we get a President HRC, I'd expect pretty much continuous impeachment proceedings instead of congress doing any important work.

 

Given her history, she'll likely provide a steady stream of impeachable actions.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/polit...y-clinton-email/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist

Apparently, a lot of Sanders voters aren't thrilled with this result either.

 

Sanders voters aren't really happy about anything... many of them are entitled, complaining drones that are mad that the world doesn't reward you for just showing up.