The FBI director just said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring any charges against Hillary in the email brouhaha. The soporific scandal is dying down in spite of the pathetic efforts to keep it alive.
“Opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter,” he said.
Hillary is in the clear as we all knew she’d be.
Clarissa's Blog 
Yay! I knew the “scandal” was stupid. But I do admit that last week I started getting nervous that somehow they would find a way to drag this out or perhaps she would be indicted and forced to stand trial. But now it seems like it’s finally over and she can head to the convention relatively scandal free.
Of course, there is this ridiculous story now brewing: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/protests-democratic-national-convention-bernie-sanders/)
Essentially, a bunch of disgruntled Sanders supported are going to “protest” the Democratic convention–which is so incredibly stupid. Never in my lifetime has the Democratic (or the Republican) convention been met with protests. Why protest this year?? Do they really want a Trump presidency?? I really have lost my patience with these supposedly “radical leftists.” It’s not radical if your sophomoric actions help get a racist, misogynist, xenophobic, and spoiled ignoramus elected as President.
LikeLike
You may have issues with Politifact but nobody else with a semblance of objectivity is even doing something like this.
Funnily enough these bar graphs are almost mirror images of each other. Politifact rated Clinton’s statements as True, Mostly True, and Half True 72% of the time (73% at the time of this post)
At the time of this post,Politifact rates Trump’s statements False, Pants on Fire, and Mostly False 77% of the time. Trump either says something false or pants on fire false, 60% of the time.
For comparison, Politifact rated Bernie’s statements as True, Mostly True and Half True 71% of the time. Notably, he has no statements rated Pants on Fire.
“Honesty” concerns are a proxy for something else.
LikeLike
I know the rules are different the higher you climb, but if I’d done the same thing with a private email server when I was in the army, I would’ve either been kicked out or have gone to military prison.
Of course the same rules are being applied to her as have been applied to other panjandrums, but it still rubs me the wrong way. But it is “fair” in the sense that the same lax treatment despite breaking major rules and violating the law were applied to her as to anyone else in her position.
So “fair” in that sense. Reasonable? Probably not.
I agree that within a bad, unfair, and unjust system the right decision was made in this case.
LikeLike
Yes, the army has an entirely different set of rules than civilian life. In the army, you can’t, for instance, go about as you please or even decide when you’ll wake up and fall asleep. So what? Let’s punish everybody who woke up whenever they chose because in the army that’s not allowed?
LikeLike
\Yes, the army has an entirely different set of rules than civilian life.
In a civilian life one usually does not have access to Top Secret or even “only” Secret information either. I am not saying Clinton should be jailed or thrown from a presidential race, but comparing those things to civilian life is dishonest.
If somebody is interested, here is FBI statement:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
QUOTE –
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
LikeLike
The rules for handling classified material and its dispensation are the same for civilians and military personnel. The penalties are slightly different, though also similar.
Clinton was only not punished because of her status/position and no other reason.
This is “fair” in the context of no one else of her stature would’ve been punished, either.
But right? No, definitely not.
Not to mention just how abysmally stupid setting up a private, relatively-insecure email server was.
But can’t punish a politician for stupidity. Else 90% of them would be rotting in prison.
LikeLike
Possibly.
I do know that a friend of a military friend served a month in military prison for mishandling of classified documents that were classified at the time he mishandled them. The government attempted to deport him, even though he’s a US citizen. Anybody I know who works for the government in any capacity is flabbergasted and indignant over her handling of the emails.
I’m not sure how lenient or strict people considered Petraeus’ punishment to be.
LikeLike
I’m sure the janitor at my work could also find many opportunities to be flabbergasted over what I do. A week doesn’t pass that we don’t see a member of the public fuss over professors’ schedules and work practices. The possibility that they might simply not understand what it is that we do never occurs to them.
LikeLike
For clarification, Petraeus resigned as CIA chief, plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified documents, fined $100,000 and given a two year probationary period.
Status does play a part.
LikeLike
The Petraeus case is entirely different. But yes, of course, status is crucial. Why is this news? I decided not to use any textbook in my course next semester. I’m not even informing anybody because it’s no one’s business. But if a part-time instructor did this, they’d be in trouble. As a tenured professor, I’m entitled to am entirely different level of autonomy. Why is this suddenly so shocking to people?
LikeLike
Of course, a general decides when to wake up and a private doesn’t. A higher position brings greater entitlement. It’s not only normal but very good.
LikeLike
While this likely means she won’t face charges, unfortunately I don’t think the “scandal” is going away soon. Her low-level negligence about which account she was handling classified material from, which should surprise no reasonable person who juggles multiple email addresses, is enough to keep certain types of conservatives blabbing away…
LikeLike
A number of much lower-ranking civil service personnel have been punished in various ways, sometimes including criminal charges and prison time, for mishandling classified material considerably less egregiously than Hillary did.
This is just another example of the Clintons thinking that the rules don’t apply to them — and of course, getting away with it.
LikeLike
In any workplace, people in low-level jobs have less autonomy than their bosses. It’s bizarre that this simple fact is provoking so much pearl clutching.
LikeLike
If Hillary were a cleaning lady at the Dept of State, she’d be fired for even touching these emails. UNFAIRNESS!
LikeLike
My experience in the military was that officers and sergeants were held to a much higher level of accountability than low-ranking enlisted people.
I remember when a general inspected a hospital where I was working. One of the airman (very low rank, equal to Army private) had a haircut that was out of regulations. The general gave the airman a letter of reprimand (slap on the wrist), then gave the airman’s first sergeant a career-damaging Article 15.
LikeLike
In this analogy, Hillary is the admiral. The number of people who have the right to control her haircuts is extremely limited.
LikeLike
Agree, but an admiral should not break a law.
LikeLike
Nobody broke any laws in this case.
LikeLike
Yes, I do think it is low level negligence. And since I strive to be logically consistent, I think the punishments you and others have described above for non-Clintons are far too much for low-level negligence. It is unsurprising that the rules get applied unevenly. And it’s not something I like, but I hardly think this is symptomatic of the Clintons in particular, just the upper crust in general. It sounds like ~half of those classified email chains got sent to her account, so it seems like mis-handling classified material is rather widespread…
LikeLike
The upper crust of what? Can anybody name a workplace where rules are not different for people in different levels of the hierarchy?
The discussion has gone very bizarre. I’m no longer surprised that people say things like, “You are not at work on Tuesday? If I stayed at home on a Tuesday, I’d just be fired!” I’m beginning to realize that this way of seeing things is not that rare.
LikeLike
It’s not about about autonomy, it’s about violations à law.
LikeLike
It’s not about autonomy, it’s about breaking a law.
LikeLike
The FBI investigation run by a Bush era Republican found that no law was broken. If even a fierce Republican like him found no problem, then there’s definitely no problem.
LikeLike
In the this FBI statement, it was mentioned that she broke the law.
LikeLike
Can you name the “law” that was broken?
LikeLike
From the FBI statement (emphasis is mine): “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information AT THE TIME; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”
LikeLike
You aren’t answering my question, though. Which law was broken?
LikeLike
From this statement, it clears that she broke the law unvoluntarily.
I find this (although I’m not sure that all 3 of those laws were broken): http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/
LikeLike
A foreign affairs manual is not a law. If you violate the dress code mentioned in the employee manual at your company, this won’t be considered breaking law. The company will decide whether to retain you based on your value to the company. But if they try to call the police, they will be laughed at.
LikeLike
it’s clear…
LikeLike
In this FBI statement, it was mentioned that she broke the law.
LikeLike
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/5/1545264/-If-you-believed-the-lies-about-the-FBI-investigation-you-owe-it-to-yourself-to-find-better-sources?detail=email&link_id=1&can_id=c2ed54b9acc7399c329434fb5824a3c6&source=email-if-you-believed-the-lies-about-the-fbi-investigation-you-owe-it-to-yourself-to-find-better-sources&email_referrer=if-you-believed-the-lies-about-the-fbi-investigation-you-owe-it-to-yourself-to-find-better-sources&email_subject=if-you-believed-the-lies-about-the-fbi-investigation-you-owe-it-to-yourself-to-find-better-sources
LikeLike
Although I don’t think she should get criminal charges (after all, Nixon was not charged, Reagan was not charged for treason, Dubya was not charged for 9-11 nor for the “arms of massive destruction in Irak” lie, and Obama is not charged for treason for arming ISIS), Trump has now all the legitimity to attack her on this matter to counter her “Trump is a racist bigot” line.
LikeLike
I’m happy this scandal is behind her. This was never going to be a criminal offense. However, I don’t think it is correct to conflate internal policies of an organization with the law, which you’ve done in the comments.
Yes, senior people in any organizations are not subject to the same rules that juniors are. It’s a no-brainer. However everyone is and should be equal in the eyes of the law.
Had she been indicted (meaning there was sufficient evidence she broke the law), it would be a very pathetic defense, even from her worshippers, that as the head of the State Department, legal rules didn’t apply to her.
That people in power are immune legally is a very dangerous idea.
LikeLike
Basically, I’m saying your janitor analogy is flawed.
Yes, the CEO can take the week off without notice and the janitor can’t. But the same consequences should befall both if they break the law.
LikeLike
The FBI conducted a long and detailed investigation and reported today that no law was broken. Of course, had she broken the law and killed a bus load of orphans, it would be a very pathetic defense to say that rules don’t apply and she should be allowed to slaughter orphans by the bus full.
LikeLike
Let’s see here. Extreme carelessness somehow does not equal negligence because the FBI says so. Go to the dictionary to see the difference. There is none. It amazes me that someone that comes from a system that had no rule of law is so quick to exonerate someone that flaunts the rule of law because she likes her platform. Amazing. (And you wander why we want to limit immigration.)
LikeLike
Buddy, a fellow who doesn’t know the difference between “wonder” and “wander” should stay very quiet on the subject of dictionaries. Your sentence structure is atrocious, too. Gosh, what would you, dumbasses, do if immigrants didn’t deign to teach your own language to you.
LikeLike
And how this has something to do with immigration, Mr Bigot?
LikeLike
Flouts the law. You flaunt ignorance (for instance), but you flout rules (of semantics, for instance).
LikeLike
18 U.S. Code #793
“(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, ”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
LikeLike
My thoughts on the Clinton emails. She was extremely careless and displayed a callous disregard for security protocols that would get someone lower ranked put in jail.
Far from the complete vindication that you seem to be taking away from the statement – I’m reading as much contempt as they think they can get away with.
I think she’s getting away with it partly she’s the beneficiary of classism, ageism and sexism.
Outside of IT companies IT skills are a trade, not a management skill. Active command of even basic IT skills is dangerous for those who want to get ahead.
She’s old enough that I would not expect her to understand the difference between secure and insecure servers. She doesn’t want to mess with a new email system. She likes the one she’s using and that’s that. Interestingly the very young are growing up just as ignorant (thanks to smartphones and windows 8 and beyond). Odd to think that
And, there’s also the beneficiary of sexism – not only do women not understand tech, they don’t understand security.
“How could we expect a mature woman to understand technological security regulations?”
LikeLike
In the end, it doesn’t matter if the FBI charged her or not. This is something that Trump will (rightly) seize on and it will damage her campaign as every single “regular” person out there will know that if they’d done something similar, they’d be rotting in jail while different rules applied to Clinton.
Of course, the same could be said of Trump. But voters cast protest votes against the status quo, and in their minds Hillary Clinton (rightly in most ways) represents the staid status quo and Trump represents something different.
That the representation doesn’t correspond to reality also doesn’t matter….
It might’ve been better if she’d been charged. It would have caused the lukewarm to rally to her.
Now it just looks like she got special treatment, which she did.
LikeLike
Like I said im a previous comment: Although I don’t think she should get criminal charges (after all, Nixon was not charged, Reagan was not charged for treason, Dubya was not charged for 9-11 nor for the “arms of massive destruction in Irak” lie, and Obama is not charged for treason for arming ISIS), Trump has now all the legitimity to attack her on this matter to counter her “Trump is a racist bigot” punchline.
LikeLike
The only realistic way to interpret the FBI’s verdict is as a massive victory for Hillary. She’s cleared the last political hurdle that could possibly have tripped her up on the way to the nomination. Potential alternative Democratic “saviors” waiting in the wings (Bernie, Biden) now have no hope of pushing her aside. Loyal Democrats, from reasonable ones (like Clarissa) to rapid sycophants (Melissa McEwan) feel vindicated that the charges were a joke, so it’s time to move on.
Republicans realize that this ship has sailed, and nobody but we republicans sense that a great injustice has occurred — a glaring double-standard (standard play for the Clintons), with them winning once again.
This will add to the general “untrustworthiness ” factor clinging to Hillary, and this factor might influence the few “undecided moderate” voters left. But there aren’t that many undecided voters left at this point.
So facing Donald Trump, a far worse possibility in the minds of all but Trump’s most ardent supporters, and some timid, hesitant Republicans , this election is now Hillary’s to lose.
Baring some major unforeseen external factor, such as denying Trump the nomination at the convention in two weeks (won’t happen!), or an act of God striking down one of the two candidates, or an unforeseen major terrorist act in the U.S. just before the election, we’re now looking at an unprecedented third consecutive Democratic Presidential term that will move the country ever farther left, destroying the Supreme Court as a reasonably balanced court for generations, and plunging the U.S. into totally uncharted waters.
Republican or Democrat, fasten your seat belt, and prepare for a wild ride!
LikeLike
The vast right-wing conspiracy mongers at The Washington Post disgracefully continue to harp on Hillary’s alleged misdeeds. For shame.
Oh well, that’s just one little newspaper. Surely there must be lots of Clinton supporters who think the e-mail mess is done. But wait.
MSNBC
Others
LikeLike
Dry your eyes.
LikeLike
Lost in the discussion about classified information is the fact that she purged visitor records and other information; standard procedure for sleazy, corrupt politicians who don’t want the public to know who they’re meeting, who advises them, who influences their actions.
LikeLike