FBI: Clinton 'Should Have Known' Private Email Server 'No Way To Handle Classified Info', But No Charges Will Be Sought

from the not-even-the-sting-of-a-wrist-slap dept

FBI Director James Comey just held a press conference detailing the FBI's findings during its investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. The findings are irrefutably ugly.

The FBI, "painstakingly" reassembling emails scattered to the digital wind by device abandonment, multiple server upgrades, lawyers' brute-force attempts to separate personal emails from work-related emails, and a general lack of professionalism across the board, found that Clinton's private email server contained :

  • 110 classified emails in 52 chains
  • 8 top secret emails
  • 36 "secret" emails
  • 8 "confidential" emails

All were clearly designated as such at the time sent or received. Additionally, another 2,000 emails had been "up-classified" to confidential after being sent or received.

It also found several work-related emails Clinton's staff did not include with the 30,000 handed over to the State Department for release to FOIA requesters.

There was no built-in archival function in Clinton's private server setup, a basic feature considered essential by professionals. This slowed the FBI's investigation as it was forced to reconstruct emails from the digital detritus left behind by "routine purging" and device deactivation.

As noted above, Clinton's lawyers made several efforts to delete "personal" emails, but they did so by using searches and header info, rather than actually reading the emails' content. The FBI did read the content of what it could recover, finding it likely that some work-related emails vanished during these purges. It also discovered Clinton hired some smart lawyers: "lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

But at the end of it all, the FBI found Clinton's use of private email server to be severely stupid, rather than criminal. Comey says the FBI found no signs of "intentional misconduct" by lawyers during personal email deletions or routine purges. Likewise, there was "no clear evidence of intentional misconduct by staffers," but Clinton's emails were "clearly mishandled."

The FBI's final conclusion is damning, but only in terms of harsh words, not actual punishment. Clinton and her staff "knew or should have known" a private email server was "no way to properly handle classified email" -- especially when housed on private server with "no full-time staff" or anything approaching the level of service one would equate with email services like Gmail. Comey also noted that Clinton used her personal domain "extensively" outside of the US, needlessly exposing sensitive information in the "presence of hostile actors."

James Comey also took a little time to bash her agency, stating that the FBI found the "security culture" of the State Department to be "lacking."

But for anyone who was hoping this would result in criminal charges, the FBI has nothing in the way of good news. Comey says it's not the FBI's call to pursue prosecution, but stated that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton, despite her repeated careless handling of sensitive info via her barely-competent private email service.

Final call, according to Comey: Clinton, staffers may be subject to security or administrative sanctions, but "no [criminal] charges are appropriate" in this case.

Clinton walks. The FBI has determined there was no malice in her actions. Being stupid and dishonest is no crime, at least not as far as the FBI is willing to push it. The DOJ has the final call, but it's highly unlikely it will override the FBI's recommendation. The decision is one that people in Clinton's position are far more likely to receive. Others lower on the political ladder -- or, god forbid, just average voting Americans -- are far less likely to receive this much deference from the nation's top prosecutors.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:03am

    She should be facing charges regarding the deletion of emails in the face of an investigation. That itself is a crime that the FBI would prosecute anyone else for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:44pm

      Re:

      This is actually true. It's inherently problematic, and speaks of a systemic issue within American society - there are two sets of laws, even though there's generally one law of the land.

      She should be seeing prosecution for this, at the very least. But, it doesn't surprise me at all that she isn't.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 4:51am

      Re:

      yes, but we arent all bribing people...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 12:56pm

      Re:

      This a thousand times this!!! If she has nothing to hide ...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:04am

    This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

    :/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:32am

      Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

      Unfortunately for Snowden, he actually has been charged with a crime. Clinton was being considered for having criminal charges pressed.

      The outcome should have been the same for Snowden given the lack of malice, but wasn't.

      Now that he has been charged, he can be a fugitive or he can face the charges. Unfortunately, there is no malice requirement to those charges, nor is there any kind of whistleblower defense.

      The court simply asks the prosecutor if he can prove that confidential files were leaked, and if the answer is yes that's a guilty verdict. No defense possible for Snowden in that kangaroo court.

      If Clinton had been charged with the same crime Snowden was, her conviction would have been equally guaranteed. But she was not charged with that crime and therefore is innocent. See how that works?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        That One Other Guy, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

        So Clinton commits thousands of crimes (every e-mail is a separate indictment) and nothing sticks to her anti-stick coated fat ass.

        Snowden, greatest whistleblower ever, gets charged for exposing the illegal, unconstitutional and traitorous acts of the agency he worked for.

        Hmmm - hold up, wait, what? WTF? Seriously?

        This in and of itself dramatically shows how bad things are in Washington.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

          "her anti-stick coated fat ass"

          Techies = Misogynists

          And just look at their hiring practices if you don't believe it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            JEDIDIAH, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:43pm

            Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

            Tech hiring practices are consistent with the available talent pool.

            I know farm girls that would say the same thing about Hillary.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

            Look in the mirror, you raging misogynist. There is absolutely nothing referencing gender in that insult. In fact, referencing "fat ass" in this political season is most often a reference to Chris Christie.

            You should be ashamed of yourself for immediately associating "fat ass" to women. You've apparently got some serious anger towards women you've been repressing. Seriously, get some professional help.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 6:53pm

        Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

        If Clinton had been charged with the same crime Snowden was, her conviction would have been equally guaranteed.

        No, it wouldn't have. I can guarantee you that even under the exact same law they'd have found some way to let her walk, some 'mitigating circumstance' that meant a guilty verdict wasn't handed out. Clinton has connections and power, Snowden doesn't, which means while he is accountable for his actions, she and anyone like her isn't.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          bob, 6 Jul 2016 @ 3:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: This is good news for Snowden! Free passes for everyone!

          Kind of makes you wonder what the Clintons have on comey and the rest of the FBI.

          it would make Hoover turn in his grave to know that someone has more info than him on the FBI.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    jingoi, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:05am

    We're fucked. This bitch can get away with whatever she wants but if any of us "screwed" up the way she did instant life sentence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Norahc, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:05am

    Being stupid or dishonest...

    Being stupid or dishonest is a crime if you're unlucky enough to get caught up in a FBI fabricated terrorism plot, but evidently it's not if your stupidity and dishonesty actually risked national security.

    I guess that means if she's elected president there will be another private email server set up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:04pm

      Re: Being stupid or dishonest...

      Certainly.

      But to avoid detection, it will be hosted under the "definatelynotclintonemail.com" domain.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Almach, 10 Jul 2016 @ 10:51pm

      Re: Being stupid or dishonest...

      I guess that means if she's elected president there will be another private email server set up.

      She'll probably mandate them for her entire cabinet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Robert L, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:29am

    Stupid and irresponsible...

    Hmm... that could describe either presidential candidate now couldn't it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:44am

      Re: Stupid and irresponsible...

      Yes, but we are only talking about one of them. The one that actually broke a serious law and put the nation at risk.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      FITZ! (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:56am

      Re: Stupid and irresponsible...

      There are more than two candidates on the ballot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:03am

        Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...

        Yes, but unfortunately only two will get more than 1% of the vote. I've voted third party for more than three decades and never been happy on election day.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:32pm

        Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...

        you're delusional

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 6:42am

          Re: Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...

          You and the millions like you are why the status quo will continue to remain. Try ignoring parties and vote for integrity. If everyone does so Hillary and Trump will lose and the country will win.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            The Wanderer (profile), 7 Jul 2016 @ 6:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stupid and irresponsible...

            Sadly, as long as we remain with a first-past-the-post voting system, voting third-party will only serve to weaken the candidate of the party we disagree less with - whichever one that may be.

            The ideal replacement would be a voting system based on the Condorcet method, but there are several ranked-choice voting systems (in which each voters lists the candidates in order from most preferable to least preferable) which would be far better than what we have now. (And which have the advantage of being easier for the layman to understand at a glance.)

            There's essentially no chance of getting this adopted at the federal level from the start, but if we can get it adopted at the city, county, and (later) state level, we can mitigate the problem at the lower levels - and the more lower-level jurisdictions have that type of voting system already in place, the easier it will become to get it adopted at higher levels.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul Renault (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:30am

    It's all clear to me, now...

    If it's your job to know stuff
    - the police: the laws they're paid to enforce;
    - politicians: things like The Geneva Convention, your government's laws, policies and procedures, the electors' wishes, etc, etc;
    - journalists: all of the above;
    - Level-one/phone tech support: how the stuff works;
    - the public: things like, y'know, science, basic math, etc;
    and you don't know that stuff, all you need to do is .. nothing. Nothing will happen to you.

    Unless, of course, you're a standard-issue citizen, then YOU pay. Through the nose!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:32am

    FBI establishes standard for handling classified information

    The FBI has established the new standard for handling US Government classified information.

    Mishandling of classified information must be intentional.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:03am

      Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information

      This seems like intentional avoidance to suggest charges because intentionally choosing to have a private server means anything you do on that server, including mishandling of classified information, was intentional by design.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:47pm

      Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information

      "intent" as legal jargon has a slightly different meaning than it does in the vernacular. This such a common problem that people really should know better by now.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 1:09pm

      Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information

      So the next poor person (non powerful nor well connected) to be charged with mishandling classified information should point back to this recommendation by the FBI to escape any consequences.

      Will be interesting to see how fast that argument is laughed out of court.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 1:11pm

      Re: FBI establishes standard for handling classified information

      The standard was already set decades ago.

      Reagan's own head of an intelligence agency accidentally leaked much more serious info then this, and leaked the information to pretty much every government in the world. Yet he was not prosecuted either.

      It would be a complete 180 and violation of that precedent to have charged Hillary over something much more minor then that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:38am

    Un-fuking-believable

    Like the woman didnt know having a personal email server was a bad idea. Like we don't know the main reason to have her own server was to HIDE emails.

    You want to know why the average citizen has disdain for politicians... here ya go. The woman knew she was having an email server built to hide emails. Period. It is no small undertaking to run and maintain an email server. All the effort and cost was specifically done to be a sneaky bitch. Period. And it appears to have worked. Intent is nowhere in the law. This is absolutely disgusting.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:29am

      Re:

      And yet Dems will still vote for her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Pronounce (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:49am

      Re: It's Not That Unbelievable

      I've worked in government, and the results are exactly as I expected. It's a club, a culture, and society all it's own, and it takes care of its members very well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      Ah more "bitch" epithets. You techies are as misogynistic as everyone says you are. Was it the never getting laid that made you that way, hmm?

      The Clintons have been hounded by people looking for bogus scandals for over 20 years now. I'd hide my email shit as well if I were her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:07am

        Re: Re:

        Yes, everyone in a particular field is exactly the same. So do continue to stereotype because it is true, as are all the other stereotypes one may run into.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re:

        The Clintons have been hounded by people looking for bogus scandals for over 20 years now. I'd hide my email shit as well if I were her.

        Poor little Clintons. I feel so sorry for them. Not.

        As a commoner I've spent practically every single day of my entire life with people like the Clintons looking for any reason to bring the hammer down on me. If I had done what she did I would be spending the rest of my life in prison.

        The rest of your sexually offensive, misandric comments only go show what kind of person you are.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:56pm

        Re: Re:

        "I'd hide my email shit as well if I were her."

        But she didn't just hide "her" emails, she hid government emails. That can't be condoned.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:43am

    I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

    Once again, the corrupt ruling elite protect each other. There is no way I could skate on even the smallest crime even if I didn't have intent to commit a crime. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    The current administration will go down as the most corrupt in history. The next administration, assuming it is Hillary, will break that record.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:30am

      Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

      I never have intent to speed, yet I seem to still get a ticket.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Andy, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:51am

      Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

      Imagine all the criminals now using this as a president to get away with crimes, damn i could supposedly walk into a bank and just take money sitting on a counter and walk out, i did not intend to do it but the money was just sitting there so i took it on the spur of the moment without thinking and made a mistake , i wonder what a judge would say to that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        bob, 5 Jul 2016 @ 1:12pm

        Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

        You probably meant precedent instead of president but looking at the kind of people in office over the last few decades I suppose criminals as president fits too.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:09am

      Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

      "The current administration will go down as the most corrupt in history"


      Data in support of this allegation is forthcoming because ...
      OP always delivers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

        If you need data from me than you haven't been paying attention. Or your a liberal who ignores data you don't like. Either way reflects poorly on you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

          Why would anyone need data to support their accusations? This is outrageous! One should simply believe everything that anyone says .. just because.

          Well, on second thought, I suppose I should have been paying attention back in the day .. that way I would have first hand knowledge pertaining to all the goings on of prior administrations since 1776.

          Ummm, yeah, anyone who does not immediately agree with everything you say is a liberal who ignores data (which was not presented). Either way I am the bad guy here because I made a statement that twisted someone's panties.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Spica, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

            Why would anyone need data to support their accusations? This is outrageous!

            That's actually an idea Hillary supports, for other people. She has stated that any woman accusing a man of sexual assault should be automatically believed, except when it comes to Bill.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 4:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

              "ny woman accusing a man of sexual assault should be automatically believed"

              As opposed to being laughed at and called a slut?

              Imagine if that was your daughter - you believe her?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 8:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

                "Imagine if that was your daughter - you believe her?"

                Imagine if it was your son being falsely accused. I get the feeling you probably wouldn't care, so long as it wasn't your daughter, would you? Boys are disposable, huh?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

                  "Imagine if it was your son being falsely accused. I get the feeling you probably wouldn't care, so long as it wasn't your daughter, would you? Boys are disposable, huh?"

                  What kind of idiot are you?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Mintaka, 6 Jul 2016 @ 4:41am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

                    What kind of idiot are you?

                    Yeah, only an idiot would even ask. Of course boys are disposable. That's what prisons are for after all.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 5:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

                  Your feelings are fact? I'm not surprised.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2016 @ 4:19am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

                    Kind of like your "imagination", huh?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 5:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: I bet I couldn't get away with not having "intent" to commit a crime

          Put up or shut up.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Deimal (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:47am

    I don't like it but...

    I really don't like this double-standard (whistle-blowers have been absolutely annihilated by this administration for far less). THAT BEING SAID, it really is probably best that charges not be filed against a presidential candidate in the middle of an extremely contentious election. We don't need the FBI or DoJ further weaponized in our political system. No charges recommended or being filed at this time doesn't mean charges can't be brought later (new evidence etc), after the election.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:56am

      Re: I don't like it but...

      No charges recommended or being filed at this time doesn't mean charges can't be brought later (new evidence etc), after the election.


      So you expect charges could be brought after she's elected President and personally appoints her own Attorney General? Seriously? If it's not happening now, it's not happening.

      I do appreciate that it's problematic to bring charges against someone running for President, but it's more problematic to bring charges against a sitting President. And it's also problematic to not bring charges against someone just because they are running.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Deimal (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:12am

        Re: Re: I don't like it but...

        I'm not making an assumption about who will be president.

        Do you honestly expect a trial to be handled for completion BEFORE the next president is sworn in? We can't finish trials for misdemeanors in less than 4 months in this country.

        It's best the DoJ/FBI stay out of the election and in the long-shot that she isn't elected, then handle it at that time, period. Indicting now would ONLY have political ramifications and not result in anything being completed legally.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          JEDIDIAH, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:57pm

          Re: I don't like it but...

          No, it's best that the enforcers of law and order try to be as blind and as impartial as possible. That means that they grant no special favors to anyone. If the facts lead them to conclude that they should prosecute, they should not back off just because of someone's special status.

          That's the very definition of corruption.

          Regardless of the law, she did violate policy. She did so in a way that is pretty common. It's one of those obvious examples of how there are two standards. There's one for the CxO class and another for the rest of us.

          Democrats may be smug about the legal finding but the underlying problem still remains.

          They're too busy drinking their own Kool-aid to perceive the problem.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Phils, 5 Jul 2016 @ 1:42pm

        Re: Re: I don't like it but...

        "So you expect charges could be brought after she's elected President and personally appoints her own Attorney General? Seriously? If it's not happening now, it's not happening."

        No need for her to appoint her own AG. As soon as she is sworn in as president her first two words:

        "Pardon Me"

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:58am

      Re: I don't like it but...

      So what you are saying is that being a political player excuses everything, and gives the players unqualified immunity.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Deimal (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:16am

        Re: Re: I don't like it but...

        That's not what I said at all. Think it through logically. There is absolutely no way a legal case brought against her finishes before the next president is sworn in. Period.

        So that means there are 2 possible results:
        1. She's elected, then under presidential immunity, unable to prosecuted normally (only via congress - not going to happen), and Comey and Lynch will be destroyed politically.
        2. Trump is elected and the indictment can go forward.

        These were the only 2 possibilities pretty much ever available. I don't like it, but the only chance she is prosecuted was always ever going to be her losing the election.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Deimal (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:19am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

          To add one additional point, charges not being brought now means also that no dismissal with prejudice from a judge (preventing the charges from ever being brought again) will be happening, and also no acquittal will be happening, preventing double-jeopardy.

          Should she be prosecuted? Hell yes she should, but the realities of the situation are the realities. There is no way it can happen and to try is a waste of time, effort, and money.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            renosablast, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

            The point of charging her before the election would be to tell the VOTERS she is under enough suspicion to be charged. Waiting until after the election cheats the voters out of critical information with which to make an informed decision.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:58am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

          That is why she should have never been running for office in the first place.

          A republican who tried to run for office accused of what she was accused of would have faced a continuous drumbeat to leave the race until they did so. That would have taken just a few weeks.

          Double standard. Rule of Law dead in America.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Deimal (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

            I can't argue with you there. Truth.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

            Several republican secretaries of state have been accused of the very same thing ... are they being prosecuted? Can they run for office?

            Double standard is SOP
            Rule of Law is only for the poor

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Deimal (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:23pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

              Maybe accused of SOMETHING, but as far as the atrocious mishandling of years of classified data by setting up and using a private email server, I'm pretty sure that's a new one.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

              No one else ran their own email server. If you are going to comment please educate yourself.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                JEDIDIAH, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:59pm

                Re: I don't like it but...

                Also, which other such Secretaries of State ran for president afterwards? Did they do so with such a scandal haunting them.

                Although the real problem is that Hillary has a long history in public life and that includes a lot of people not liking her. She came to this with a lot of baggage. The same people that want her head for this would hate her either way.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 5:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

                Is it the act of running your own server, or the act of emailing something that was subsequently classified or the act of emailing something that was known at that time as being classified?

                Inquiring minds want to know.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:01am

      Re: I don't like it but...

      "The next president can honor the simple notion that nobody is above the law, but it will happen only if voters demand it." - Elizabeth Warren. https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/693097354140975104

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Andy, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:55am

      Re: I don't like it but...

      Nope the republicans will find some way to get her into court on charges of at least not being responsible or sensible enough to have security clearance thus making her ineligible for the presidency, can you imagine a president that does not have the clearance to read anything about a war they started or to know anything other than that which the public knows at the same time the public finds out.

      Imagine her not being allowed to be in most meetings that she as president should be in, she would be completely at a loss and could not do the job as president..

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 1:37pm

        Re: Re: I don't like it but...

        "not being responsible or sensible enough"

        And that is why she is unqualified to be President.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 5:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

          But Trump is?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Padpaw (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 7:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

          there are many reasons why she is unqualified, aside from those 2. Shame none of the current candidates seem to care a whit about the citizens and are only focused on how becoming president will allow them to help themselves at the public's cost.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Powderkeg, 5 Jul 2016 @ 8:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

            All that needs to be said is find every case that has criminal charges since the FBI couldnt find one and either hold her to the same or dismiss all charges for everyone else.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 8:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't like it but...

              "...either hold her to the same or dismiss all charges for everyone else."

              What? Equal treatment under the law? You're kidding, right?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Phils, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re: I don't like it but...

        "Nope the republicans will find some way to get her into court on charges of at least not being responsible or sensible enough to have security clearance thus making her ineligible for the presidency, can you imagine a president that does not have the clearance to read anything about a war they started ...."

        Wishful thinking. Classification authority derives from the President -- she would have the authority to de-classify anything she would want to.

        Letting that bitch become president would be awful in many, many ways.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ambrellite, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:47am

    Not criminal, but very guilty

    The details of what HRC did are damning and indicative of a profound lack of competence with technology. Keep in mind, it's not as if Hillary's term at State was marked by huge successes in other areas. The decisions she made were largely counterproductive and damaging to US credibility. The reasons for them were largely self-serving and silly.

    She broke no laws regarding her e-mail server, but her time at State leaves much to be answered for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:59am

      Re: Not criminal, but very guilty

      She willfully and openly broke federal records law. Something that any other federal government worker would likely face criminal charges for, but she is not one of the little people....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:11am

        Re: Re: Not criminal, but very guilty

        Having Top Secret docs on her server would have resulted in treason charges for anyone else. Several folks sit in jail/prison for merely having the docs and no suggestion they planned to sell them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:50am

      Re: Not criminal, but very guilty

      "She broke no laws regarding her e-mail server"

      I think you should ask Thomas Drake about that.
      Willful Retention of National Defense Information 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) (5 counts)

      (793(e) is a modification of the Espionage Act of 1917 made under the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950)


      He was looking at 35 years by going through proper channels with top secret information. Hillary was sending information to non vetted personnel, through non secure channels, and basically broke a hell of a lot more laws.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:51am

    Good ole boy corruption alive and well in the US. If any of us break a law we get no mercy. If one of the 1% do it they get away with it and probably get to be president on top of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Vic, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:15am

    RE: the "no intentional misconduct" and no "vast quantities of materials exposed"

    The best comparison I guess would be the Thomas Drake's case, not Snowden's.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:30am

    Of course severely stupid = no charges. If they charged everyone in government that fell into that category there would literally be almost no one left...which wouldn't be a bad thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andy, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:46am

    So obvious that Trump called this a few days ago!

    At the least she should have her security clearance revoked completely, she purposefully destroyed emails that she did not want anyone to look at, fine if they were personal emails and i would support her 100% in removing them but it has been found that some of the emails recovered that were said to be private were in fact not so.

    I think the fbi has failed on this, at least they should have recommended her security clearance is revoked thus making her ineligible for the presidency.
    Americans have tow choices and both are not the type of people anyone would want in office.

    Anyone else would immediately have there security clearance revoked or would be jailed for a long long time, the least they can do is at least make it look like there is a fair punishment, but i am sure republicans will start another committee into her emails this time and from there maybe another hearing into what they find in her emails and from there maybe ..well you get the idea.
    If republicans had not dropped the ball and not spread so many damn rumours as fact the FBI might have been pressured even more if only facts were discussed and the FBI could be questioned over them.

    No matter how you look at it she did wrong, knowingly and should be punished for that not by a fine which her supporters would pay for her but with real punishment that enraged her as she has enraged so many others.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:10pm

      Re: So obvious that Trump called this a few days ago!

      "I think the fbi has failed on this..."

      Maybe they considered the very possible alternative and though "Oh hell no..."

      However unpalatable this outcome, it might actually be in everyone's best interest.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Arkab, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:47am

    "Too powerful to prosecute."

    Kind of goes hand in hand with banks that are "too big to fail."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:49am

    Time to start handing out the cash.

    At this point I am ready to start donating to anti-gov organizations. I dont care if they are crazies with guns in montana, corporate organizations, or other politicians.

    I have never lost so much faith as I have today.

    How embarrassing it must be to be an fbi agent now days.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:50am

    The establishment wants Clinton there, just look at how even other countries are releasing official statements supporting her. The sad part is that if you want to go against said establishment you have... Trump.

    May God, Ganesha, Buddha, Allah and whoever have mercy towards the Americans. And honestly, include us all while at it because things are going from bad to worse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jim B., 5 Jul 2016 @ 10:51am

    There doesn't need to be intent

    There doesn't need to be intent. Criminal charges have been filed against others for less. Men have gone to jail without the government showing intent.

    This is fundamental to how they pursue these types of things. You are told repeatedly after you have your clearance and when you begin working with classified material that you don't need intent to be subject to prosecution. Your incompetence is enough to get you prosecuted.

    This is Obama interfering with the election process. When someone is guilty of a crime and they are in the process of running for office using the justice system, as Obama has, is an interference with the process. Hillary is his club member (democrats club) afterall.

    She's guilty of a crime, the same type of crime that others have been found guilty of for doing less (including even Bradley Manning -- who didn't have any intention other than to let American's know what crimes the government had committed). If no criminal charges are to be filed against her then Snowden needs to be allowed to come home and Manning needs to be released. Neither of those two had an intent to harm national security nor commit treason.

    What Obama is trying to do is to keep Trump from using her as cannon fodder. Clearly Trump is going to, and had intended to, use this against her. If no criminal charges are hanging over her head then what is Trump to do? I thing Trump will use this to show incompetency. I'm sure Hillary and the DNC are busily working on talking points in order to overcome anything Trump throws at her.

    If no one else can see the process I'm baffled. Obama says emails aren't going to be released till after the election, then he has the investigative teams put Benghazi to rest, and now he has them put to rest the criminal negligence (which it is at least) case, is interference then we are a nation of lemmings. He's using his power to get things all lined up for Hillary.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:36am

      Re: There doesn't need to be intent

      I predict Trump will simply use the lack of prosecution as evidence of how deeply Clinton is involved in government corruption and cronyism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 1:43pm

        Re: Re: There doesn't need to be intent

        "Trump will simply use the lack of prosecution as evidence of how deeply Clinton is involved in government corruption and cronyism."

        We The (little) People have it as evidence, nobody needs Trump or anybody else to point it out.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:22pm

      Re: There doesn't need to be intent

      The Espionage Act specifically says that intent is not to be taken into account whereas the laws regarding treason specifically say that intent is to be taken into account.

      Comey et al just re-wrote the law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:53pm

        Re: Re: There doesn't need to be intent

        Comey et al just re-wrote the law.

        Well, just for some people. The "regular" law still applies to the rest of us.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:21am

    Scope?

    Does anyone know if this investigation was only about mishandling classified materials, or if it was also evaluating the Federal Records and FOIA laws which were obviously intentionally violated?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TenSteppin, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:41am

      Re: Scope?

      Z - All of the above and everything you didn't mention that they've done to violate not only the letter, but the intent of the law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 7:05pm

      Re: Scope?

      Mishandling classified materials has the chance to expose government misconduct, therefore the government considers it a serious act and deserving of attention(though not prosecution of course if the target of the investigation has the right connections).

      The entire freakin' government routinely dodges FOIA requirements on a regular basis in order to hide government misconduct, and as such that isn't considered a serious matter in the slightest.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:24am

    President 2020

    Vote for me to become President of the USA. I will personally screw up everything I can so you will want to vote for me...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TenSteppin, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:40am

    We're too busy...

    Making up conspiracies out of whole cloth, leading/cajoling/begging mentally-deficient sots into our ready-bake-oven terrorist plots complete with plans, targets, arms and armaments, timnelines, support teams so that we can "arrest" the retards we trick into finally capitulating just to get us to shut the fuck up, with our illegal schemes, so that we can make up dramatic headlines about "yet another fbi(terrorist) plot foiled" while rattling our sabres and crowing from the barn-roofs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dr Evil, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:46am

    most transparent administration because guilt is see through

    so shameful. no intent? no intent? the statute that she should have been investigated under has no provision for intent, since it uses gross negligence as its criteria. Not only must it be a walk of shame to be FBI today, to lead it means no honor whatsoever. (but job is guaranteed when Hillary gets into office). Lets hope that Trump gets in and makes his DoJ follow the law for everyone, not just the leaders and minions of the OTHER and non-political citizenry. (oh, and lets send our husband to meet with the DoJ on the runway and talk about grandkids and ... yeah, I can't say it with a straight face either, but I'm honest)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 11:53am

    Clintons Mens Rea

    Oh I see, so if you're a Federal employee... malice and 'knowingly' violating the law make the difference.
    Too bad federal law almost never provides mens rea for us commoners.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 12:39pm

    I believe you misinterpreted one comment, intentionally or unintentionally. You stated "All were clearly designated as such at the time sent or received. Additionally, another 2,000 emails had been "up-classified" to confidential after being sent or received."

    When reading that in context it seems to imply the messages were designated classified when sent, or "marked" classified. In reality the FBI is saying some scrap of information *within* the message was designated classified by some government office prior to transmission.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ray Trygstad (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:09pm

    Being stupid and dishonest is no crime...

    ...if you are a senior political appointee. If you are a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, being stupid and dishonest resulting in mishandling of classified material is ALWAYS a crime. I saw a junior officer's career end over the destruction of several hundred secret documents without documentation. Everyone agreed that they had almost certainly gone into a burn bag and were destroyed, but without the record of the destruction the Classified Material Custodian was still responsible to produce those documents and he could not. No malice, genuine error, but as often happens in the service, the officer was allowed to resign his commission in lieu of a court martial. As a junior officer and squadron Classified Material Custodian, I actually received a non-punitive Letter of Reprimand for a missing confidential document that later turned up in the Executive Officer's helmet bag. (No, they didn't apologize or rescind my letter.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:33pm

    Y'all might think this through a bit. Hillary took over State from Condi Rice, who took over from Colin Powell, for whom handling email over insecure channels had already been established.

    Frothing at the mouth about today's villain's indiscretions is short sighted. You should be looking at what would cause Clinton - and those who held the office before her to do this. Just the same way you should be looking at why hospitals have lousy security practices.

    Your ideal security practices do not exist in a vacuum. If the people you are trying to make secure are actively working against you, you're not doing your job right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dave Cortright (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:40pm

    Comey says Hillary is a very special snowflake

    "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

    W.T.F.

    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    streetlight (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 3:10pm

    Did any classified get our?

    I'm not sure any classified information was released to anyone that shouldn't have access to such. In addition, Mrs. Clinton's server may have been far more secure that that of the State Department. It's certainly true that the information expected to be on the State Department's serves would be of great interest to many including various nations. Snowden types inside State didn't have access to her server so that avenue of insecurity didn't exist. If State's servers are as porous as a colander then it might have been a wise move to use a private email server.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 6:10pm

      Re: Did any classified get our?

      Did any FOIA requests get filled? Oh, but that was the whole point of this criminal act.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), 6 Jul 2016 @ 4:09am

      Re: Did any classified get our?

      Trouble is, the security they ran on the server was so bad they have no idea whether it was breached or not. The "logs" don't show any hacks, but they also don't show no hacks. There have been multiple statements from high level intelligence agency chiefs stating they would be shocked if the server had not been infiltrated by foreign governments. Essentially we'll never know the full text of the emails, but China has had them for years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 5:04pm

    Look out West Virginia

    More flooding coming from the crocodile tears of all those Republicans, weeping there's no arrest!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 5:16pm

    So, lets say Hillary is tossed in the slam ...
    Bernie kicks Trumps ass, then what?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 6:05pm

    James Comey, the encryption lover.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 7:06pm

    She let 4 people die to cover her own ass. Anything else pales in comparison next to that in my opinion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 7:22am

    Re: How knows what happens with clinton

    A little disenchantment for double standards. Does that help you out

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 7:29am

    Re: How knows what happens with clinton

    So why so dismissive of everyone Indiahuts:

    Sitemap
    SEO Guide
    Traffic
    SEO Tutorials
    Product Creation
    Make Money
    Internet Marketing

    Is HRC a client of yours?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 6 Jul 2016 @ 9:23am

    Clinton's email server

    Since Comey is a hard-line Republican who would love to hold her feet to the fire, I interpret his comments like this:

    1. Clinton was really smart to use her own servers, since otherwise she would have been hamstrung by unending and expensive (to the taxpayers) "investigations" by Congress.

    2. All the classified documents found were STATE DEPT. classified, which she controlled, so no crime. If there had been even one SECURITY document in the pile, Comey would be required to (and eager to) prosecute.

    3. Clinton evidently handled her emails professionally, no evidence of GOP hackers getting in to steal stuff.

    Wow! I am going to vote for her!!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 11:07am

    She can't be held responsible for not knowing whitehouse security policy right?

    I mean it isn't like she's been there before...

    My guess is they laid out the dirt they had on eachother on the table, and Clinton won. Either that or they compromised and the DOJ under Clinton will be an FBI franchise complete with shake machine.

    I can see it now. The DOJ will be run like the Soup-Nazi's kitchen. "What? No Constitution for you!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 12:14pm

    This candidate brought to you by our sponsors at Google.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 12:49pm

    It's amazing how the media and the FBI/govt has twisted this entire case from being about whether or not Hillary Clinton used private servers for government matters because she has something herself to hide to whether or not her use of personal servers containing classified information was a reckless jeopardizing of U.S. classified information.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 1:07pm

    Carma

    Former President Willie Bill met in private with the prosecutor investigating his wife to discuss "grandchildren" (euphemism for ?) then a few days later the charges get dropped. That didn't seem to completely put this matter to rest as it did to demonstrate to the public that Clinton's are treated different under the law than the peon voters.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Matthew A. Sawtell, 6 Jul 2016 @ 2:36pm

    Now this is the sort of foolishness...

    ... that has been exhibited time and time again to describe 3rd World Nations and their 'local ways' by more than a few pundits and think tanks in North America and Europe over the last few decades. {facepalm}

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 10:16pm

    As I said from the very beginning, this was a non-story. 4 months from now this will all be forgotten by everyone but the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the word. She will be the next president because Trump is a loose cannon that will never appeal to the majority. All the Trump supporters should have turned their attention to Sanders if they wanted an anti-establishment president. He's the only one that had a real chance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Mayor, 11 Jul 2016 @ 8:08am

    LACK OF F.O.S.S AND F.O.S.H. ON CAPITOL HILL

    Ha, ha!... what does this say about O-U-R U-S-E of such "proprietary technoma" ? If the FBI... AND "SAVVY POLITICAL PUNDITS AND VOTERS (HA, HA!)!... don't think that such commercial email servers are "serving our interests (PUN intended!)", should W-E be using these systems?
    -----
    This is not an indictment of Hillary Clinton!... THIS IS AN INDICTMENT OF THE P-R-O-P-R-I-E-T-A-R-Y C-R-A-P THAT MILLIONS OF NETIZENS ARE USING ON A DAILY BASIS TO COMMUNICATE WITH! GIVE US A BREAK WITH THIS N-O-N-E-S-E-N-S-E!
    -----
    If leaked info compromised the security of America, I wouldn't be going after Clinton!... I'D BE GOING AFTER THE JERKS WHO ALLOWED THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CLINTON'S CELL PHONE AND SERVERS ANYWHERE IN THE US OF A!!
    -----
    Have a look at the Google result, titled, Volkswagen scandal Confirms the Dangers of Proprietary Code, by David Bollier!
    -----
    Please!... no emails!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.