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.
So, for Rice, et al (any Republican, apparently) a personal email server, or an even less secure public email (Cheney) is fine, but for a Democrat, especially Hillary, and more especially to prevent radical "right" extremists from digging through her PERSONAL emails, it is "a crime"? As an attorney: stop the nonsense! There was no crime involved, and she was following long established procedure, which with the 25 years of badgering, sounds pretty smart.
As an intellectual property attorney, let me point out that the Supreme Court "Alice" decision arguably does away with both software and business method patents in the US. We still have to wait for further clarification, but the odds are that is what will be finally decided.
Don't see it that way (though I admit, that was my knee-jerk reaction). As explained elsewhere, there is State classification, where classification depends on State relations, and security classification, affecting our safety. Hillary, as Secretary of State, had the authority (as did the President) to classify/declassify State matters as they saw fit. Otherwise for security matters. So, Classification means whatever we intend it to mean. VERY logical to me.
If you are saying this shows the evil of "W" and Cheney, there you get my complete agreement. Those people ignored what classification meant, and messed with documents that had nothing to do with the State, and involved our safety!
I am enormously disappointed with Techdirt, who I previously held out as a golden standard in reporting.
Being a lawyer, and a lover of our Constitution, we have only to look at the ex post facto provisions of that Constitution to see that sending and receiving AFTER classified emails is NOT a criminal matter!
I agree about whistleblowers, who are wrongfully pursued by the "wannabe" dictators in the Obama administration, but please - stop quoting Rupert Murdoch in his "hate Hillary" campaign - if Hillary can be shown to have sent/received classified documents AFTER they were classified, we have a whole new discussion (which doesn't exist at this time).
I find the quality of the exercise is at least as important as the quantity. Walking slowly, exercising with very light weights - I don't really see much benefit. Walking faster (like, trying to keep up with my oldest daughter), working out with weights that challenge me a bit, big benefit. I can almost make a chart of length of time versus quality of exercise for maximum benefit (at least, for me) and less time but more challenge (to a point) versus a long time but less challenge - same benefit. Be interested in seeing a controlled study about that.
I am an independent, and have not decided who, or what party, I will vote for. However, I am an attorney, and love both the Constitution and fair play - in this case, fair play.
Bush/Cheney regularly sent emails they KNEW were classified in private emails. Clinton sent unclassified (though I hear four were LATER classified - to embarrass her? Don't know) emails. No evidence yet she meant harm, or thought she was doing anything wrong - otherwise for Bush/Cheney. So she MAY be "unreliable" - THEY ARE!
So, why is the "liberal" (aka Murdoch) press interested only in Clinton? Shouldn't we be outraged at Bush/Cheney? Also, they didn't tell anyone - it came out later; just as she didn't tell anyone - came out later; but they KNEW they were sending classified material - not yet determined for her.
Let's suppose we find the car in a situation like this: a collision is unavoidable, and if the car swerves to the left, let's say, it will collide with a school bus. Let's say the car computes that several kids will likely be killed. If the car swerves to the right, the passenger will be killed. I don't think the manufacturer could decide how to program for that. In the absence of legislation, we would need a switch that let the passenger decide which thing to do. That would absolve the manufacturer, but then .... Wow!
Real boon for the security people. Without any risk to the public, the North Korean operatives are flushed out into the open, and our security people have an opportunity to assess both their capabilities and at least a chance to identify their operatives. If I were still in security, I would be popping a bottle of champagne.
You say: "The neighbors left their WiFi open, and thus, by default, it is sending out signals that effectively say "welcome, feel free to connect to this network."".
By that reasoning, if I leave my lawn unguarded, I am saying "here, feel free to dig up my grass?" or if I leave my car outside unlocked with a package in it (admittedly stupid, but ...) I am saying "free package, everyone".
Don't think so. I think taking what is not yours, whether the owner knows or not, or feels deprived or not, is, and should be, criminal.
As an attorney, and a precinct inspector in elections (note, we are paid, if you consider about $10/hour "being paid" - and that is for INSPECTORS! Hat tip to the election clerks; they are true patriotic Americans, IMO!) - I am torn. I am sure no laws would mean vote buying, with proof required before payment - not a good thing. But I am glad that people take voting seriously. I would think a Judge would dismiss a case in the absence of proof of abuse - but requiring them to go to court is, to me, abuse of the citizen. REAL problem - I would think the authorities would use a little judgement, if the system allows it.
As a veteran who had considerable dealings with "career" military, I understand. The military is a dictatorship (unless you believe that before going into battle the soldiers vote on that). Further, for career military, dictatorship works very well, and the very idea of democratic rule is abhorrent. Our problem is that we need CIVILIAN leaders of these agencies, it is ridiculous to expect career military to support democratic principles.