FBI not recommending charges against Clinton

[Rick_Kitchen]

Well perhaps someday they’ll see the light. Maybe someday they’ll nominate a real centrist; say some guy who supports raising taxes on the wealthy, echoes Bernie Sanders on trade, openly repudiates Bush-era foreign policy, supports Planned Parenthood and generally declares himself a culture wars non-combatant. We can only dream about that kind of a centrist GOP , right?

You mean Ron Johnson?

[Grumman]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

Would you say that it happens more than .03% of the time? That’s what I’ve been wondering about. They found approximately 110 emails that were mishandled out of 30000 available. That’s a .03% error rate.

“But officer, look at all the people I didn’t run over!”

@Trinopus

(b) Clinton’s server wasn’t full of “patient information.” i.e., no secret or classified information went to it, only her email messages.

Of 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014, FBI investigators found 110 emails containing information that was classified at the time the email was sent. Eight of those were top secret, the highest level of classification.

[Iggy]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

Gotcha. That sounds like a reasonable estimate to me.

@iiandyiiii

Probably higher than that. Maybe .1 to .5% or so, but that’s a top-of-the-head estimate.

<nitpick> 110 out of 30,000 is 0.367%. Disgruntled Penguin’s calculation put the decimal point in the wrong spot. Which puts the actual number in Clinton’s case in the range of iiandyiiii’s estimate.
</nitpick>

[CarnalK]

@Johnny_Ace

The server was set up for the purpose of receiving and sending private email, as I understand it. Period. No more, no less.

Well, considering the FBI examined 30 000 work related e-mails I would think you misunderstood. I’m sure she used some other systems of communication at State but this email server was both private and work related.

[Bridget_Burke]

@furt

I don’t completely disagree. But that also goes both ways: in 2008 the GOP nominated a guy famous for his willingness to buck his own party and make compromises, and he got painted as a unhinged bloodthirsty warmonger. In 2012 they nominated a milqutoast centrist technocrat, and he got painted as a hate-filled right winger.

Now you have Trump, and the left has no vocabulary for him that they haven’t already been using on garden-variety Republicans for years.

Really? I remember the 2008 candidate as a former maverick, tamed in South Carolina; the sticking points were his age & his nutcase choice for VP. Romney was & is a clueless rich guy. Besides, they were both Republicans & I am not.

We’ve got lots of words to describe Trump. But it’s not just “the left” using them. (Does “the left” mean Marxists, Stalinists & Trotskyites? Or just Democrats?)

[Jophiel]

House GOP wants Comey to testify about the investigation, his findings and his decision to recommend no charges.

I get the “Let’s keep it in the news” angle but this seems like a bad way to go about it. So you put Comey on the defensive to explain why not indicting was the right choice and what’s he going to say? Stuff that weakens the outrage from yesterday. They’re basically asking him to come into Congress and defend Clinton.

[El_Kabong]

I keep hearing statements from (mostly right-wing) sources along the lines of “If Hillary was someone else, she’d be in prison for what she did.” Perhaps so, but on the other hand I’ve never seen any of these people give an actual example of a person who HAS been imprisoned for (I’m not sure I’ve got this exactly right) having a few messages containing classified information on a private server. I have no doubt there are thousands of examples of these heinous criminals; just that my search skills apparently are weak in this area.

So, can someone help a brother out? One or two examples will do.

[Gyrate]

@Sam_Stone

If a Republican had done all this, the left would be spitting nails.

@Lightnin

Hell, the Bush admin did it and worse, and we didn’t have an investigation anywhere near this long.

@Richard_Parker

They ran private unsecured servers in their home basements and communicated with the using unsecured Blackberries after having been personally told that their security practices were likely to lead to foreign governments spying on them, acknowledged that the situation was insecure, but did nothing to resolve it?

Cite?

If you’re going to demand that level of detail, then no. But they did this:

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for “George W. Bush, 43rd” President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House’s deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to “Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.”) and rnchq.org (registered to “Republican National Committee”), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.

Oh, and just for giggles:

Some of the “missing” emails that were sent through the RNC accounts were mistakenly addressed to georgewbush.org, a parody site.

And that’s not even getting into whatever was in Dick Cheney’s “man-sized safes” which were so secure we still don’t know what was in them or what happened to the contents when he left.

@kunilou

Right now, leading Congressional Trump supporter Darrell Issa is complaining that Comey gave Hillary a pass. And that Hillary’s actions were worse than David Petraeus’.

That’ll be the same Darrell Issa who openly discussed classified information about the CIA at a televised committee hearing, yes?

[CarnalK]

@El_Kabong

So, can someone help a brother out? One or two examples will do.

I found this pretty quickly:
Sub sailor’s photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails

Last July, Saucier was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice. He pleaded guilty Friday to the classified information charge, which is part of the Espionage Act, a prosecution spokesman confirmed. No charge of espionage was filed and no public suggestion has been made that he ever planned to disclose the photos to anyone outside the Navy.
[…]
the Navy says the photos are classified “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of protection for classified information and is designated for information that could cause some damage to national security but not “serious” or “exceptionally grave” damage.

[Jophiel]

@CarnalK

I found this pretty quickly:
Sub sailor’s photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails

Legal experts I’ve heard said the cases varied significantly on intent. From your article:

Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.

The article also states that similar cases have not been prosecuted (at least, per the people quoted) but rather dealt with administratively with this particular case as an outlier. Which would seem in keeping with Comey’s recommendation.

[CarnalK]

I wanted to add:Though there is the contributing factor that the sailor tried to destroy his laptop when he found he was under investigation. The FBI seems to think Hillary’s lawyer’s scrubbing of her server was above board/done honestly.

[Richard_Parker]

@Gyrate

If you’re going to demand that level of detail, then no.

But those details are what makes it a scandal. Ignoring them as mere details is like saying that every President has lied us into war (as long as you ignore the manipulation of intelligence performed by Cheney and Bush that did not happen with, say, Bosnia).

[aceplace57]

Well the fix was in. There shouldn’t be any surprise there are different rules for the powerful and elite.

AP did an excellent fact check report to let everyone know how deep the hypocrisy goes.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6ee62bc1899d45b1980f09fe750a7105/ap-fact-check-clinton-email-claims-collapse-under-fbi-probe

I don’t think this is the crime of the century. I wouldn’t want to see serious charges being filed. But to file absolutely nothing? What about tampering with evidence? She willfully deleted the server’s email software and then later wiped the server.

And she’s getting away with it. Once again showing the rules dont apply to her.

Absolutely sickening.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Richard_Parker

But those details are what makes it a scandal. Ignoring them as mere details is like saying that every President has lied us into war (as long as you ignore the manipulation of intelligence performed by Cheney and Bush that did not happen with, say, Bosnia).

But it isn’t a scandal.

[asahi]

@Knorf

Ugh. I can’t believe I’m about to say this.

I actually think adaher is right that that if the GOP had credible candidate it’s likely that, even though no charges will be filed, HRC’s chances to win the presidency would have taken a serious, perhaps devastating blow, at least on the “trustworthiness” front. The most damning part is the dismantling of almost every defense Clinton held about her use of her own email server.

It’s a long time until November, and it’s highly unlikely that Trump, Inc. can sustain a sufficiently potent attack to make anything out of this. But even a milquetoast-quality candidate such as Romney might seriously have been able to ride it out to a victory.

It’s far too late for that now, though.

The problem with using her emails against Clinton is that it’s old news, just like Bengazi. For most people, the outcome confirms what they thought they knew or predicted. No October surprises here yet. There was little chance of any sort of legal play; the greater danger nevertheless still lurks. What kinds of emails do her opponents have that they have not yet released? When do they release them? Are there emails showing a cozy relationship to Saudi or Gulf States benefactors, and do these individuals have some sort of ties to extremists? Would the GOP be able to exploit this sort of thing if another Orlando or San Bernadino happens just before the election?

Even if those sorts of skeletons exist, Trump still needs to get his negatives down. This is why I’ve felt like he is desperate for Joni Ernst…if Joni wants to work with him. I don’t know much about her but she seems like Sara Palin with brains and stability. That could work. The added benefit is that Ernst will probably force him to rein in his comments that are in any way remotely a turn-off to women. A little forced discipline.

Ernst is his last chance to save his campaign, but any other candidate and I think Trump loses. It could be closer than we expect but he’d lose nevertheless.

[wonky]

@Bridget_Burke

But it isn’t a scandal.

I think it’s hard to argue that it’s not a scandal. Clinton has been revealed to have done something very stupid that has had some impact on how some people view her and left her open to rebuke and possible (though it was never likely) indictment.

[CarnalK]

This isn’t old news. Come on. This FBI report shows she was untruthful in her defenses and slams her for extreme carelessness. She is damn lucky she’s running against Trump.

[CaptMurdock]

@furt

“See, when OUR side dismisses the candidates supported by roughly half the country as extremist crazies, it’s because they really are.”

See? You just needed to have it explained to you.

[iiandyiiii]

@CarnalK

This isn’t old news. Come on. This FBI report shows she was untruthful in her defenses and slams her for extreme carelessness. She is damn lucky she’s running against Trump.

It’s old news in the sense that this isn’t “news” to anyone who has been paying attention at all. Hillary wasn’t entirely honest? She and her team screwed up some procedures? This stuff shouldn’t surprise anyone at all, and I doubt it did.

[CarnalK]

Lots of people don’t continually pay attention but do when the head of the FBI holds a press conference. What is the point of pretending this is old news or that the bad press is already baked in to her numbers?