Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server(bigstory.ap.org)
bigstory.ap.org
Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server
39 comments
It seems like there is enough evidence now for the FBI to recommend indictment. Why do you think they haven't yet?
Past cases with similar server security issues show that an indictment is unlikely.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosec...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosec...
Likewise, we've long forgotten the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
That did not result in any prosecution - nobody even bothered splitting hairs as to which of these e-mails were classified, and how classified they were. A few fall people did get fired, though.
That did not result in any prosecution - nobody even bothered splitting hairs as to which of these e-mails were classified, and how classified they were. A few fall people did get fired, though.
[deleted]
Well, it might be a bit of problem for an Attorney General of the same party to issue an indictment[1]. Its one of those career ending moves, and at that level, "the end justifies the means" tends to be the guiding passion. I'm sure Senator Sanders fans would love it though.
1) frankly, it would probably also raise a ruckus if an Attorney General issued an indictment against the other party's presumptive nominee for President
1) frankly, it would probably also raise a ruckus if an Attorney General issued an indictment against the other party's presumptive nominee for President
I don't think any Democrat would love this, having Sanders be nominated because HRC went to prison would probably make him considerably less electable than he ever was.
While Trump is spiraling to the point where the Republicans are looking for a way out and indictment at this stage can pretty much guarantee a Republican victory regardless of if it's Trump or not.
Any Democratic nominee that would replace HRC if this scandal moves forward would not only have to fight their baggage but HRC's baggage also because being classified as the "nominee not currently in prison" is not really a good starting point going into the national elections.
Any Democratic nominee that would replace HRC if this scandal moves forward would not only have to fight their baggage but HRC's baggage also because being classified as the "nominee not currently in prison" is not really a good starting point going into the national elections.
> I don't think any Democrat would love this, having Sanders be nominated because HRC went to prison would probably make him considerably less electable than he ever was.
My twitter timeline would disagree, and frankly I don't think it would really hurt Senator Sanders. It might help in the I'm an honest man category. His main worry is his wife at that point.
Trump is a very different situation. Its Jesse Ventura writ larger, and the polling wasn't very effective at showing his voting. I'm not convinced an HRC indictment guarantees a victory. Do remember its pretty much the party elite that wants him out (well, and a lot of died in the wool conservatives who aren't happy with the party elite either).
To show how messed up this election is: a recycled Libertarian is polling at 9%. That's not normal at all.
My twitter timeline would disagree, and frankly I don't think it would really hurt Senator Sanders. It might help in the I'm an honest man category. His main worry is his wife at that point.
Trump is a very different situation. Its Jesse Ventura writ larger, and the polling wasn't very effective at showing his voting. I'm not convinced an HRC indictment guarantees a victory. Do remember its pretty much the party elite that wants him out (well, and a lot of died in the wool conservatives who aren't happy with the party elite either).
To show how messed up this election is: a recycled Libertarian is polling at 9%. That's not normal at all.
It doesn't hurt sanders specifically it will hurt any nominee that the DNC would have to put in her place.
There are a lot of undecided in this election still, being the party that had to replace their front runner due to legal trouble won't pan out well in the general election it would be the easiest thing to attack.
"Crooked hillary go indicted how long until X gets in trouble too?"
"Crooked hillary go indicted how long until X gets in trouble too?"
I would assume Senator Sanders would be the nominee, but I could be wrong. I think he is about the only one left with a legitimate claim. I really don't think any of the HRC stuff will settle home him. There are other, much better, avenues of attack and frankly no one would believe an attack campaign on him that compares him to HRC.
Not that its likely, but if some news story broke that made Clinton unacceptable (particularly, to the Democratic superdelegates), then Sanders is the only candidate that (presuming discipline from the pledged delegates, though IIRC there is legal precedent that even "pledged" delegates aren't actually bound that there are plans to exploit on the Republican side) mathematically could be elected simply by superdelegate switching on the first ballot while pledged delegates vote as pledged. Which party leaders might prefer to minimize chaos and apparent disorder.
OTOH, if there is no first-ballot majority, all bets are off.
OTOH, if there is no first-ballot majority, all bets are off.
Yeah I'm not looking at delegate votes at this point I'm talking about the general election.
Having to fight for the public vote with a scandal of the front runner nominee before you being indicted isn't an easy task.
Oh, ok. Yeah, and indictment of the candidate after the convention would be horrific on so many levels. That would be game over, and frankly all the money that would go to the candidate would switch to the Senate and House races just to keep the down ticket from taking a huge hit.
I really couldn't see that happening. If, and I really mean if, an indictment happens, it will be before the convention.
I really couldn't see that happening. If, and I really mean if, an indictment happens, it will be before the convention.
I think that's really unfair to AG Lynch, who has a reputation for being tough and nonpartisan - she has personally prosecuted corrupt officials from both parties.
I don't think its unfair. She might be tough but they sent her out on Sunday to defend censored transcripts, so I think she has to listen on this. She probably would believe that giving an election away is bad.
(I don't think it would give the election away, but others disagree)
(I don't think it would give the election away, but others disagree)
There was enough evidence from day one to go through the legal notions, this doesn't really have any effect on what was going on.
The problem is that this has been dragged for so long that it would kill the democratic party at this point, HRC is the nominee this whole thing should've been cleared way before the primaries.
If Hillary was "smart" she should've pushed for a full investigation before that she could've survived it then, at this point if any indictment would be pushed forward it's game over for for HRC and for Democratic Party.
The problem is that this has been dragged for so long that it would kill the democratic party at this point, HRC is the nominee this whole thing should've been cleared way before the primaries.
If Hillary was "smart" she should've pushed for a full investigation before that she could've survived it then, at this point if any indictment would be pushed forward it's game over for for HRC and for Democratic Party.
I think she honestly believes she can survive and nothing will come of it. She is probably right.
On the other hand, I think the Democratic Party has a more than reasonable out with Senator Sanders. I get the feeling the party leaders would want to select his VP for him as part of any deal. He is, after all, not their favorite.
On the other hand, I think the Democratic Party has a more than reasonable out with Senator Sanders. I get the feeling the party leaders would want to select his VP for him as part of any deal. He is, after all, not their favorite.
> It seems like there is enough evidence now for the FBI to recommend indictment.
Of whom, for what specific offense?
Of whom, for what specific offense?
Presumably of HRC, for mishandling of classified information. (This article doesn't seem to show that, though it previous had a misleading headline that indicated it was about HRC's personal email server.)
Alternatively, why has the investigation taken so long? It can't take well over a year to go through someone's emails.
Finding all the e-mail has been a bit of a problem with many delays. The timeline on this goes on and on with a lot of drama.
I still don't get why she didn't have to turn ALL of it over for another party to peruse and determine was was or wasn't government business. It seems outrageous that she basically got to decide for herself.
Yea isnt that crazy ? imagine the fbi investigating you and you deciding what to turn over and what is personal lol. Nothing could ever go wrong with that.
Is this sort of thing typically prosecuted when it's unintentional? I would guess not.
The prosecution would be in violation of Federal Records Act. Existence of the server in the first place and loss of e-mails is the problem, not the break-in.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-...
http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-...
http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6...
I'm pretty sure it needs to show that she knowingly and willingly transmitted marked classified data she knew was classified to persons she explicitly knew didn't have clearance while showing blatant disregard for security. There hasn't been any evidence so far of this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-priva...
http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6...
http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6...
The bar hasn't been met for her to somehow be indicted no matter how much Reddit wishes it to be true.
From the 2nd link:
What OIG Recommends:
OIG makes eight recommendations. They include issuing enhanced and more frequent guidance on the permissible use of personal email accounts to conduct official business, amending Departmental policies to provide for administrative penalties for failure to comply with records preservation and cybersecurity requirements, and developing a quality assurance plan to address vulnerabilities in records management and preservation. The Department concurred with all of OIG’s recommendations.
From the 2nd link:
What OIG Recommends:
OIG makes eight recommendations. They include issuing enhanced and more frequent guidance on the permissible use of personal email accounts to conduct official business, amending Departmental policies to provide for administrative penalties for failure to comply with records preservation and cybersecurity requirements, and developing a quality assurance plan to address vulnerabilities in records management and preservation. The Department concurred with all of OIG’s recommendations.
I have a reddit account but don't really comment there so I have no clue about the first line.
The OIG report is recommending system changes and doesn't opinion on the criminal. That's what the FBI is doing.
The OIG report is recommending system changes and doesn't opinion on the criminal. That's what the FBI is doing.
I wouldn't hold my breath because I think you will be pretty disappointed.
Let me quote myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11957648
> I think she honestly believes she can survive and nothing will come of it. She is probably right.
Stop projecting on people what will disappoint us.
> I think she honestly believes she can survive and nothing will come of it. She is probably right.
Stop projecting on people what will disappoint us.
What the article says? No, though people might get fired.
cwkoss seems to be referring to Hillary running her own personal email server, though. That's absolutely not unintentional. It's not what the article is talking about, though.
cwkoss seems to be referring to Hillary running her own personal email server, though. That's absolutely not unintentional. It's not what the article is talking about, though.
[deleted]
Because she is Hillary Clinton.
Article has been clarified and the HN headline is no longer the article headline (which is now "Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server"), and no longer correctly portrays the content; from the (corrected) content:
The AP initially reported Wednesday that the emails described security features being turned off on Clinton's own private server, but State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified hours later that the emails described "a series of troubleshooting measures to the department's system — not Secretary Clinton's system — to attempt to remedy the problem."
The AP initially reported Wednesday that the emails described security features being turned off on Clinton's own private server, but State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified hours later that the emails described "a series of troubleshooting measures to the department's system — not Secretary Clinton's system — to attempt to remedy the problem."
Thank you! We've updated the submission title.