Support NeoGAF

[Koyuga]

It's not that big of a deal, nobody should be punished for what she did.

 

[Regginator]

Haven't read the posts in this thread, so I'm sure this has already been said, but if I recall correctly it's because this happened in 2013 and there weren't any laws about using private servers. It wasn't until 2014 that this law passed, so she couldn't get fined or anything.

It's not that big of a deal, nobody should be punished for what she did.

Yes, she should. It's a massive oversight and stupidity on her part that, in the worst case scenario, could compromise national security. But there weren't any specific laws about it back when she did that, so I suppose it's no more than reasonable that she isn't punished for it now. Would be pretty weird punishing people retroactively.

 

[Oblivion]

Also, it's my understanding that classified info is supposed to be sent over an entirely different system - even if she had been using a standard gov't email address, she shouldn't/wouldn't have been using it to send or receive classified info, either. I feel like many people don't realize this so they assume her private server obviously must have had tons of classified info going through it, when it isn't really the case.

Yes, this is also a very salient point which I rarely see people in the media bring up. Whether she had her own server or not is pretty much irrelevant because the main issue of classified emails should not have been sent from Hillary, even if she had a state.gov account. The server has nothing to do with that.

Still, in our department policy is treated like law in day to day actions. The proper handling of classified information could literally be the safety of thousands of individuals at any given time. So, it is still sad to see the blatant disregard for proper handling regardless of when it went into effect as law.

Well, then it's a good thing she didn't intentionally send any classified info from her server.

 

[draetenth]

Haven't read the posts in this thread, so I'm sure this has already been said, but if I recall correctly it's because this happened in 2013 and there weren't any laws about using private servers. It wasn't until 2014 that this law passed, so she couldn't get fined or anything.


Yes, she should. It's a massive oversight and stupidity on her part that, in the worst case scenario, could compromise national security. But there weren't any specific laws about it back when she did that, so I suppose it's no more than reasonable that she isn't punished for it now. Would be pretty weird punishing people retroactively.

If you know what she did happened before laws into effect and you think it's weird to punish people retroactively, why are you even saying she should be punished for what she did?

 

[Azerare]

No matter who the president is, this is a non issue. The president specifically has the right to access any government or military info deemed need to know, regardless of their security clearance before taking office.

You need the clearance and need to know. It's not just need to know.

 

[pirateluigi]

You need the clearance and need to know. It's not just need to know.

Not if you're potus: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/07/25/kind-security-clearance-president-get/

 

[cheezcake]

Use of a private email server means you can circumvent document retention requirements as outlined by FOIA. Whether Clinton actually did this is basically impossible to prove.

It's not that big of a deal, nobody should be punished for what she did.

Criminally no, but if you honestly believe that people lower in the food chain wouldn't be punished administratively for the same action boy I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Oblivion]

Criminally no, but if you honestly believe that people lower in the food chain wouldn't be punished administratively for the same action boy I've got a bridge to sell you.

1) they probably would, but grunts don't get the same leeway for obvious reasons.
2) How would Hillary even be punished exactly if she were still at the State department? And who would be doling out that punishment?

 

[cheezcake]

1) they probably would, but grunts don't get the same leeway for obvious reasons.
2) How would Hillary even be punished exactly if she were still at the State department? And who would be doling out that punishment?

1) I don't think anyone should be given extra leeway regardless of status.

2) Don't know honestly, it seems that there should be a system in place to handle this though. (If she were still at the state department, obviously if you're not there's no administrative action to be taken).

Remember I was just replying to someone who said that "no one should be punished" for doing the equivalent because it's not a big deal, which is absolutely absurd and it sounds like you agree with me on that.

 

[Jpop]

Maybe because she didn't break the law.

This.

Just stop looking for something that doesn't exist.

 

[MIMIC]

In this case, her irresponsibility didn't rise to the level of a criminal act. So no fine.

1) they probably would, but grunts don't get the same leeway for obvious reasons.
2) How would Hillary even be punished exactly if she were still at the State department? And who would be doling out that punishment?

Lost privileges, fired, etc. Administrative sanctions.

 

[Oblivion]

1) I don't think anyone should be given extra leeway regardless of status.

Well, I mean the reason that they would be more likely to be punished is for the same reason a receptionist at a company can't be late to work too many times, but the same doesn't apply to say, the CEO.

Also, Comey said that it's not even a guarantee that lower level staff would be punished either, fwiw.

 

[BeerSnob]

1) they probably would, but grunts don't get the same leeway for obvious reasons.
2) How would Hillary even be punished exactly if she were still at the State department? And who would be doling out that punishment?

Her clearance should be revoke. For anything else you would need to prove intent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...en-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/
Even the Director of Naval Intelligence had his clearance yanked, anyone can have there accesses revoked in a professional organization when it is proven they can not handle privileged access. She should have had he clearance suspended and forced to wear the escort only badge in cleared facilities.

 

[cheezcake]

Well, I mean the reason that they would be more likely to be punished is for the same reason a receptionist at a company can't be late to work too many times, but the same doesn't apply to say, the CEO.

Also, Comey said that it's not even a guarantee that lower level staff would be punished either, fwiw.

I understand why she gets the leeway, I just don't think she should. The thing is you can and should enforce that in a government position unlike a private company.

Was Comey referring to criminally or administratively punished?

 

[Oblivion]

Her clearance should be revoke. For anything else you would need to prove intent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...en-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/
Even the Director of Naval Intelligence had his clearance yanked, anyone can have there accesses revoked in a professional organization when it is proven they can not handle privileged access. She should have had he clearance suspended and forced to wear the escort only badge in cleared facilities.

1) She didn't intentionally mishandle classified information (which again, has nothing to do with her having a server), so it wouldn't make sense to revoke her security clearance.
2) This guy looks like he was actually involved in an actual corruption case. Though, I do see that he was never formally charged either. Still, it looks like a different situation.
3) Even Petraus' punishment, for something far more egregious that what Hillary did, didn't involve his clearance getting revoked (he did get a $40k fine and 2 years probation, though).

I understand why she gets the leeway, I just don't think she should. The thing is you can and should enforce that in a government position unlike a private company.

Was Comey referring to criminally or administratively punished?

Comey said that there would be no criminal charges filed, but "maybe" administrative punishments implemented. And even then, he said with the caveat that they would have to examine what happened exactly, and on a case by case basis.

 

[BeerSnob]

1) She didn't intentionally mishandle classified information (which again, has nothing to do with her having a server), so it wouldn't make sense to revoke her security clearance.
2) This guy looks like he was actually involved in an actual corruption case. Though, I do see that he was never formally charged either. Still, it looks like a different situation.
3) Even Petraus' punishment, for something far more egregious that what Hillary did, didn't involve his clearance getting revoked (he did get a $40k fine and 2 years probation, though).

Oh no, their offenses are totally different, I'm just pointing out that the privilege of rank does not extend to National Security issues.

 

[ZoyosJD]

No matter who the president is, this is a non issue. The president specifically has the right to access any government or military info deemed need to know, regardless of their security clearance before taking office.

That's my point. Under normal conditions an individual with revoked security clearance would deemed unfit to handle classified information, would not be considered for the job, and a new candidate would be found. But since the President is an elected official, voters make that call.

It's much less serious than any illegal action that some have deemed it as, but is still unique in this regard.

Well, then it's a good thing she didn't intentionally send any classified info from her server.

Like I said law lags policy and policy lags security. There never should have been classified information on any non-government system. Furthermore, there never should have been private discussion of information that would evolve to later be deemed classified on such systems.

Be that as it may, she was putting lives at risk for her own convenience.

As someone mentioned earlier, she was receiving such emails in public on a blackberry while abroad. Our systems literally have no room for this possibility and have been in place form much longer than these laws. I certainly agree that her actions were reckless.

 

[cheezcake]

Comey said that there would be no criminal charges filed, but "maybe" administrative punishments implemented. And even then, he said with the caveat that they would have to examine what happened exactly, and on a case by case basis.

You got a quote coz I only found these?

Comey's Official Statement
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.

Mr Comey was asked at the hearing if Mrs Clinton should face administrative punishment for the way she handled her email and responded: "I don't think that's for me to recommend".

He did say that his employees in the FBI would face discipline for the same behaviour.

Makes sense as administrative punishment is totally out of the FBI's wheelhouse

 

[Regginator]

If you know what she did happened before laws into effect and you think it's weird to punish people retroactively, why are you even saying she should be punished for what she did?

Because of common sense, it's baffling such a law didn't even exist back then. Now she can just say "I didn't know I couldn't do that", but that doesn't make what she did any less incredibly dumb. Anyone in her vulnerable position should know better.

But, as I said, legally she can't be tried for her stupidity because that law didn't formally exist then. Luckily for her.

 

[reallyfull]

While I don't think she broke any laws, pay a fine, or go to jail. This seems weird to me though.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

He's a DOJ assistant attorney general, seems he's pretty close to Clinton and her camp. Different news sites saying he's assisting/leading the new email investigation. I tried googling his actual role in the investigation and couldn't really find anything.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I was under the impression that she or her staff inadvertently or retroatively broke some laws. I haven't been following this much though.

If a law was broken retroactively (if I understand your use correctly) it doesn't matter. There are protections in the Constitution against punishing someone ex post facto.