Timeline for Why is the FBI making such a big deal out Hillary Clinton's private email server?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2017 at 22:37 | comment | added | Batman | @reirab The full quote reads: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent." Meaning, the evidence was too weak for a reasonable prosecutor to make a case. This really doesn't sound like "gross" negligence if they admit the case cannot be reasonably made. | |
| Jan 20, 2017 at 22:28 | comment | added | reirab | The FBI didn't suddenly stop treating the case like a "big deal" when the recommendation for no charges was made. The reason they searched through the newly-discovered e-mails is precisely because the possibility of the Secretary of State and/or her close aides mishandling highly-classified information - and, therefore, the possibility of that information having made its way into the hands of uncleared parties - is a really big deal. | |
| Jan 20, 2017 at 22:22 | comment | added | reirab | Also, your statement that they found gross negligence not to be the case is not supported by Comey's statements. He said that they "did not find clear evidence" of intent. He did not say that gross negligence was not found, only that prosecutors have historically chosen not to prosecute for that reason, hence his recommendation for no charges. He did say "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," that would be the gross negligence. | |
| Jan 20, 2017 at 22:21 | comment | added | Batman | @reirab Check the date, that was over and done when this question was asked. This was about the nonsense just before the election, for which Comey is now being investigated. | |
| Jan 20, 2017 at 22:19 | comment | added | reirab | "They aren't presently." This is just outright wrong. There is no reasonable way to construe Director Comey's sworn testimony before Congress as the FBI not "making a big deal" out of Clinton's e-mail. Recommending not a prosecute is not the same thing as not making a big deal. Having the Secretary of State routinely mishandle classified information, including Top Secret//Special Access Programs information is indeed a very, very big deal and Comey said as much. That this person then might become President of the United States is a rather extreme reason for the FBI's concern. | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 23:25 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 832 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 11:40 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 4:46 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 4:07 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 457 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 4:02 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 457 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 3:55 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 457 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 0:12 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
format fix
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 17:33 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic That would be for policy enforcement, not really security, but you are still missing the point that we have a documented non-nefarious reason the personal email was used. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 17:29 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | @AlexanderO'Mara No. The limitation placed on .gov mobile devices, limiting the number of email accounts they can access, is specifically a security feature. Government IT systems are restricted via very specific Information Assurance protocols. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 17:00 | comment | added | Batman | @WayneJ The inability to use multiple email accounts on a device is not a "security feature", it is an "arbitrary limitation" imposed by the software. The inability to use multiple email accounts in no way increases security by itself. Also, I said this before and I will say it again, this answer makes no mention of what devices were actually used, as this was not the direct issue the FBI was investigating (what this question is all about). Also, the President reportedly has a proper smart device, which presumably has the potential for multiple email accounts. Is that device also "insecure"? | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 16:52 | comment | added | WayneJ | @Alexander O'Mara"it's actually kind-of sad..." It is not even a little sad. It called security. They are only allowed to access a single account known to be secure. Allowing access to unsecured accounts would make the device insecrue (just ask Podesta.) Further Directory Comey testified before congress that she routinely used multiple insecure devices. This was clearly an end run around the "freedom of information" demonstrated by the destruction of 33,000 emails. Wikileaks claims to have these emails. This is CYA for Comey. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 16:46 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 47 characters in body; added 1 character in body; added 62 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 14:37 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 58 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 6:04 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 56 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 5:37 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 5:26 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 58 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:56 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic Those do not appear to be official statements, and aren't they just as old (or even a bit older)? | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:55 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | Click through to vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:52 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic If this is the September 2nd release you are referring to, it doesn't make any statement on the conclusion of their investigation, so I can't see how that would be a better source: fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/… | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:48 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 818 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:42 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 818 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:35 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic But it does say "gross negligence" just like my answer. Both "intent" and "gross negligence" are relevant, for separate reasons. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:33 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | Title 18, Section 793, Subsection (F) does not require intent. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:32 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:30 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic Have you read those statues? Both talk about malicious intent or gross neglect, just like my answer states. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:22 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | Your citation is the press release, not the investigation. Review the statues, (Title 18, Section 793, Subsection f) and (Title 18, Section 2071). The former doesn't require intent, while the latter looks for "willingfully and unlawfully." Either doesn't not what classified material is, and should public admit as much, or she violated both. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:20 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic I've adjusted "all reasonable measures" to "most polling" of which the majority of reputable sources show an overwhelming weighted result. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:16 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic Again, you're argument about "Convenience" not being an excuse is completely irrelevant to the point about why it was setup for non-nefarious purposes. It maters not if it is an excuse, it is still the documented reason. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:15 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:12 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic Until there is more news, the present news is at an end. There is nothing more to share. But you're arguing semantics at this point. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:11 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic This answer mentions nothing about the use or not of a government issue Blackberry device. Just the the government issue one has a technical problem. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:09 | comment | added | Batman | @DrunkCynic "Intent is not required in regards to mishandling classified material." I cited an investigation saying it does... | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:09 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | If a government Blackberry had been issued, there may be Information Assurance restrictions on linking that device to non-.gov sources, in order to minimize the risk of third party intrusion into the system. It may very well be a feature, rather than a flaw. Convenience is not a sufficient excuse to violate proscribed doctrine. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:09 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:07 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | Since new information has possibly come to light, the July 16th Statement may be old hat; the September 2 FBI release would be a stronger reference in either case. The News hasn't ended; we're waiting to see if there is another shoe. Bias represented by "all reasonable measures has failed," without citation. Intent is not required in regards to mishandling classified material. Documentation does not erase requirements, to include applicable oversight and FOIA responsibilities, for .gov information assurance. No government issued BB was used. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 4:00 | comment | added | Batman | Would the voter care to offer feedback? Was something inaccurate? Or was the information presented just disliked? | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 3:59 | history | edited | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 3:54 | history | answered | Batman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |