[MOARDONGZPLZ]

I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.

[Arnor]

I'm with you on this. It shouldn't be hand-waved away. It's serious. I just wish we could find some appropriate action between hand-waving and federal indictment...

[jazzyk]

The usual action for lawyers, bankers or other professionals who were "careless", is to ban them from performing their jobs for a few years.

So perhaps she should be banned from holding a government job for a few years?

[projectramo]

If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email...

Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?

[MOARDONGZPLZ]

I said "what she did was wrong," which is was. I made no claims beyond that. I'm not sure where you're getting anything about my feelings regarding previous people who may have done it. And my feelings on whether things are "overly" classified are irrelevant here. If something is marked classified, there are legal restrictions on its release.

[projectramo]

I didn't assume anything about your "feelings regarding previous people who may have done".

And your feelings regarding over-classification is not irrelevant to whether something is "wrong". Wrong is not the same as legal, which is why there is discretion.

[MOARDONGZPLZ]

I'm not trying to get into an argument, but you specifically said: "If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?"

That pretty clearly implicated previous people and my beliefs/feelings, no?

I feel like you're trolling me here.

[projectramo]

Not at all.

I chose your response because you seemed more balanced than some of the other people who are way out on one side of the debate or the other.

So I wondered why you, evidently relatively moderate in your view, fell where you did.

In my eyes, the fact the key issue was the accepted actions of the predecessors. (I may have this wrong, though, based on another response I received in this thread, but that response was somewhat unclear.)

So, I wonder if you accept that her predecessors did the same thing (which, I assume, is accepted fact that they did, so nothing to do with emotions), you feel the way you do about her.

[jrs235]

I fail to see where s/he said they were okay with the predecessors actions. You appear to be making a huge assumption. S/he said what she did was wrong and nothing about predecessors. I would make the assumption that s/he believes the predecessors were wrong too (assuming they did the exact same thing) and not assume that this has something to do with subject of this instance.

[MrZongle2]

"If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?"

Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped?

"Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?"

The regulations for declassification of classified material are quite clear about who is authorized to do it and when. Whether material is overclassified or not is as irrelevant as arguing that the quality of the diamond in a stolen ring should determine whether or not theft charges are filed against a suspect.

Edit: I cannot reply to @projectramo in the thread, who asked "Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?" My answer: yes, if the statute of limitations (if one exists in such a case) has not expired.

The law MUST be applied equally for all, or it is tyranny.

[projectramo]

It seems it would be just as tyrannical to apply the law as it is written and not as it is intended.

Here is a law intended to keep vital secrets out of the hands of enemies who might do harm to the national interest. And you want to apply it, broadly, to government officials who are trying to do their job.

I don't think Rice or Powell intended to do any harm, or wanted to give any secrets out to any enemy. I also think the likelihood that their use of non-government servers on a tiny number of emails really caused such an issue.

Yet you are advocating to end their careers, put them behind bars, subject them to years of trouble.

Doesn't something seem off here?

(I am putting aside Hillary for now because she is just such an emotionally supercharged example at the moment that it is hard to talk about her and just discuss the facts, so I am using the other two as examples).

[MrZongle2]

(I'm not sure why I can reply now but not earlier. Anyway...)

"It seems it would be just as tyrannical to apply the law as it is written and not as it is intended."

I don't know if there is a difference here. The laws and regulations surrounding the handling, storage and transmission of classified information essentially boil down to: "Protect classified material from disclosure to unauthorized individuals, follow established procedures, and in the event you wish to stray from those keep in mind you're likely not authorized to make that final decision so consult with your security officer and ensure your bases are covered."

Let's assume that I, as a soldier or contractor, started using my private email server for work purposes that on occasion involved classified material. Maybe I didn't know what exactly was classified (or how high), but that doing so was definitely something I was advised against doing during my in-briefing and my annual security refresher training. Perhaps even explicitly told that such a thing was not authorized.

I am, at this point, negligent in my duty to protect said material and I have violated an agreement I have signed with the United States government. If one or more unauthorized parties (whether contractors I hired to set up the server or somebody else) accessed my server and saw that material, I have broken the law even if I didn't pull a Manning or Snowden or intentionally give material to a foreign intelligence service.

You can bet that my career would be in jeopardy and I would be put behind bars and subjected to "years of trouble". Hell, I would likely be held in custody during the investigation over concern of being a flight risk.

There's a reason why people who have had clearances are generally up in arms about this: mishandling and negligence is something they are repeatedly warned about and fearful of. To see the same rules and regulations that governed our activity (and in some cases really made our jobs difficult) so casually ignored and allowed to go without so much as a wrist-slap is infuriating.

It's not about a witch hunt. It's not a political thing. It's about seeing other people being treated differently in the eyes of the law. It's far from being the first time in America, but it's as disgusting and discouraging as any bit of fraud one hears about in the worst third-world countries, and for it to be given a free pass at such a high level (and be dismissed by so many for political reasons) I think indicates the poor state of health our democracy is in.

[jrs235]

Is it just me or do people see to be over looking the violation of the 2009 Federal Records Act and the violation of the Freedom of Information Act?

I understand most folks are concerned about the classified information but it seems the other two issues are forgotten.

[projectramo]

Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?

[jklinger410]

No one is saying we shouldn't.

[projectramo]

There seems to be a world of difference between the way people are calling for prosecution for HRC and for her predecessors.

[jklinger410]

So what does it mean if you didn't call for the prosecution of her predecessors and also don't call for her prosecution?

You're supporting corruption at that point, right?

[vageli]

If a cop pulls you over for speeding, do you say, "How come you didn't go after that guy in front of me doing 100?!" Just because other people did it doesn't make it right.

[projectramo]

No, I would not. But a bunch of people discussing it on Hacker News should definitely say to each other "How come the cop didn't pull over that other guy?"

[jc4p]

I hate this argument because Colin's actions were so overt that extra regulations were passed after he left to flat out make what he and and others did against standard operating procedure. Stop using this as your argument.

[projectramo]

Tell me more about this.

In particular, I am curious about "extra regulations were passed."

Did Congress pass new laws because of Colin Powell?

[jc4p]

I tried updating my post but because this post was flagged away it seems to have duplicated somewhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037507 -- This article explains it a bit, it's also light on the details. If you read the Judicial Watch testimony of her staffers, a lot of them touch on this.

[projectramo]

okay, well, if this bears out what you said, I'll stop using this argument.

p.s. what article?

[jc4p]

Bah did the link in my comment not work? I tried updating my original comment to link to http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email... but now there's two versions of my comment, one pre-edit in this chain and one post-edit in another chain I can't find. This article is heavily biased, I think, but it mentions the post Powell rulings. In the Judicial Watch testimony of Cheryl Mills she mentioned the post Powell decisions.

[ZoF]

>If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?

The law is the law. It should be held against all of them. This is akin to saying, 'well that robber got away with it in the past, why do you hold it against this gentlemen for stealing?'

>Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?

What do this have to do with the mishandling of classified info? If it's classified, it's classified; that it might have been classified erroneously or too liberally has nothing to do with the fact that it is currently classified and should be treated as such.

[marcusgarvey]

>previous people in the same position also had private servers

Such as?

[projectramo]

Powell and Rice. Click on the link.

[marcusgarvey]

False. They did not have private servers.

[projectramo]

Private as opposed to public or government. Not private in the sense of their own set up for themselves.

I didn't think that was the distinction you were focused on.

[marcusgarvey]

But the distinction is material.