Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 08:48 AM Jul 2016

WaPo Editorial: It’s time to wind down the Clinton email investigation

By Editorial Board July 1 at 8:21 PM
NO DOUBT it’s difficult to refuse a visit with a former president of the United States. Still, Attorney General Loretta Lynch should have found a polite way to excuse herself when Bill Clinton dropped by her airplane, parked next to his at a Phoenix airport Monday. Given that Ms. Lynch has ultimate responsibility for the federal investigation related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official business while secretary of state, even an impromptu chat between the attorney general and the candidate’s husband was bound to create questionable appearances — even if its actual content was purely social, as Ms. Lynch maintains and as we believe.

To her credit, Ms. Lynch acknowledged her misstep Friday in an interview with The Post’s Jonathan Capehart at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. She described the cloud it created over the Justice Department’s objectivity as inaccurate but nevertheless “painful.” Equally appropriately, she said she expected to follow the lead of career prosecutors at the department in deciding what, if any, legal consequences Ms. Clinton should face due to the transmission of classified information via the unsecured server.

Our view of the matter, stated in previous editorials and supported by a fair reading of the law and publicly available evidence, is that Ms. Clinton committed a grave error in judgment, compounded by a willful violation of internal State Department rules designed to ensure records were properly preserved with maximum protection against cybersecurity risks. She has been less than clear and forthright about all of this in her public statements. However, her conduct does not seem to rise to the level of indictable crime, because she did not set up and use the server with the legally requisite criminal intent or even with “gross negligence,” as it has been defined in relevant case law.

The main point now, however, is that the Justice Department needs to get on with telling the public what it has concluded about Ms. Clinton’s culpability. Ms. Lynch’s faux pas is but a relatively minor example of the sort of political accidents that are still waiting to happen as long as this matter remains up in the air. Of far greater moment is the fact that Ms. Clinton is a candidate for president and, indeed, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee. She and, more importantly, the voters who would ultimately judge her deserve some clarity about her legal liability — one way or the other. It appears that a direct interview with the former secretary is one of the last pieces that the Federal Bureau of Investigation needs to finish this puzzle. Both Ms. Clinton and the FBI should make it happen as soon as possible, and then the latter should publish its findings with all deliberate speed.

###

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-wind-down-the-clinton-email-investigation/2016/07/01/7924bfe0-3fb3-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo Editorial: It’s time to wind down the Clinton email investigation (Original Post) DonViejo Jul 2016 OP
I agree. However as an IT person, on the point of gross negligence, MH1 Jul 2016 #1
Negligence and gross negligence are distinct legal terms. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #4
I understand. MH1 Jul 2016 #6
I would defer to you... I can't even execute a screen save. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #13
I think a lot is going to depend on whether the people evaluating her behavior MH1 Jul 2016 #28
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #15
Sir DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #23
Many of the US Government's technologies are antiquated PJMcK Jul 2016 #9
I agree completely. And frankly I shudder to think MH1 Jul 2016 #16
I've kept a couple of old computers PJMcK Jul 2016 #20
LOL, make that as proactive as YOU are, PJMcK. :) MH1 Jul 2016 #24
my main concern was hiring an incompetent to monitor her server - hollysmom Jul 2016 #10
LOL. I wish my company would fire or at least investigate managers MH1 Jul 2016 #11
one place I was at the person was not only incopmptent, they were disturbing and a pain hollysmom Jul 2016 #14
I hear ya. It wouldn't shock me to find that something similar has happened MH1 Jul 2016 #22
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #17
Like Donald Trump? (n/t) PJMcK Jul 2016 #21
Who do you believe the devious party is? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #25
Isn't this ridiculous, though? yallerdawg Jul 2016 #26
Thanks for the professional analysis, especially the sentence about our government's . . . brush Jul 2016 #30
Ageed, but .. zenabby Jul 2016 #32
damn straight Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #2
That might have been on Bill's mind. ucrdem Jul 2016 #3
I think you're right PJMcK Jul 2016 #12
Sounds like a great show. ucrdem Jul 2016 #35
Agree. This has been going on for more than a year now. If they haven't found anything by now, Arkansas Granny Jul 2016 #5
When you can't get rid of the vermin on your own, it's time to call in an expert. randome Jul 2016 #7
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #8
Do you evidence this was a public corruption investigation as you suggest? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #18
While I agree this has dragged on, I disagree with newspaper editorial boards assuming silvershadow Jul 2016 #19
+1000. Or the application of finer points of law to the facts discovered in the investigation. JudyM Jul 2016 #29
So true. nt silvershadow Jul 2016 #36
Lol. She's not going to be indicted and we won't get a new nominee La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2016 #34
I don't want that to happen- your characterization is inaccurate. nt silvershadow Jul 2016 #38
Sure La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2016 #39
Agree completely mcar Jul 2016 #27
Hope so! 4139 Jul 2016 #31
This makes me smile Gothmog Jul 2016 #33
The Benghazi Committee gave their report and did not find Hillary was at fault, it is Thinkingabout Jul 2016 #37

MH1

(17,600 posts)
1. I agree. However as an IT person, on the point of gross negligence,
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 08:58 AM
Jul 2016

I would sincerely hope that if someone in Clinton's position today did what Clinton did, that it would rise to "gross negligence". The times have changed, we know a lot more about security needs, and - very importantly - hopefully the government's cybersecurity is more reliable today than it was in 2009. The point that is often missed is that there have been huge changes in the cybersecurity world in the last 7 years (for example the prevalent use of the term "cybersecurity" and the higher awareness of the non-IT general public.) So I think that in Clinton's case she may have made what she believed was a reasonable choice, in the context of public understanding at that time. Hopefully no one in that position would think that today. (I also strongly fault the government security infrastructure - more aptly, probably "lack thereof" - that would cause her to think that.)

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
4. Negligence and gross negligence are distinct legal terms.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:07 AM
Jul 2016

If I am driving and forget to check my rear view mirror and cause an accident I acted negligently. If I go to the brake store and was warned that my brakes had worn down to the point that I was putting myself, other motorists, and pedestrians in danger, ignored their warnings, kept driving with bad brakes, and then caused an accident I was acting in a grossly negligent manner.

MH1

(17,600 posts)
6. I understand.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:14 AM
Jul 2016

And very obviously, IANAL. But, the difference you cite is why I don't think Clinton's actions meet the standard of "gross negligence", given how cybersecurity was treated (i.e. mostly ignored) in 2009. However I hope that those warnings would be there now, that today nobody could do what Clinton did without clearly violating numerous clear warnings not to do that. If there is one benefit for the country that comes out of this issue, maybe it will be that people now just know better.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
13. I would defer to you... I can't even execute a screen save.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:31 AM
Jul 2016

I suspect Brian Pagliano, the man who set up and serviced her private server, held himself out as an expert, said it was secure, and she took him at his word.

I also suspect she used the "high security system" when it was necessary.

This isn't to suggest I believe the use of her private server was a good idea. In retrospect it was an awful one.


BTW, here is a definition in layman's terms re the difference between gross negligence and negligence from a lawyer:

Negligence is when a person, company or other entity acts incompetently or below the recognized standard of care, and therefore caused harm through their lack of reasonable and expected action. It's a personal injury lawyer's job to prove this negligence in order to obtain damages for the accident victim so that they receive compensation for medical bills, lost wages, or pain and suffering.

Gross negligence is a more serious form of negligence that goes a step further than simple carelessness. While regular negligence is seen as a person or company falling below an expected standard of care, gross negligence is seen as a complete failure to show care that in fact implies recklessness or a willful disregard for safety and human life.

http://www.brentadams.com/library/what-is-negligence-what-is-gross-negligence.cfm

MH1

(17,600 posts)
28. I think a lot is going to depend on whether the people evaluating her behavior
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 10:00 AM
Jul 2016

to "standard of care", use the standard of care that was prevalent in 2009, rather than the standard in place today; or more accurately the standard that the average person wishes or believes is in place today, which is probably quite optimistic compared to what REALLY happens behind the scenes, LOL.

I'm going to guess that in the legal world, the attempt would be to apply an accurate, contemporaneous standard of care; but in the court of public opinion of course that's not going to be the comparison made. That is why this is probably (hopefully) a bigger deal in the public mind than it is in the legal reality.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
23. Sir
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:46 AM
Jul 2016

Sir, could you please share with me and the other members of this board how promoting the GOP supported argument that Hillary Clinton broke the law fulfills the mission the Administrators have established for our board?


We want people to stop bashing Hillary Clinton and also Bernie Sanders
It is going to be much harder for the members of this website to come together if we keep bashing former primary candidates or their supporters. We are Democrats and we are all Clinton supporters now. Our opponents are Donald Trump and the Republican Party. So starting threads to attack Clinton supporters or Sanders supporters makes no sense, and it is also counter-productive.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/~Skinner


Thank you in advance.

PJMcK

(22,031 posts)
9. Many of the US Government's technologies are antiquated
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:18 AM
Jul 2016

We've heard story after story that the US Government has ancient equipment. Recently, there was a report that one agency, I think it was the FBI, still uses floppy disks. It seems reasonable to conclude that we need a lot of technological upgrades.

While I agree whole-heartedly with your observation, MH1, that "there have been huge changes in the cybersecurity world in the last 7 years," let's consider a side component to this story. The primary reason our country lags behind in technology upgrades, infrastructure repairs and improvements, educational funding and many other areas of concern is due to Republicans budget priorities. They block action on everything except military expenditures and programs that benefit their wealthy patrons.

Of course, if anyone did today what Secretary Clinton did nearly a decade ago, they'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't they? Of course, if she had been using floppy disks, there probably aren't too many IT professionals today who would know what they were and how to hack them. (wink)

MH1

(17,600 posts)
16. I agree completely. And frankly I shudder to think
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:35 AM
Jul 2016

how bad the government security infrastructure must be still, with the republican obstructionism to funding anything meaningful.

I still have floppy disks in a cabinet somewhere, I think. I'm pretty sure I don't currently own any machine that will read them though.

PJMcK

(22,031 posts)
20. I've kept a couple of old computers
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:43 AM
Jul 2016

I still have a Commodore Vic-20, an Apple PowerBook 3400c and a 17" PowerBook. I'm afraid to discard them because I'm a packrat and you never know when they might come in handy. Besides, they each have a couple of my favorite games that were never ported up to newer machines. (wink)

Actually, as each storage technology advances, I take the time and trouble to convert my old files to a new method. I once spent three entire days transferring 3.5" floppies and zip disks and old disk drives to CD-ROMs so that my files would be readable.

If only our government could be as proactive as we are, MH1.

MH1

(17,600 posts)
24. LOL, make that as proactive as YOU are, PJMcK. :)
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:50 AM
Jul 2016

I have not spent the time transferring stuff that you have.

I mentally "triage" the stuff and move the critical data, make a mental note to set aside a day to transfer the rest of it, and then ... that day never comes. But so far the most important thing I've ever lost was a password safe program for Palm Pilot. I don't remember exactly what happened, but ultimately my data was unrecoverable, so I had to reset passwords for every damned thing that I was still using and didn't have the pw memorized.

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
10. my main concern was hiring an incompetent to monitor her server -
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:21 AM
Jul 2016

he just seemed so bad at his job, it was like stealing money for him to get paid for that job.
I am a not up to date, retired IT person, but security was always a concern back into the deep dark history of systems. It was just for different thing, to put it mildly, ha ha. I still remember the magnet alarm doors.

MH1

(17,600 posts)
11. LOL. I wish my company would fire or at least investigate managers
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:28 AM
Jul 2016

for hiring incredibly incompetent people in certain jobs.

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
14. one place I was at the person was not only incopmptent, they were disturbing and a pain
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:33 AM
Jul 2016

running around and talking to people all day when they should be working. I swear I had to be cross examined by 3 different managers to make sure I was not just picking on this guy and he was a consultant. Sorry, I know what competent was and he was not it. Turns out, the VP of IT was accepting a kickback for each employee from this company, and this bothered the consulting firm who though they could place any idiot there. I had worked for that consulting firm for a while mostly at one lovely client and left on good terms but the salesman recognized me so that started crap.

MH1

(17,600 posts)
22. I hear ya. It wouldn't shock me to find that something similar has happened
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:44 AM
Jul 2016

or even is happening, at my company.

But in general, it's not that uncommon for someone who is in a hiring position for some other reason than actually being a good manager (i.e. people who were promoted for technical skill and/or (mostly or) brown-nosing skill), to be REALLY bad at hiring competent people.

So while it's annoying as fuck that Hillary would hire someone so incompetent, it's unfortunately not an uncommon or unexpected thing. It's too bad that she didn't lean on a trusted adviser that was better at that. But then again, it's also hard for a non-technical person to hire a technical person and really know whether they're competent or not. (I have that problem myself trying to hire people to do work on my house.)

Response to MH1 (Reply #11)

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
26. Isn't this ridiculous, though?
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:58 AM
Jul 2016

These emails were not for classified information - her government business emails were always going to be public record! What the hell would any of these need hack-proof cyber-security for?

brush

(53,764 posts)
30. Thanks for the professional analysis, especially the sentence about our government's . . .
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 10:20 AM
Jul 2016

"lack thereof" of state of the art cyber hardware (sadly outmoded) at the time of Clinton's decision to set up her server.

zenabby

(364 posts)
32. Ageed, but ..
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:35 PM
Jul 2016

There are so many exceptions here:

1. She is the wife of a former president,and a former senator. She has been using a similar system over the years, and something that has been more convenient and working.
2. Her computers were more modern and had more cyber security than the government ones
3. The gov. system is so outdated and does not let you do many things that increase productivity
4. It was not a unknown practice to use personal email for gov work - it was just not done exclusively. I don't see what difference that makes though since, if you do part of your work in a different system, what's to say that part is not the wrong part? Most senators and congress men/women and previous sec. of states have done that. Hers is an even more secure system.
5. She's been using that email to send emails to everyone in the world (that were not on the high sec line). Everyone knew about it, including republicans. What's the big deal now?

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
2. damn straight
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:00 AM
Jul 2016

It's freaking ridiculous this is dragging on so long, especially with Trump looming on the horizon.

I know, I know-- you can't rush the wheels of justice or a thorough investigation, but come on, the basic facts seem clear here.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
3. That might have been on Bill's mind.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:05 AM
Jul 2016

Forcing a crisis to get the damn thing over with and giving Lynch cover for any recommendation she's obliged to accept. Bill is very smart and is not in the business of committing campaign faux pas at the moment. He's really on his game.

PJMcK

(22,031 posts)
12. I think you're right
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:30 AM
Jul 2016

President Bill Clinton is still a pretty sharp guy. Given his history, he had to know there would be a shit-storm if he met with the Attorney General. The impromptu meeting between them seems to have accelerated the legal process and left the onus of the findings on Director Comey and the career prosecutors at the DOJ.

I hate to quote The West Wing yet again but there was story line towards the end of the series that has pertinence in this real-life story. Communications Director Toby Ziegler illegally revealed a secret military space shuttle's existence in order to save astronauts aboard the International Space Station who were running out of air. In order to get Mr. Ziegler to reveal his sources, the federal prosecutor threatened to subpoena the entire upper-echelons of President Bartlett's administration on the eve of the presidential election. Mr. Ziegler resisted this threat by pointing out that the prosecutor, who had future political and career ambitions, would throw the election to the Republicans if he followed through with his threat. Ultimately, the subpoenas were not issued.

In this real-life story, it's past time for the FBI and the DOJ to tells us what they know. A national election is taking place and this side story, like many Clinton scandals before it, needs to be cleared up.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
35. Sounds like a great show.
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:29 AM
Jul 2016

I think it's pretty clear that Comey is dragging this thing out for maximum political damage and doing his damndest to gin up an October surprise with or without incriminating evidence. So props to Bill for figuring out a way to shut him down.

Arkansas Granny

(31,514 posts)
5. Agree. This has been going on for more than a year now. If they haven't found anything by now,
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:07 AM
Jul 2016

there is nothing to be gained by dragging it out further.

Shit or get off the pot.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
7. When you can't get rid of the vermin on your own, it's time to call in an expert.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:15 AM
Jul 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

 

silvershadow

(10,336 posts)
19. While I agree this has dragged on, I disagree with newspaper editorial boards assuming
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:40 AM
Jul 2016

they know anything about an investigation.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
34. Lol. She's not going to be indicted and we won't get a new nominee
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:28 AM
Jul 2016

No matter how much you want that to happen.

Gothmog

(145,129 posts)
33. This makes me smile
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:32 PM
Jul 2016

The FBI never found any intent to violate the law and so there will be no indictment http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/clinton-meets-with-fbi-as-part-of-email-probe/index.html

The question now becomes how long it will take for the FBI to conclude its probe.

Within the next two weeks or so, the expectation is there will be an announcement of no charges being brought against Clinton so long as no evidence of wrongdoing emerges from her interview with the FBI, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. CNN has previously reported no charges were expected to be brought against Clinton because the investigators had not found evidence to warrant charges, according to multiple law enforcement officials. A Democrat close to Clinton said Saturday the campaign believes the FBI will announce its decision before the conventions.

Sources familiar with the investigation had previously told CNN the Justice Department's aim was to wrap up before the Republican and Democratic conventions later this month. The timing is crucial, because if Clinton were to be indicted before the convention, Democrats could perhaps nominate another candidate.

The law was very clear here

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
37. The Benghazi Committee gave their report and did not find Hillary was at fault, it is
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 04:39 AM
Jul 2016

Reasonable to see the email was not going to be a problem either, perhaps a bad decision on her part but nothing close as putting our nations security at risk as the Republicans wanted to deliver. It will be another failed scandal by the GOP

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WaPo Editorial: It’s tim...