FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

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.

Just to be clear, let's set up some terms:

1. Government server - whatever the gov sets up

2. Private server - a service like hotmail or gmail

3. Personal server - something on a box you hire someone to set up for you

We agree that the violation is setting up a non #1 type server, but you are saying it matters if it was #2 or #3?

If that is what you are saying, please elaborate on why you think so. (I don't see that it matters much, but am curious about your argument).

(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.

You are deluding yourself. The hardest thing to believe is that she is an "honest person trying to do her job". All the flags and all the signs and all the bells and all the whistle are blowing and screeching at peek levels; yet here you are acting as though the fact that someone who cannot do anything without running afoul of laws and rule and controversy is somehow an honest person.

You are the equivalent of a person who everyone sees all the signs and signals and clear evidence that the person they love, blindly, is cheating on them and lying to them, yet simply cannot wrap their mind around reality and just keeps on making excuses and evades facing the truth.

It's quite amazing how basically a whole half of society has fallen into a kind of mental disorder where even as they see their spouse cheat on them right in front of their eyes, just turns their head away and voids looking at the reality they are seeing in order to suppress it. It's quite an amazing phenomenon. I guess it's base in fantasies of what she is and you imagine will come of her in spite of simply being played as a tool for her personal gain at he expense of sacrificing the most basic fundamentals of our government and society.

Yeah, I guess that's right. All the other responses to this thread are moving in the same direction. I was also inferring something from the statement.

I don't see that anything was "hand waved" other than it stopped short of prosecution. So, to my ears, that is what he was espousing.

I guess I would expect something specific:

1. Yes, prosecute the previous people as well!

2. Ah, I see. Well I don't believe all SoS since the invention of email should be prosecuted, so in order to be fair, I guess I don't believe she should be as well.

3. I don't believe it was as bad

4. I don't know?

But that is why the question was asked.