She didn't destroy anything that Congress asked for. She deleted personal emails, which were not covered by the subpoena.

Did you actually READ TFA before you posted that?

Hint: Email exchanges have (at least) two ends. They've found the other end of a number of email exchanges where Hillary DIDN'T produce her end for Congress, some of which were not just State Department business but which, in retrospect, SHOULD have been classified (and are now).

But that was her (original) story and you're sticking to it, right?

Oh, and explain to me again why this is on /. ? I thought this site was about tech and tech-related news.

Because it relates to criminal penalties for mishandling email servers and classified information in email form?

Sounds like "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" to me.

Even assuming that most of the elected officials have less of a clue than the average citizen ("It's a series of tubes!"), ...

As a network professional who has done substantial architectural work on high-end networking products, where we used the term of art "pipes", I don't fault Ted Stevens, a non-techie, for instead saying "tubes" (when moderately-accurately describing the downside of naive network neutrality "treat all packets identically, regardless of type of service" prescriptions).

I may take issue with OTHER aspects of his argument. But I consider ongoing ridicule for using "tubes" in place of "pipes" to be a cheap shot (even if it IS funny).

But ... What difference does it make?

What difference does it make if you convict a murderer or let him go. Convicting him doesn't bring the victim back to life. (And people DO use this argument ...)

Answer: Laws deter illegal behavior by applying penalties to those who break them, in the hope that at least some people will, as a result, decide not to break them when it would otherwise be in their interest to do so. So if someone high-profile breaks the law and gets away with it (thus also establishing a precedent making it very hard to prosecute anyone ELSE who breaks the law in the same way), the law becomes just old words on paper, rather than an effective prohibition.

Bill's escape from significant consequences in his little adventure effectively gutted the enforcement of some sexual harassment laws. If it turns out Hillary actually broke a law that was in force at the time, in a deliberate and flagrant way, and gets away with no substantial penalty, the same will happen to the laws on how to handle classified information.

The quoted law would probably be found not applicable for public, IE elected, office by reason of unconstitutionality. ... The intent is that you can't just DQ your opponents from public office with targeted laws ...

Yep.

If the electorate wants a (known at the time of the election) felon to hold the office, that's their prerogative.

I liked Shrillary better back when she was letting interns do her real job for her.

That just shows that she knows how to delegate important tasks to someone competent to perform them - which is an important presidential qualification.

Scooter Libby was convicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction, and one count of making false statements. ...

Hillary will likely get the same: no conviction for anything to do with missing emails.

But will she get penalized for the coverup, as Scooter Libby was? Wiping, rather than producing, the system disk sure looks like "one count of obstruction". (For perjury and false statements we'll have to wait for the mill to grind some more, but the TFA says it doesn't look good for her right now on those, either.)

You would get fired if someone outside sent non classified data to an individual inside ?
Thats what happened

No, that's NOT what happened. Hillary gave out her home-administered email address to her State Department contacts and they then sent email containing classified info, as she (did or should have) expected them to do.

This is more likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified information.

Which, you'll recall, is what they let General David Petraeus plea-bargan to when they canned and prosecuted him.

During his affair with his female biographer he had given her access to his classified email account - so they could exchange love letters in the "drafts" folder. They apparently did this in the hope of avoiding the creation of an archived email trail, which they knew would occur if they sent the mail but didn't know would also occur with the system backups of the drafts folder.

The "mishandling of classified info", if I understand it correctly, is because she could, in principle, have read his other mail. Just as anyone who participated in the administration of Hillary's private mail server or the network connection to it could, in principle, have read or copied the State Department related emails containing classified info.

He lead with:

Having looked over the Mars One plans I must say I am also highly skeptical, but hesitantly so, because you never know what can happen.

And you didn't stop an scroll right to the comments?

This sounds tough, but how much of the high risk- low success operations being done contribute to the high cost of health care in the US?

Absolutely none. It does however contribute greatly to the total amount spent on health care in the US. Study after study has shown that (on average) something like 50-70% of an individuals lifetime medical costs are incurred in the last three years of their life.

Before you berate me for not reading the articles (which I have), you should actually read my reply.

It's not clickbait - it's the sexism everyone here claims is absent from the tech industry.

It can easoly go off of my property.

Maybe on your planet. Here on earth, they generally can't. On the other hand, bullets can trivially travel great distances. In the same way, except under very unusual circumstances the extraordinarily rare rampaging lawnmower can easily be avoided. A bullet than can't even be detected by human senses prior to it's arrival cannot.

Etc... etc...

Fortunately I, like practically every owner of a lawnmower, only use it to mow my lawn.

Which is completely irrelevant - we're not discussing you or practically anyone else. We're discussing a specific individual behaving in a specific manner.

Depending on the circumstance, it could easily be illegal. Many places have laws against discharging firearms. There are also in many places where discharge is legal - so long as it's not up into the air.