General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFBI DIRECTOR who worked on Clinton probe described her as 'extremely careless'.
Last edited Mon Dec 4, 2017, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)
I posted this on another thread, but thought it might be useful as a standalone OP. Much is being made of this story, but it's a ginned-up "scandal" - yet another attempt to deflect attention from the Mueller investigation. Comey - no Clintonite - said the same thing in his official statement:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
If he disagreed, he had an obligation to correct the language. Clearly, this was the prevailing sentiment at the FBI.
On edit: As there seems to be some confusion about the intent of this post, perhaps it's because I was negligent by omission of reference to the news story to which it relates; specifically, that an alleged Clinton-supporting FBI agent changed the language about Clinton's behavior in Comey's statement from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless". The point of the OP is not to cast aspersions against Clinton but, rather, to observe that Comey himself agreed to this language. So it's not really a "scandal" - though the GOP and media would like everyone to think it is... especially today, as a distraction from a stream of actual Trump scandals.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)James Comey was extremely careless and grossly negligent.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)But that's neither here nor there.
This was the official language from the FBI, via the director. Clearly, the "change", allegedly to Comey's draft, was acceptable - regardless of the alleged political allegiance of the agent who allegedly changed the alleged document.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Because Comey agreed with the description of Clinton's conduct.
Note also that this agent was fired for, ostensibly, anti-Trump behavior. So if Comey (or the other agents working on the draft of the statement) felt that the language, because of its author, was deferential to Clinton he had every opportunity to change it.
We also don't know, BTW, if the more harsh description of Clinton's behavior was Comey's or that of another agent. Thus, the "alleged" ad nauseum.
Sugarcoated
(7,734 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Sugarcoated
(7,734 posts)when the point you're making is that this is a ginned up "scandal" to deflect
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I simply copied the beginning of another OP title and changed "agent" to "director". Was the other OP perceived as bashing Clinton?
Sugarcoated
(7,734 posts)Where in that title indicates anything about it being a phony "scandal" and a distraction?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I assumed that posters would understand that it was in reference to the news story about an alleged Clinton-supporting FBI agent changing language to benefit her.
My apologies for that assumption. That said, the title is a riff, and I don't have a problem with it.
Sugarcoated
(7,734 posts)that it's very misleading.
malaise
(269,219 posts)Hillary Clinton did not lie to the FBI - fugg 'em!
Bettie
(16,132 posts)every last one of us have things that seemed like they were working well at the time and later turned out to be a bad idea.
The fault there was with State not having rules in place for electronic communications. Had there been standards and guidelines she'd have followed them, so, in the end, she did nothing illegal, against the rules or wrong.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Careless in contrast to the level of IT Security practiced in corporate culture.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Hackers plundered the personal data of 57 million Uber customers and drivers but the app-based cab company covered up the breach for a year, paying the pirates to keep quiet instead, according to a new report.
Names, email addresses and phone numbers for 50 million riders and info from 7 million drivers were exposed in the October 2016 hack and the company learned about it a month later, Bloomberg reports.
But instead of reporting the breach to regulators or victims, the company acquiesced to the hackers demands for $100,000 to delete the data, according to the report.
Uber officials now admit the company shouldve come clean at the time.
https://nypost.com/2017/11/21/uber-paid-100k-ransom-after-57m-accounts-were-hacked/
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)I've been a data processing analyst for over 40 years, in multiple industries, in multiple companies.
What you describe is a fiction of your ignorance.
Demsrule86
(68,715 posts)State has horrible internet...as does most Government agencies...and right now they are using private internet... I am sure the AOL is really safe and all (sarcasm).