如何評價 FBI 不建議起訴希拉里？

12-31

美國聯邦調查局（FBI）局長 James Comey 剛剛在新聞發布會上說，針對「郵件門」的調查已經結束。經過詳細調查，FBI 發現希拉里的私人伺服器上有110封郵件含有當時就定義為機密的信息。但是 FBI 不向司法部建議起訴民主黨候選人希拉里。

三個人犯了重罪（felony）：不當處理或盜竊機密文件David Petraeus：羞愧辭職，罰款10萬美元，2年probation

Edward Snowden：因叛國罪被通緝，流亡海外

Hillary Clinton：競選美國總統

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

http://time.com/4393372/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton-email-speech-transcript/?xid=homepage

FBI都已經這麼直白了：不是希拉里沒犯法，而是希拉里來頭太大我們惹不起，換個人做了同樣的事情是肯定要坐牢的。

美帝的「民主法治」可真不是隨便說說的。

--修改

好吧有同學說security or administrative sanctions不是要坐牢的意思，我覺得絕密信息沒有處理好，就應該判刑。另外給個行政處罰也像個樣子，比如在選舉期間不再向希拉里做任何事關機密的簡報，連罰酒三杯都不罰是什麼意思。

再多說一點，如果其他人任何人做了希拉里做的事情，估計早就適應監獄的伙食了。如果是亞裔的話墳頭的草應該都挺高了。

刑不上希婆，禮不下川普。

刑不上前國務卿，可以，這很民主（黨）。

我覺得評價的前提是過目過這份聲明。

各位知乎大牛閱讀洋文的水平我還是相信的。

但是我等屌絲，甚至比我更屌的屌絲估計很難拿到原文，甚至就算拿到原文也讀不懂吧。

我曾經讀過原版，新華社版，輪子版的中國白皮書，同一段文字的翻譯簡直是不同次元。

我已將這份陳述翻譯完成

首先聲明我並不是學翻譯的，也不是司法和警察相關專業，我是金融+數學專業的留學生。所以翻譯只能說「力求完美」，不敢說「絕對準確」。更別提「信達雅」了。

第二，我是一個桑德斯的支持者，其次是一個川普的支持者，但並不反對希拉里，這是我而政治立場。我自稱自己是「中立」，至於是不是，希望大家自己評判：

文章來源：FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton』s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

最後，覺得翻譯的不中立請點擊右上角的叉號，別一副看不懂英文有人翻譯還覺得自己是大爺的德行。我沒有空跟看完譯文覺得爸爸國尊嚴盡毀，又看不懂原文，就覺得翻譯主觀臆斷的人浪費時間。譬如：

我不是英文老師，但是irrelevant，uninformed什麼的我見過太多了。

————以下是原文————

Good morning. I』m here to give you an update on the FBI』s investigation of Secretary Clinton』s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

早上好。我今天來是來更新FBI對國務卿柯林頓（以下遵照中文習慣，稱「希拉里」）在其任職內使用個人電郵系統的調查情況。

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

經過過去一年大量的工作，FBI完成了對相關情況的調查並將案件送去法務部來決定是否起訴。我今天來就干三件事：我們做了啥，我們找著啥，我們建議司法部幹啥。

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

某種程度上說，這次的陳述並不常見。首先我將披露相比之前的例會更多的細節，因為我堅信美國人民理應對一個公眾強烈關心的案件知道更多的細節。其次，我並沒有就這份陳述與司法部或任何一個政府部門進行協商與評估。他們並不知道我要說什麼。

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

我首先想感謝FBI的僱員們，他們在這件案子上的工作非同凡響。假如你知道我們都做了什麼，你會明白為啥我這麼感激涕零，並以他們的努力為榮。

So, first, what we have done:

那麼首先，我們做了啥：

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton』s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

由於一位情報機構檢察長的提案讓本次調查得以展開。他連接了國務卿希拉里在任職期間使用的個人電郵伺服器。這份提案著重於機密情報是否被傳送到了個人系統中。

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

我們的調查著眼於是否有機密情報不當的儲存或傳送到個人系統中的證據。不當處理機密文件，不論故意還是草率，都是違反聯邦法規的重罪。而在妥當系統或存儲設備中有意刪除機密信息，則是違背相關法規的輕罪。

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

為與我們反情報的職責相匹配，我們也調查來鑒定是否有證據表明在連接個人電郵伺服器時有任何境外勢力或敵對份子進行了電腦入侵。

I have so far used the singular term, 「e-mail server,」 in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

我現在將用單稱詞項「電郵門」來表述那個開啟我們調查的的提案。它引出了的事情遠比這件事本身來的複雜。國務卿希拉里在國務院任職的4年里，曾使用數個不同的伺服器與這些伺服器的管理員許可權，她也使用過很多移動設備在個人端收發電郵。新的伺服器與設備仍在使用，而老的伺服器則除役，封存或以多種方式退役。為了對個人電郵被用作政府工作的情況有儘可能完整的了解，而將全都設備搞回來是一件苦差事，為此我們花費了上千個小時。

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton』s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn』t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server』s unused—or 「slack」—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

舉個栗子，國務卿希拉里的一個最初的個人伺服器於2013年退役，電郵軟體被刪除，這麼做並沒有刪除電郵內容，而是好像將一副巨大的拼圖玩具的框架移除，並將碎片pia在了地上。這樣造成了百萬計的電郵碎片最終無序的散落在伺服器的可用空間中，或者說，「煤渣空間」中。我們搜查了個遍來看出他們到底是什麼，有什麼拼圖的部分可以拼回成一個整體。

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely 「owner」 of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as 「up-classifying」).

FBI調查員也閱讀了國務卿希拉里在2014年12月在國務院任職時的約三萬封電郵。當有一封電郵被評估成可能包含機密信息，FBI會諮詢這封電郵的信息中指向「所屬人」可能的美國政府機關，這樣這些機關可以證明是否這些當時包含機密情報的郵件被收發過，或者是否這些郵件現在有理由被列為機密，即便其信息在當時發送中並不是機密（這種情況有時稱之為「升級機密」）

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were 「up-classified」 to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

從國務院提供的三萬封電郵包中，52個電郵鏈的110封郵件已經被所屬機關確定在當時的情況下包含機密情報被收發過。其中8個郵件鏈包含當時的最高機密被發送過，36個郵件鏈包含當時的秘密情報，8個郵件鏈包含保密情報——機密等級中最低的一種。除此之外，約兩千封額外的電郵為「升級機密」讓他們成為保密情報，這些情報在當時發送時並不是機密情報。

（譯者注，美國機密情報classified information等級：

最高機密-Top Secret

秘密情報-Secret

保密情報-Confidential）

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

FBI也發現了數千工作相關的電郵並未出現在國務院提供的2014年國務卿希拉里的郵件中。我們通過多種方式找到了這些額外的郵件。一些已被刪除數年之久，我們發現他們在設備上與私人電郵端的蛛絲馬跡的佐證與聯繫。另外，我們通過評估歸檔找到了一些當時與國務卿希拉里共事的政府僱員電郵賬號，包括其他機關的高階官員，一些可能與國務卿煲電話粥的人。

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

這幫助我們復原了三萬份國務院提供之外的工作相關電郵。而另一些復原來自孜孜不倦的查閱2013年退役伺服器中的上百萬份進入煤渣空間的電郵碎片。

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been 「up-classified.」

相對於上千份國務院提供之外的電郵，特工們推斷其中收發的三封是當時的機密情報，一封是秘密情報，還有兩封是保密情報，這其中沒有找到最高機密電郵，最終，我們也沒有找到「升級機密」的郵件。

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton』s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

我必須補充說明，我們沒有找到任何證據表明，額外工作相關郵件為了隱藏而故意刪除。我們的評估湊是這樣。就像很多電郵用戶，國務卿希拉里如來姨媽般定期刪除電郵，或由於設備更換系統自動刪除。因為她當時沒有使用政府賬戶，甚至沒有用如Gmail一樣的商業賬戶，她的郵件沒有任何歸檔。所以當我們發現國務院提供的國務卿希拉里2014年的三萬電郵不在她的系統中時，我們並不驚訝。

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as 「personal」 by Secretary Clinton』s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

也有可能一些我們復原的額外的工作相關電郵被國務卿希拉里的律師們查閱並分類到她2014年的郵件中時，以「個人」名義刪除。

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton』s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

律師分類排序國務卿希拉里2014年的郵件並非是私自閱讀其郵件的全部內容。以我們調查的情報看：正好相反，他們依靠信息的抬頭並使用搜索關鍵字來嘗試找到所有聲稱的總共六萬封2014年國務卿希拉里個人系統的郵件中工作相關的郵件。這更像是他們查找關鍵字遺漏了的工作相關電郵，而之後被我們發現了。舉個栗子，其他官員的收件箱或者伺服器中的煤渣。

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

當然也有這種可能：國務院沒提供給我們的其他工作相關郵件我們也沒在別處找到，那是因為國務院刪除了所有的他們沒給我們的郵件，律師們也清除了他們的設備來妨礙司法復原的完整。

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

我們進行了面試，並完成了技術檢驗來嘗試了解他的辯護人是如何完成那些排序分類的。雖然我們沒有完全明白，因為我們無法完全再現排序分類的電子記錄。但我們相信我們的調查已經足夠給我們合理的自信來表明：在分類排序中沒有與故意處置不當的相關的事項。

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton』s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

當然，在另外的技術性工作方面，我們走訪了很多人，包括涉及多次安裝或維護各種國務卿個人伺服器的人，與國務卿通訊的職員，國務院提供的電郵中涉及的人士，以及最後，國務卿希拉里本人。

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

最後，我們完成了大量的工作來找出敵對份子連接個人電郵的操作失敗的可能的痕迹。

That』s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

這些就是我們做了什麼。現在讓我來告訴你們我們發現了什麼：

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

雖然我們沒有找到確鑿的證據證明國務卿希拉里或她的同事們有意違反了處理機密情報的法律法規，但是有證據表明他們對非常敏感、高級機密情報的處理極端的粗心。

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton』s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later 「up-classified」 e-mails).

舉個栗子，七個郵件鏈收發時其中涉及的事項的機密等級處於最高機密或特許訪問項目級別。這些郵件鏈既包含國務卿希拉里發送包含這些事項的郵件，也包括從其他地方接受相同事項的郵件。這份證據足以支持這一論斷：任何一個稍有常識的人在國務卿希拉里的職位上，或者在與其通訊包含這些事項的政府僱員的職位上都應該知道，這些談話在非保密系統中時不應存在的。除了這個高敏感度的情報外，我們也發現當時在電郵中討論的情報曾被美國情報機構嚴格的定級為機密情報。（換言之，不包括之後「升級機密」的郵件）

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

這些電郵沒有一封應該存在於任何非加密系統中，但它們的存在格外令人擔憂，因為這些郵件全部被集中在非加密的個人伺服器中，甚至沒有全天候安保人員的保障。而像那些在其他部門與美國政府機關中找到的電郵，它們甚至在商業服務商那裡，比如Gmail。

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 「classified」 in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

順便說一句，這裡應該介紹一下關於機密情報的標註問題：只有非常少量的包含機密情報的電郵做了標註，以表明其存在機密情報。但即便一封電郵的情報沒有被標註為「機密」，參與者如果知道或應該知道主題事項為機密情報仍然有義務去保護它。

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

我們不僅僅著重於我們的調查，我們的證據也揭露了日常國務院的保密文化，尤其是有關使用非加密電郵系統方面，國務院及政府上下普遍對機密情報缺乏各種妥善的處理。

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton』s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton』s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton』s personal e-mail account.

關於敵對份子可能入侵電腦的事情，自2009年起各項數據表明，我們沒有發現直接證據可以證明國務卿希拉里的個人郵件領域被成功入侵。但是，考慮到系統本身及潛在包含的敵對份子，我們認為我們不太可能看到什麼直接證據。我們更認為敵對分子獲得了許多人士的私人商業電郵的訪問許可權，其中國務卿希拉里的私人賬號在常用聯繫人中。我們也認為國務卿希拉里使用個人電郵領域一事被大量人士所知且十分顯眼。她也曾在美國境外，包括在複雜的敵國領土內，大量的使用其個人的電郵收發工作郵件。綜合考慮以上因素，我們認為敵對份子有獲取訪問國務卿希拉里個人郵件賬號許可權的可能。

So that』s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

這就是我們發現的情況，最後，關於我們給予司法部的意見：

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don』t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

在我們的系統中，檢察官們會適當基於FBI幫助收集的證據來決定是否起訴。雖然我們通常不公開我們對檢察官們的建議，就證據而言，我們頻繁的提出建議且與檢察官就如何更為妥當的解決進行卓有成效的對話。在本案中，考慮到事項的重要性，我覺得非常規的透明度是適當的。

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person』s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

雖然有證據表明在對待機密情報上有潛在的違反法律的行為，我們斷言沒有公道的檢察官會管像這樣的案子。檢察官們在起訴前會必要的權衡大量的因素。比如證據的力量，特別是關於意圖方面的顯然是考慮的因素。負責的決定也會考慮個人行為的背景，以及類似情形在過去被處理的案例。

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

回顧我們違反法規處理或移除機密情報的相關調查，遵照本案這些事實，我們不能找到任何一個案例可以支持刑事訴訟。所有的類似案件的起訴包括以下一些組合：明確蓄意或有意違反法規處理機密情報；或者有海量的材料曝光來支持蓄意處理不當的推斷；或者有不忠於合眾國的表現；或者試圖妨礙司法。我們在本案中沒有發現這些情況。

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

在此澄清，這並不是建議在相似的情況下，一個人參與了這種活動而不用承擔後果。相反的，那些人經常會受到安全上或行政上的制裁。但我們現在不決定這樣做。

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

作為結論，雖然司法部對這些事有最終的決定權，我們對司法部表示，從我們的觀點來看，本案不起訴是合適的決定。

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

我知道在這個建議發出之後，將會引發強烈的公眾討論，這樣的討論也貫穿了整個調查的進程。但我可以向美國人民擔保，這份調查完整，誠實且獨立。沒有任何形式的外部勢力影響了結果。

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn』t be prouder to be part of this organization.

我知道這份調查之外的人們有很多意見表達。包括政府裡面的人，但關我們屁事。當他們看穿了我們的調查，他們才會明白這些意見都是扯淡，他們就是一群白痴。因為我們的調查才是最正確的。以事實為依據，FBI以非政治且專業的角度發現了這些事實。身為這個組織的一員我感到無比的驕傲和自豪。

——————翻譯全劇終——————

以下是我的評價：

翻譯真特么累啊。。。

恩緩過勁來了。寫寫我的評價。（有種cnn bcc收了錢說話的喉舌的既視感）

這是一篇不論洗地黨還是巫婆黨都能找到自己想要的東西的陳述。兩方都可以以此為武器撕逼。

首先我們先來看看什麼是犯罪：

「不當處理機密文件，不論故意還是草率，都是違反聯邦法規的重罪。而在妥當系統或存儲設備中有意刪除機密信息，則是違背相關法規的輕罪。」

這裡的草率的是「 in a grossly negligent way」，以非常粗心大意的方式。

也就是，在法律上達到了這個標準，則是重罪。而有意刪除機密信息，則是輕罪。

而他所描述FBI發現的情況，比如用個人郵件伺服器收發郵件，定期刪除郵件等等則都恰恰印證的這兩點。

但為什麼不起訴？

這涉及到法的實踐的問題。判例法傾向於參考之前相似情況的判例來對當前案件進行分析。

即「如何裁定不當處理，粗心處理，有意刪除」是要看歷史的行程。

因為一般涉及到這些情況的案子，程度比郵件門大太多了。看看這些遭到起訴的案例的共同特點：

1明確蓄意或有意違反法規處理機密情報；

2有海量的材料曝光來支持蓄意處理不當的推斷；

3有不忠於合眾國的表現；

4試圖妨礙司法。

請注意，這些情況前面還有兩個字「組合」，即這4個因素至少滿足兩個。

而fbi調查認為，希拉里可能只是沾了1的邊兒。什麼敵對份子入侵，都是這種錯誤的做法導致的潛在可能性，並非是主觀上「有不忠於合眾國」的表現。同時律師在提交分類時，fbi也沒找到妨礙司法的情況。

當然，司法部的決定權也是很重要的。

比較令人玩味的是第二部分第一段：

」雖然我們沒有找到確鑿的證據證明國務卿希拉里或她的同事們有意違反了處理機密情報的法律法規，但是有證據表明他們對非常敏感、高級機密情報的處理極端的粗心。」

grossly negligent和extremely careless居然不是表示相同程度的意思，老實說我翻譯的時候是懵逼的。

樓下有人說這倆詞本質上不同的，但實際上我的小字典里是這樣：

嗯嗯，總之careless是用來解釋negligent的，可以說是後者的低級用法形式。

所以就算是扔到司法部，這案子估計也不會被起訴。什麼甩鍋說我認為靠不住腳。FBI的確有意在吐槽，但是整體上保持了公正和自己的業務專業性。

字面上來說，可以說是洗地黨的勝利。

但目前巫婆黨如果想搞倒H婆，FBI也給了條明路。即那個4個組合的餘下三條：

2有海量的材料曝光來支持蓄意處理不當的推斷；

如果確定郵件泄露，比如俄羅斯黑客截獲了這批郵件並曝光，則可以成立。

3有不忠於合眾國的表現；

如果確定H婆將機密給了敵對份子或其他國家的組織，則成立。

4試圖妨礙司法

如果可以提供律師在整理信件中有違規操作，則成立。

這個角度來看FBI沒有幫H婆，而是發布攻略指南啊。。。

大致來講，起訴不起訴都是有其正當理由的，但是歷史事實站在不起訴這邊，fbi本意上也不想就這麼完了。所以留了一手。至於下面的人能不能理解，或者說，有沒有能力這麼做，是另外的事了。

FBI建議對Clinton罰酒三杯。

美國趙家柯林頓，這很民主

倘若尼克松泉下有知。。。

今天聽了FBI主管Comey在國會那個什麼委員會的證詞

最重要的一點，所謂的silver bullet，是在收到上繳郵件的命令後，希拉里把所有郵件都交給了她的律師來處理——而這些律師並沒有閱讀機密郵件的許可權，造成了希拉里讓沒有許可權的人獲得郵件的事實。

-------------------

我覺得最恐怖的事情是，FBI到頭來——包括他們成功恢復了的部分——只檢查了大約3萬封郵件，說明被刪掉了的那34000封中的絕大部分是真的被通過超乎必要的手段毀屍滅跡了。沒人敢想像裡面究竟是些什麼內容。

因為一個人只能因為一個罪名被起訴一次，又因為FBI的判斷是在只讀了希拉里一半的郵件後作出的，特別是在目前民主黨無法無天的環境下，如果沒有足夠把握能幹得掉Clinton Machine，不起訴可以視為……嗯……戰略轉移……Comey的表情諸君也看到了，我個人是相信他和他全家的人頭都被人用槍指著的。

現實來說這對川普團隊來講可以說是最好的消息了：一方面希拉里過去複述了無數遍的辯詞都被推翻了，不僅有數千封工作郵件沒有上繳，而且有上百封當時就被標記為機密、甚至是最高機密的郵件，而且基本處於不設防的狀態，FBI的公告已經為共和黨方面提供了關於這個案件的所有除了目前還只能叫陰謀論的說法以外的彈藥，可以一直噴到11月；另一方面rigged system的提法再次得到印證，可曾記得科羅拉多預選？川普團隊以退為進，通過暴露暗箱操作把自己打造成真正的反建制候選人，在後面的選舉中扭轉戰局，現在又可以故伎重演了——只是不知道民主黨選民有沒有那種智商和氣節。

對希拉里團隊來說實在說不上是什麼好消息，她自己也沒有發表任何評論，因為不被上訴本來就是意料之中，現在終於實現了(對柯林頓基金會的調查還在繼續)，卻想用來堵人嘴都得自損八百：我粗心！啪！我大意！啪！我不該！啪！不過辯論時她肯定會繞開話題說its time to move on

不是很懂FBI，

FBI恐怖分子觀察名單下的人，成功的買了一把半自動步槍，射殺了50多人；

FBI調查了希拉里，確認其郵件中110封含有機密信息classified，36封含有絕密信息secret，8封含有最高絕密信息top secret。而不j建議起訴的原因是什麼？因為她沒有不忠於美國。

什麼？就算在反對希拉里的右翼茶黨智障，也不會懷疑她是俄羅斯間諜吧？如果FBI的起訴標準是是否忠於國家，那為什麼要調查呢？你直接問讓她不就得了？

也許FBI的僱員都忙著審核av，寫FBI warning去了吧！

---------------------------

從Bernie被臟，到Google篡改搜索信息，再到最近川普選情跳水，一直到FBI公布確鑿犯罪證據卻不起訴，事實已經很明顯了

If this doesn"t convince you this is a fake democracy, I just don"t know what will.

川普粉們，我說還是洗洗睡吧。

Trump這麼一個unlikely candidate，為什麼能當選？真的是人民的意志？

如果是這樣，為什麼剛剛確認為共和黨候選人，選情就一落千丈？

是不是和幾個月洪秀柱一模一樣？

當然，洪秀柱被民進黨人惡意灌票顯而易見。

我大燈塔怎麼會玩這麼低端？我們有媒體嘛！

發起情願第二天就10w簽名了。。。。。

然後我刷新了一下！

簽名不夠了！！！簽名數下降了！！！！！

過一會兒又刷新了一下：

原理不懂，嗯。

主力出倉，但壓不住上漲勢頭？

額。。。要不要做個走勢圖。。

當然，這也不算什麼大新聞，畢竟可以用伺服器緩存之類的技術角度來解答，純當一樂。

坐等簽名數不斷波動。

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924

其他彩蛋。

共和黨最後的大本營Fox News 首頁不浪費一個角落地黑希拉里，一切深度追蹤等等。

民主黨的CNN出了個叛徒：

希拉里嘲諷了司法

Hillary Clint

on makes a mockery of justice (Opinion)

這文章是昨天早8:58po的，

也不知道被哪個缺心眼的放了幾個小時主頁，

然後我吃了個飯，到了14:00，就變成下面這個樣子了：

你看得到希拉里嗎？還是說「Trump讚賞薩達姆海珊」稍微醒目一點？

Comey Clears Clinton

希拉里並不評論，她在睡覺等民調。

蟹蟹~來轉載一個消息

來源：S1論壇菜園之州

=============================

今天4ch因為FBI的報道, 基本上炸開了. 希拉里的水軍火力全開, 各種想盡辦法刷刷刷刷刷.

然而, 有自稱FBI的網友在7月2號就已經發了一系列的帖子, 解釋這件事的來龍去脈. 他的觀點是希拉里不能被判罪, 因為這表示FBI會跟著整個美國政府對著干. 希拉里犯傻的是沉不住氣去直接找了司法部長, 所以現在媒體的輿論已經有點開始失控, 或者說有點控制不住了.

FBI宅消失前, 給大家留了一系列的建議. 讓大家注意: 希望大家能看好消息. 重要的不是希拉里的郵件門, 而是希拉里的那個基金會. 最重要的是把這信息散播出去, 尤其是世界各地的友軍(對, 4ch正式向希拉里宣戰了). 因為我們這邊他們至少能逮捕我們, 噗, 但你們則不同.

現在這兩貼已經都被4ch主動刪除. 我個人是抱娛樂心理去下了個來自己看. 畢竟長時間混這些的, 還是懂點措施的.

然而我越看越發現這...

怎麼說呢, 我希望這是個很大的玩笑. Rank S的Trolling. 因為如果不是的話, 我負責的說, 這種東西如果被爆出去的話, 如果美國人知道, 不用你們來我們自己都要鬧革命.

這裡面有很多的細節記載. 政治黑點什麼的拋開不看, 我去看了看他們的捐款以及所贊助的各種交易. 因為這裡面有一堆私人私家的電話號碼, 我好奇打了個電話給人家.

電話號碼是真的. 真是FBI地區頭目的. 或者跟這個FBI頭目一樣的留言機器. 我去查了查視頻, 聲音是他的. 應該沒錯了.

=============更新

=========================================================

總結就是：這次選舉把我們這邊教科書上黑民主的那些舉例一一變現了

我們沒投票權的人來評價人家根本不care，你們應該去希拉里的Twitter下面看看大家是怎麼評價的，各種罵的，一邊倒幾乎，前兩天我還能看到各種讚美的。

圖片來源：https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton

紙牌屋裡說的都是真的耶

FBI這發言算不算明保暗婊啊……

另，去搜了下白宮請願，果然……

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924

已經2W多簽名了，8月4日前指不定能到目標數……

北京時間 7/7 10 am 到達10W簽名，一天多的時間就達標了，不會有很多知乎er去簽名了吧？

還好匿名了，不然民主黨要請我去喝咖啡了……

關於10W簽名的白宮請願是必須處理的，但官方可以有很多方法推脫，很難說有沒有實際用處，別對白宮報太大期望

不過迅速達標可以從側面反映希拉里的不受歡迎程度吧

謝邀。。這，這也能圓。

針對近期網上有消息稱民主黨候選人希拉里正接受調查或被起訴一事，相關部門今日出面澄清，稱相關報道不實。

民主黨發言人在今日的例行記者會上表示，希望廣大黨員群眾明辨是非，擦亮雙眼，不信謠，不傳謠，以飽滿的熱情迎接黨代會的勝利召開，為年底換屆工作的展開做好準備。

fbi在statement里已經不能更欲彰彌蓋了好伐。。。

1. Fbi指出"grossly negligence"是felony

FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton』s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

2. 德州大學的國家安全學者指出，"grossly negligence"並不需要任何"intentional"的證據

But the crime of 「gross negligence」 in the Espionage Act doesn』t appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/05/the-clinton-email-probe-and-the-question-of-gross-negligence/

3. fbi表示，沒有找到intentional的證據，但也沒找到證明她並不是"grossly negligence"的證據，所以他們甚至paraphrase了一遍

"extremely careless"

4. fbi表示，現在不處理並不意味著其他任何人在同類情況下可以豁免

fbi：不是哥沒有證據，不是她沒事，但我就是不起訴她了，你們別人犯同類事件可跑不了

希拉里：我私下裡要當婊子，明面上要立牌坊

F B I ：我不拆你牌坊，但我要指出你是婊子

關於這個問題，我單純轉一下推特的幾個有意思的圖：