A Melting Pot or Tossed Salad
The great country of America is popularly known to be a nation that holds a plethora and variety of different cultures. Just about every country has a part in building the colorful image of the United States. “For centuries, the US has attracted people in search of a share of ‘the American dream’ from all corners of the world.”1 Immigrants come from Mexico, China, Germany, the UK, Africa, and many more. Each ethnic group has their own stories, customs, beliefs, manner and culture. But, there is a couple of opposing ideas of how diverse the culture of America really is. Some would say that the culture of America is one huge ‘Melting Pot’. Whereas, others would express that it is more diverse and sports more individualism, labeling that notion as the ‘Tossed Salad’.
What is the “Melting Pot” and the “Tossed Salad”?
These are the two most popular terms for describing American Culture. The Melting Pot was coined by a immigrant by the name of Israel Zangwill.2 In a quote from himself, he described his vision.
“…where a thousand mammoth feeders come from the ends of the world to pour in their human freight. Ah, what a stirring and a seething—Celt and Latin, Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian, black and yellow….” ~ Israel Zangwill
He encouraged immigrants to become assimilated and form a new American identity.
Another word that relates to the theory of the “Melting Pot” is assimilation. Through, assimilation, a group adopts the customs and manners of another. Usually, the majority party absorbs the party of the minority,
Through assimilation, we take in new information or experiences and incorporate them into our existing ideas. The process is somewhat subjective, because we tend to modify experience or information somewhat to fit in with our preexisting beliefs.3
So, in idea, the Melting Pot theory is based on having a shared culture having many facets of differing cultures into one single image or culture.
On the other hand, there is the Tossed Salad. What this implies, is that there are many diverse traits that make every place in America unique in culture and manner. Those who support this idea, think of the people as a people that refuses to be assimilated into “one homogenous social stew.”4 And this a fairly recent term that has become popular among conversations and discussions of social life.
Multiculturalism is the acceptance of multiple ethnic cultures at the organizational level. This is applied to the demographic make-up of a country, where people from different religious backgrounds, countries and tradition are given equitable status in schools, neighborhood, cities and nations.5
This is the technical term. This continues to be debated and used to set boundaries and to elaborate on the intent of what American culture is to be.
So, this is the argument, the cultural situation of America. It has drawn lines, caused contention, aroused many to violence and continues to stir the minds of those affected. And none is exempt, for this is a social issue. Everyone is affected one way or another, through the behaviors and attitude of discontentment. The issue is volatile in some places and mild in others, but it must come to the understanding of all the people of the United States of America to see the perspectives of all groups, cultures, history and ideals to make more reasonable and peaceful discussions. So, briefly these words will be used to give aid in looking at this situation in a new light.
Are We a “Melting Pot”?
In the early history of culture recognition of different cultures, it was common to refer to the culture of America as the Melting Pot.
For many years the image of a”melting pot” was used to describe the experience of immigrants coming to America. The expectation was that as people from diverse backgrounds, cultures and religions make their way to our country, a sort of American cultural crucible would melt away all the differences…6
“And at some levels [this] has happened. [Additionally], technology has provided a nice blending together of cultures around common language and activities involving cell phones, the Internet and so on.”7
It is much more than evident with the Caucasians. Many people of European descent have been blended together and formed a single culture over time.
The melting pot theory…revolves around the analogy that “the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures and religions) are combined so as to lose their discrete identities and yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor…8
Surely, such an idea would unify and bring people together. Or some would think. There are many who oppose such an idea. In an effect there are many societies that separate themselves, rather outright, from the typical lifestyle of other Americans.
Could We be a “Tossed Salad”?
There have been recently some heated debate that the American culture is actually entirely varied and has no single unifying identity. There many reasons to prove why this is. For the most obvious reason, the people of America are extraordinary diverse in race, color and heritage. “Each culture provides its own special and irreplaceable contribution to our understanding of America today…”9
There is much that would provoke immigrants to feel that this analogy is more appropriate. It can even cause people to become defensive and somewhat hostile.
American culture remains a powerful force – for better or worse – that influences people both here and around the world in countless ways. But several factors have combined in recent years to allow immigrants to resist, if they choose, the Americanization that had once been considered irresistible.10
In a more bitter way, some would say that assimilation is merely a way to teach immigrants the way of all Americans. A few Sociologists described the “Melting Pot” theory as a means of “Anglo conformity.”11
There are also some races and ethnic groups that have resisted the idea of surrendering their heritage in exchange for the common American’s. One such, was the Mexicans.
It’s important for our children not to be influenced too much by thegueros,” she said, using a term that means “blondies” but that she employs generally in reference to Americans. “I don’t want my children to be influenced by immoral things.”12
From this account, the “American” culture is viewed as an entity to avoid being in contact in respect to ideals and customs.
The Culture of America
But the culture of America isn’t something that anyone can avoid. It is constantly everywhere, and directs its influence through many channels of information. And to generally speak of it all as something horrible, simply speaks ignorant. They fail to see the promising nature of a shared culture. It is a culture comprised of different aspects, yet it also respects the identity of unique smaller cultures.
…if you push this notion[,the “Tossed Salad”] too far, you end up with a situation where there is no evolution of a culture. If cultures truly remain separate and distinct, there can be no evolution that occurs from the exposure and exchange with other different cultures. Instead, as time passes, all that you really have is a conglomeration of old cultures, with no blending or development.13
Truly, to think only that this idea of the “Tossed Salad” should exist in the extreme, nothing will develop and culture will remain stagnant and dead. There will always be a “Melting Pot”, somewhat. And the “Tossed Salad” isn’t likely to fade much anytime soon. The culture of America is something entirely different from the rest of the world.
So, what can we use to describe the overall culture of America? There are distinctions and there are also similarities. Yet, to simply call our culture either or would not be enough to fully describe the entirety of the American culture.
Our country is often described as a melting pot where immigrants from a variety of countries and cultures “melt” together to become Americans. Today, some people prefer the idea of America as a “stew” or “tossed salad.” Like the ingredients of a salad, people from diverse backgrounds mix and blend together but never lose their distinct, individual qualities.14
To really describe the American culture, one cannot satisfy the understanding of it through the analogies of a “Melting Pot” or a “Tossed Salad” for it is really something of a mix of these. Perhaps, comparable to and “Ethnic Stew.”15
We must, who are citizens of a nation full of various immigrants, contemplate that we too can coexist with our neighbors of various cultural backgrounds, who may be speaking different languages.16
It can be somewhat mixed, yet in other parts completely unique. For instance, consider this. There are two Chinese restaurants, both serve rice, various chicken plates, egg rolls and soups. Yet, one serves a custom variation that would be accepted by those of the unfamiliar majority, and the other serves more closely to the traditions of the country of origin. All the while they are only a few minutes drive apart from another.
Although there will be many who see assimilation to be a complete evil, there is some sense to the conformity and submissiveness to the change of culture.
In America…assimilation has not meant repudiating immigrant culture. Assimilation, American style has always been much more flexible and accommodating and, consequently, much more effective in achieving its purpose–to allow the United States to preserve its “national unity in the face of the influx of hordes of persons of scores of different nationalities,”17
This describes that assimilation is actually a stabilizing force and can help others to an equal understanding.
Just as important, is the value of the heritage of immigrants of each unique origin. These cultures can enrich our perspectives and give light to unique ideas.
Diversity in America not only presents a host of intimate snapshots of culture and heritage, but documents the struggles of nationalities to integrate…18
In fact, the United States of America has never been more diverse than ever before. Approximately a tenth of the citizens of America are foreign-born.19
The culture of America is always changing, never settling long and always seeking to bring diversity and intrigue to the common people. This makes the United States a country with a bounty of influential and rich ideas, inspiring others to create something that hasn’t existed before. “Bagels and pizzas and spaghetti were new things at one time… immigrants come and change America and are changed by America.”20 These influences nurtures the ability to create, and with such creativity, the culture and dream of America becomes that more real. But, to sit on the stagnant and narrow-mindedness of being either a “Melting Pot” or “Tossed Salad” will only bring conflict and will cease to bring out the creative nature of man. So, dare to forget the ‘salad’ and ‘pot’, and ponder on the variety and colorful landscape of The Great American Culture.
Footnotes
1,2. BBC News. “’Melting pot’ America” 12 May 2006.
3. Cherry, Kendra. “What is Assimilation?” About.com
4. Evans, Jim. “America as Melting Pot? We’re Really More of a Tossed Salad” EthicsDaily. 26 June 2009.
5. Sengupta, Saptakee. “Multiculturalism in America” Buzzle. 5 June 2010.
6,7. Evans, Jim. “America as Melting Pot? We’re Really More of a Tossed Salad” EthicsDaily. 26 June 2009.
8. Gloor, Leana B. “From the melting pot to the tossed salad metaphor: Why Coerc” Hohonu. 2006, Volume 4, Number 1.
9. World and I School. “Diversity in America”
10,11,12. Branigin, William. “Immigrants Shunning Idea of Assimilation” Washington Post. 25 May 1998.
13. Lubuguin, Fernand, Ph.D. “Beyond Melting Pot and Tossed Salad” The Society for Descriptive Psychology. 24-27 September 1998.
14. Atkins, Holly. “An American ‘tossed salad’” St. Petersburg Times. 17 December 2001.
15. Gloor, Leana B. “From the melting pot to the tossed salad metaphor: Why Coerc” Hohonu. 2006, Volume 4, Number 1.
16. Dahler, Al. “At its best, diversity strengthens; never divides” News Leader. 26 July 2011.
17. Salins, Peter D. “Assimilation, America Style” Reason. February 1997.
18. World and I School. “Diversity in America”. Retrieved 26 July 2011.
19. Williams, Juan. “The Changing Face of America” Talk of the Nation. 25 January 2001.
20. BBC News. “’Melting pot’ America” 12 May 2006.
Bibliography
Atkins, Holly. “An American ‘tossed salad’” St. Petersburg Times. 17 December 2001. Retrieved 20 July 2011. [Online Journal]; http://www.sptimes.com/News/121701/NIE/An_American__tossed_s.shtml
BBC News. “’Melting pot’ America” 12 May 2006. Retrieved 20 July 2011. [Online]; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4931534.stm
Branigin, William. “Immigrants Shunning Idea of Assimilation” Washington Post. 25 May 1998. Retrieved 26 July 2011. [Online]; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/melt0525a.htm
Cherry, Kendra. “What is Assimilation?” About.com. Retrieved 26 July 2011. [Online]; http://psychology.about.com/od/aindex/g/assimilation.htm
Dahler, Al. “At its best, diversity strengthens; never divides” News Leader. 26 July 2011. Retrieved 26 July 2011. [Online]; http://www.newsleader.com/article/20110726/OPINION02/107260309
Evans, Jim. “America as Melting Pot? We’re Really More of a Tossed Salad” EthicsDaily. 26 June 2009. Retrieved 20 July 2011. [Online Journal]; http://www.ethicsdaily.com/america-as- melting-pot-were-really-more-of-a-tossed-salad-cms-14446
Gloor, Leana B. “FROM THE MELTING POT TO THE TOSSED SALAD METAPHOR: WHY COERC” Hohonu. 2006, Volume 4, Number 1. Retrieved 20 July 2011. [Online Journal]; http://hilo.hawaii.edu/academics/hohonu/writing.php?id=91
Lubuguin, Fernand, Ph.D. “Beyond Melting Pot and Tossed Salad” The Society for Descriptive Psychology. 24-27 September 1998. Retrieved 20 July 2011. [Online]; http://www.sdp.org/sdp/papers/lubuguin.html
Salins, Peter D. “Assimilation, America Style” Reason. February 1997. Retrieved 26 July 2011. [Online]; http://reason.com/archives/1997/02/01/assimilation-american-style
Sengupta, Saptakee. “Multiculturalism in America” Buzzle. 5 June 2010. Retrieved 26 July 2011. [Online]; http://www.buzzle.com/articles/multiculturalism-in-america.html
Williams, Juan. “The Changing Face of America” Talk of the Nation. 25 January 2001. Retrieved 30 July 2011. [Online]; http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/features/2001/jan/010125.cfoa.html
World and I School. “Diversity in America”. Retrieved 26 July 2011. [Online]; http://www.worldandischool.com/specialcollection/special-collection-diversity.asp
2016 Presidential Candidates: A mosaic of the USA
来源: TJKCB 于 2016-07-05 11:21:15 [档案] [博客] [转至博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：2764 次 (66806 bytes)
? 警察暴力是首要问题。 - 笑薇. - ♀ 给 笑薇. 发送悄悄话 笑薇. 的博客首页 笑薇. 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (7 reads) 07/09/2016 11:21:23
? 这也是问题的一部分。 - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (0 reads) 07/09/2016 11:22:55
? 现在警察没办法，为了保命 - 萧紫箬 - ♀ 给 萧紫箬 发送悄悄话 萧紫箬 的个人群组 (129 bytes) (9 reads) 07/09/2016 11:37:45
? 黑人犯罪了率高和多占国家资源是首要问题 - 85858585 - 给 85858585 发送悄悄话 85858585 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (2 reads) 07/09/2016 11:49:19
? 理想的做法是法律为依据，不管种群，可是现在做不到了。 - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (0 reads) 07/09/2016 11:50:23
? 如果没有警察，黑人被杀的人数将更多。 - ThisMyWords - ♂ 给 ThisMyWords 发送悄悄话 ThisMyWords 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (0 reads) 07/09/2016 12:29:54
? 投票可以解决问题？族群撕裂可是长远影响。英国公投了，现在又有人要反公投公投，这还有底吗？ - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (1 reads) 07/09/2016 11:22:06
? 可在那个黑女人发布的录像里，她可说是华裔。薛医生不要认为此事和我们无关，黑白真打起来，首先倒霉的可能是华裔。 - 大文嚎 - ♂ 给 大文嚎 发送悄悄话 大文嚎 的博客首页 大文嚎 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (1 reads) 07/09/2016 11:29:05
? 族群撕裂是大问题。理想是：都是美国人，法律解决问题。可是媒体偏偏要搞成族群问题，让美国人互相仇恨，媒体利用新闻... - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (35 bytes) (6 reads) 07/09/2016 11:36:11
? 种族撕裂比阶级撕裂 - 萧紫箬 - ♀ 给 萧紫箬 发送悄悄话 萧紫箬 的个人群组 (80 bytes) (9 reads) 07/09/2016 11:40:19
? 我们经过文化大革命，知道种群撕裂的后果。群包括阶级。 - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (1 reads) 07/09/2016 11:48:58
? 这就是挑动群众斗群众。 - 走石飞沙 - ♂ 给 走石飞沙 发送悄悄话 走石飞沙 的博客首页 走石飞沙 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (0 reads) 07/09/2016 12:28:20
? 所以，这是需要leadership，和人民意识upgrade的历史时刻，看有没有人才了，看Obama不行，他只停留在埋怨层次 - Narnar - ♀ 给 Narnar 发送悄悄话 Narnar 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (3 reads) 07/09/2016 11:34:01
? 媒体这么搅水，越搅越浑，非把美国搅散了不行。人民要警惕！！！ - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (2 reads) 07/09/2016 11:39:22
? 可能是信息科技手段先行了，震撼，混乱的信息也在锻造着，成熟着人民的判断力，意识软件后行 - Narnar - ♀ 给 Narnar 发送悄悄话 Narnar 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (0 reads) 07/09/2016 11:52:45
? 开枪的是西裔吧 - 萧紫箬 - ♀ 给 萧紫箬 发送悄悄话 萧紫箬 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (1 reads) 07/09/2016 11:35:24
? 只要不是黑人就有人做文章。 - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (0 reads) 07/09/2016 11:40:14
? 台湾混血女孩因父亲是非洲人在学校遭霸凌 她写“与父亲重逢过程”拿下作文比赛最优 - 霍比特人 - ♂ 给 霍比特人 发送悄悄话 霍比特人 的个人群组 (2524 bytes) (173 reads) 07/09/2016 11:09:13
? 霸凌的问题解决了吗？这才是关键。奥巴马当总统了，不等于美国种族问题解决了。我看近几年族群分裂更严重了。 - 薛成 - ♂ 给 薛成 发送悄悄话 薛成 的博客首页 薛成 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (5 reads) 07/09/2016 11:24:41
? +1. 多元文化就是一个笑话。一个社会的稳定必须要有一个主流文化，其他文化应该慢慢消失。 - NiceJing - ♂ 给 NiceJing 发送悄悄话 NiceJing 的个人群组 (0 bytes) (0 reads) 07/09/2016 12:16:12
您的位置： 文学城 ? 论坛 ? 时事述评 ? 2016 Presidential Candidates: A mosaic of the USA
全部论坛列表
2016 Presidential Candidates: A mosaic of the USA
来源: TJKCB 于 2016-07-05 11:21:15 [档案] [博客] [转至博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：2507 次 (66806 bytes)
您的位置： 文学城 ? 论坛 ? 时事述评 ? you be the judge,"extremely careless" is not "Grossly negligent"
全部论坛列表
you be the judge,"extremely careless" is not "Grossly negligent"
来源: SadMadNoMore 于 2016-07-05 10:52:09 [档案] [博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：181 次 (19762 bytes)
字体：调大/重置/调小 | 加入书签 | 打印 | 所有跟帖 | 加跟贴 | 当前最热讨论主题
本文内容已被 [ SadMadNoMore ] 在 2016-07-05 12:21:50 编辑过。如有问题，请报告版主或论坛管理删除.
Are these two cases following the same standard?
---for the little guy-------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.
According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.
Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.
-----for Hillary-----
Below are Comey's full prepared remarks:
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, first, what we have done:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
----the law ---------
U.S. Code Section 793 - "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" subsection (f), intent in this case is not required for prosection:
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
已有0位网友点赞!
SadMadNoMore发过的热帖：
?Hillary email scandal updates
?Hillary email scandal updates
?Man,woman and Hillary
?5 killers in orlando shooting
?WikiLeaks Will Publish "Enough Evidence" To Indict Hillary Clint
?Saudi funded 20% of Hillary's campaign
?orlando attack had more than 1 killers
?orlando killer headlines
?orlando is top 20th highest LBGT city
?this person is jailed
您的位置： 文学城 ? 论坛 ? 时事述评 ? you be the judge,"extremely careless" is not "Grossly negligent"