Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@ smokeycut: Unless you're at the other end of the paradigm (like the computers that control US Nuclear Missiles) where the equipment is so old that the people that could hack the computers are dead and the file formats virtually extinct.
Um, Capase? Piracy!
edited 5th Jul '16 10:39:54 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On@ smokeycut: Unless you're at the other end of the paradigm (like the computers that control US Nuclear Missiles) where the equipment is so old that the people that could hack the computers are dead and the file formats virtually extinct.
Um, Capase? Piracy!
edited 5th Jul '16 10:39:54 AM by Greenmantle
A government server is generally speaking going to be more difficult to crack than a private server because governments spend a lot more effort, time, and money on making their server secure, not because they buy the latest and greatest.
My employer (a bank) doesn't use the latest version of any software or equipment, but they are certainly more secure than many private systems, because the bank has spent more and taken more effort to make it secure.
edited 5th Jul '16 10:40:27 AM by Bense
Yeah, basically the point I was going to make that newer hardware doesn't necessarily make something more secure; the state department has people monitoring their servers more or less 24/7, Clinton's private email server didn't, and neither did those of her predecessors; this is a very real cybersecurity hole, and the fact that it's being used against Clinton for political purposes doesn't negate that.
edited 5th Jul '16 10:46:30 AM by CaptainCapsase
Bense, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from here.
1) If Hillary is indicted, Trump is basically handed the presidency.
2) After a long investigation, it was decided Hillary shouldn't be brought up on charges.
3) Her usage of the private server caused no harm.
Why should she have been indicted? What's the benefit?
What harm is done by this? Well, when a reasonable person starts to believe that a law breaker has a decent chance to be president because she has friends in high places they might start to believe that anyone outside the system becomes a better alternative.
In short, Trump is one of the harms. He wouldn't have anyone supporting him if it looked like the current system was working just fine.
'Yeah, basically the point I was going to make that newer hardware doesn't necessarily make something more secure; the state department has people monitoring their servers more or less 24/7, Clinton's private email server didn't, and neither did those of her predecessors; this is a very real cybersecurity hole, and the fact that it's being used against Clinton for political purposes doesn't negate that.
What happened to the OPM then? I'm not saying that her server was secure (it probably wasn't), but government bureaucrats don't have all that much expertise in cyber security either.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayAs a side note, the FBI recommendation is just that - a recommendation. Technically it is up to the Attorney General whether she will be indicted.
In fact I wonder if the AG would have been making an announcement today that she wasn't going to prosecute if she hadn't just been tainted by disclosure of her private meeting with Mr. Clinton. Now instead we have the FBI recommendation providing political cover for her to do it a few news cycles down the road.
Yeah in the end it's up to the AG, and the AG deciding that it's not worth it to prosecute for something that's technically illegal happens all the time, that's what the AG is for in part, filltering out the pointless crap that folks shouldn't actually be prosecuted for on a technicality.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIt's actually a pretty fundamental part of U.S. law that the government has a lot of latitude in deciding which cases to prosecute. For one thing, it's the reason things like plea bargains and witness immunity can exist. For another, it's the reason why we haven't gone with Donald Trump's plan to deport every illegal immigrant in the country.
edited 5th Jul '16 11:21:56 AM by RavenWilder
This.
Every crime committed by every person in the U.S. cannot be prosecuted; there are insufficient resources to even attempt such a thing. The rule of law relies on its deterrent value: the threat of being caught and punished dissuades most people from breaking laws, at least overtly and egregiously.
Speed limits are an example of a kind of law that doesn't work for its ostensible purpose: most people drive faster than the posted limits. However, enough people are ticketed for breaking the laws that they restrict themselves to a safe range over those limits, both as a form of emergent behavior to keep traffic moving smoothly and as a sort of tacit consensus. "If we all drive somewhere between +5 and +10, everyone's safe and most people don't get ticketed."
The use of private email servers by people at State is illegal, but nobody bothered to stop them for the most part because the existing systems are so antiquated that they actively hinder the execution of government business. In truth, Congress bears much of the blame for this because it refuses to appropriate funds to upgrade those systems. So the situation is murky enough that any high-level prosecution looks, politically, like a scapegoat to hide the basic dysfunction underneath. Clinton is the exception that proves the rule, even when you set aside the partisan hatred for her by the GOP.
edited 5th Jul '16 11:28:46 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And as stated previously, she is admittedly not the first secretary of state to do this. I'd say it's akin to smoking pot (in most states, in general, yada yada) in that a lot of cops don't bother to prosecute because really, why bother? Sure it's technically illegal and in theory can be a problem but if no issues arise it just seems like you're punishing someone because you can.
That republicans keep hammering her about having a private email server but not any particular email or string of them suggests that if she had been caught for anything else vaguely illegal like, say, having sex with an intern they would be going just as hard on her.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Because the prosecution of those offenses is blatantly racially biased. The analogy between that and the harassment of Hillary Clinton over the emails is apt.
Yes, the prosecutors have wiggle room on who they decide to charge. So why is the FBI making a determination?
Director Comey: "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." So in similar circumstances he might well be making a recommendation that the person would be indicted, but he's not going to make a recommendation that this specific person be indicted.
The Attorney General already said a few days ago, at the same time she said she wouldn't recuse herself from the case because she had a private meeting with the suspect's husband, that she would accept the recommendation of the FBI. How convenient.
Also convenient, the NYT reported yesterday that Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say that if she is elected, she may retain Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Get the message, Loretta?
Well yeah, the circumstances of this case aren't those where a prosecution is warranted. The few times prosecutions for similar conduct have happened have involved some aggravating conduct absent here
.

The answer to that is probably classified at a level above your Security Clearance, Sir.
edited 5th Jul '16 10:32:04 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On