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
![]()
Sounds to me like you're making mountains out of molehills. Which is apparently par the course for this entire situation.
It's not.
The FBI is making a recommendation, it doesn't determine anything, it's telling the DA what it thinks and this is what it thinks.
Also not recommending that any past Sec of State be prosecuted. So if there's anything here it's that the Sec of State generally isn't gonna get in shit for this.
edited 5th Jul '16 12:27:16 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe FBI, I should add, is performing its proper and legal role by recommending prosecution (or declining to do so) in these types of cases. The result of this investigation is: "Illegal shit happened, but it seems pointless to prosecute it, especially if you aren't going to go back and nab all the other SecStates for the same thing."
Edit: If people want to take this whole affair as "the Obama administration colluding to keep Clinton out of jail so they can anoint her as Queen", then we can't stop them. Their minds are made up, but they were made up already, and it's pointless to expect evidence (or lack thereof) to persuade them.
edited 5th Jul '16 12:31:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not sure if it's been brought up yet, but a Mississippi congressman, Jeffrey Guice, responded to a mother's email about how much trouble she was having getting through Medicaid to get her daughter's diabetes medicine with "Why not just buy it with your own money instead?"
Said medication runs about $2,500/month, which tends to be out of most peoples' price range, I should think.
You know, I wanted to know: Does the law explicitly state that the Sec State is responsible for email security on pain of criminal charges? Lots of criminal laws have ill intent/mens rea requirements which make prosecution in sloppiness cases difficult. And yes, this is a question for Bense.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
All government officials given access to state secrets are, generally speaking, legally obligated to follow security protocol. There's not really much doubt that Clinton is guilty under the letter of the law, but the precedent of a total lack of enforcement of the relevant laws against previous Secretaries of State who did the exact same thing means that there's no reasonable case given the way the American justice system works.
edited 5th Jul '16 12:39:05 PM by CaptainCapsase
Basically, there's a "use it or lose it" rule to law enforcement.
edited 5th Jul '16 12:42:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A private e-mail server is an unauthorized location. No, being Secretary of State doesn't give you the authority to "authorize" a location by yourself either. You have to meet specific criteria to give the location the same security classification as the material.
![]()
Since you clearly have zero experience in dealing with classified information, let me enlighten you a bit.
I've seen up close and personal four investigations for accidental/negligent discharge of classified data...in 2016. This stuff happens all the time, and it completely comes down to the circumstances of the event as to whether or not we do a damn thing about it. People went to carry a backpack full of classified data outside of a SCIF environment. We bring the hammer down for that.
People sending TS data over NIPR can be a serious event, depending on who the recipients were, whether or not we can establish positive control of the distro chain, and explanation for how the data came to be on an unclassified system.
If Hillary and company were discussing TS initiatives and programs in veiled, roundabout terminology, it's fucking nothing. If Hillary was forwarding improperly marked emails that she received on her Blackberry, the originator will be investigated and may have disciplinary action. If Hillary is literally purposefully copying/pasting or typing data she knows is TS into her BB, then she should have charges.
From what we've heard on this case, we know it's not option C. So we're left with fucking nothing.
No matter how you process this, there's no way for the FBI to indict.
New Survey coming this weekend!Security-clearance prosecutions are almost always politically biased whenever a case makes the media. It's hard to avoid in an environment where the security side is fighting constantly against the business side.
Security wonks want everything to be classified at a level above even God because they live in institutional paranoia of a single damaging leak destroying our nation (or, more cynically, their careers). The people whose job it is to conduct the business of the government, meanwhile, resent the security apparatus because it makes it harder to do their work, and they especially resent it when innocuous stuff is classified.
Every now and then, the tensions erupt and someone is made an example of pour encourager les autres. When it's a high-level name, never mind a department head, it's always a political prosecution of some sort or another unless they were literally selling state secrets to our enemies or some such.
edited 5th Jul '16 1:13:09 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Director Comey again: "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."
"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."
edited 5th Jul '16 1:13:33 PM by Bense
And that matters why?
The law is meant to apply equally to everyone, regardless of if they're a presidential candidate or not, that goes both ways.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNo, there should be no difference legally. Sec. Clinton should be treated like anyone else in that regard.
However, I do believe someone presently seeking the highest office in the land probably should have priority over others. Sec. Clinton should be indicted before, say Sec. Powell or other State Department employees who aren't currently obeying the law. That doesn't mean those other lawbreakers shouldn't also be indicted.
And what would such an indictment accomplish as far as improving the nation's security?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Another reminder: Is the Sec State personally involved in deciding the arrangement of email services? A common technique to escape prosecution is to shove the responsibility for such decisions down to middle management.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThat would improve security. One could argue that everyone is already paying more attention to how they handle secure information because of this whole situation, but if she gets away without consequence then it could lead many to conclude that it's not such a big deal after all, at least if you have connections like she does.
<yawn> I don't think that "Trump is the other candidate" is a particularly good reason to defend a violation in IT regulations. The only doubt I have is about who is responsible - legally or decision-wise - for the email setup of a Sec State.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
There is no substantive evidence to indicate that security is improved by using the State Department's antiquated system over a private system. Appropriating funds to upgrade State's system would be a far better use of our government's resources.
edited 5th Jul '16 1:29:09 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
