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
I sincerely hope that my reactions would not be different, but it's difficult to say that with certainty.
Isn't that what's happening? Who is being prosecuted for this? Who has even been suggested for prosecution other than Clinton?
She has been treated as a priority, that's why she's been subject to a huge investigation by the FBI and others.
Except that's not prioritising, that's treating her differently, as she would be the only person being indicted.
Is the FBI about to start investigating and suggesting prosecution for other individuals? Because if it's not then Clinton is being treated equally by her not being prosecuted.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAt this point I'm just trying out every possible reason I can think of, hoping that at least one of them would be understood by Bense. Unfortunately, it seems they're sticking hard to being lawful no matter what.
Even though things aren't this black and white, and it doesn't make any sense for Hillary to go to prison for this.
If it had been Dick Cheney I would want his ass dragged in court out of general principle.
edited 5th Jul '16 1:37:07 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Cheney and the Bush administration in general ought to be subjected to war crimes prosecutions, but that has nothing to do with the email security at State, and I can see how it might set a tricky precedent for an administration to indict members of an unpopular prior administration.
edited 5th Jul '16 1:35:27 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It would incentivize them to try and remain popular?
Joking aside, the Bush administration wasn't unpopular, it was criminal.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.How do you draw the line on an administration that's sufficiently criminal to prosecute? I mean, I'm fully on board with the idea, but I cannot conceive of a way to do it that wouldn't be subject to potential partisan reversal at some point down the line. Would a hypothetical Trump administration be empowered to put Obama on trial for war crimes for civilian drone strike casualties, however hypocritical that might be?
edited 5th Jul '16 1:41:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"To be fair, those CIA drone strikes are fucked up, let's be real, here. Certainly, such a precedent would encourage US executives to not let the Alphabet Agencies get away wtih this sort of madness. Remember this guy?
Not black and white, right and wrong.
I don't want a president who thinks the rules don't apply to him or her. The whole idea of being above the law is one I don't want in the person charged with executing the law.
Granted that it looks (so far) like there weren't any major consequences this time, this particular set of rules is one that certainly can have major consequences when broken.
If Trump wins, it will be because he persuaded enough people to vote for him. A large segment of the people who support him seem to be doing so because they see the system as corrupt and Trump as an outsider. If I could stomach Trump I might see things the same way, because it certainly looks to me like Sec. Clinton is escaping prosecution because of who she is (or rather, who she associates with), rather than because she's innocent.
Enough for now.
edited 5th Jul '16 2:02:23 PM by Bense
One supposes that a criminal indictment would rely on mens rea — the specific intent to violate security regulations. Had evidence of such been found, the FBI would likely have recommended prosecution.
edited 5th Jul '16 1:54:18 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I do think it's fair to critizise the likelihood that Hillary's getting preferential treatment because of her position. Friend who is ex-military and had security clearance was quick to point out that if he had done the same thing, he would probably be sitting in jail while the investigation was ongoing.
Also, the argument that the private server was more secure than the government one is dubious
and IIRC the reason Hillary got caught was because of a hacker.
That said, I can't find it in me to be upset about it, one because I don't believe any demonstrable harm has been found and two because Trump. (I won't go so far as to outright agree with Cap with the "kingmaker" thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was on the FBI's mind. They've probably seen the fallout from Brexit and the incidents at Trump rallies and are aware what handing Trump the election could mean for their case load.)
edited 5th Jul '16 1:59:11 PM by Elle
Is the FBI about to start investigating and suggesting prosecution for other individuals? Because if it's not then Clinton is being treated equally by her not being prosecuted.
Not saying I agree with Bense but that argument is seriously flawed.
Not surprising. In most southern states you already have to be almost homeless to even qualify for medicaid, and then after that you have to go through hell to get them to cover drugs for chronic illnesses. Type-1 costs can easily go over $5,000 out of pocket per month if you're using top of the line meds and supplies, and the cheapest and most dangerous/least reliable drugs will still push you to nearly $1,000. This article comes on the heels of the largest hike in diabetes medication prices in decades, with pharma-giant/cartel Eli-Lily almost quoting the infamous Shkreli in saying that they can raise the price to whatever they please because they know that death is the only alternative.
I think the Clinton email scandal absolutely should be a call to action.
Specifically, the action of upgrading government servers. That government officials are forced to use illegal private servers in order to get their jobs done because the official systems are woefully inadequate demands indictment of the official systems, not the officials. If "everybody does it" then something has to change, and that something isn't "jail time for everybody". That's, like, the opposite of a solution.
edited 5th Jul '16 3:06:07 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The government spends 80 billion maintaining a computer system that should literally be in a museum.
Treasury's computers are literally over 50 years old, Social Security systems are over 30 years old, transportation of hazardous materials computers are 40 years old and the state department are supposed to be 15 years old at minimum.
The White House recently asked for 3 billion to start to upgrade everything and save more in the long run but got shutdown by congress.
edited 5th Jul '16 3:21:38 PM by Memers
I'd say ask your freind if that would be true if the last few guys to have his job had also done the exact same thing and several other guys in the office also did it. Because that's the thing here, Clinton is an outliner only in that she's the only person being taken to task for this, because she was not the only person to do it.
No because the crime there is a serious one (rape) instead of non-serious (using a common workaround used by multiple previous Secretaries of State for reasons of practicality). Here let's try another version, should a black jaywalker be prosecuted even though all the white ones are being let off because it's not a serious crime?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAnd, because it bears repeating, no demonstrable harm has come from this. Wikileaks literally outed some informants with it's willful leaking of government documents but we're going to string Clinton up for possibly maybe almost certainly not doing any real harm?
I'm fairly certain the FBI director mentioned mens rea being an issue. I'm not entirely sure if that specific crime is a general/specific intent but if they have to prove specific intent then the prosecution was doomed from the start.
IANAL but with specific intent you have to prove that the person intended harm/was aware of the illegality of the act. So outside of an email where Clinton goes "wow so super illegalz wut were doin guize XD" there would be no way to convict her.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?I don't remember who said it but a great point was made earlier in the thread: everyone's making a big fuss over whether or not a non-criminal investigation into Clinton should influence her candidacy. Meanwhile, Trump is actively facing a class-action lawsuit for fraud and nobody cares.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.At the speed of technology nowadays there is no way that government computers at the highest levels should be worse than anything I can buy at Best Buy, let alone Best Buy 10 years ago. They are busy people and shouldn't have to wait 10 minutes for dial up to send a freaken email, we need them to be busy.
Their computers should be upgraded every year with old shit surplussed out to schools.
Even republicans in the office have ran their own email server, but shit does not get done because the old fogies in congress can't seem to understand the march of technology.
It pisses me off that people are putting the blame on Hillary when she was just trying to do her job in an efficient manner and not the fact that government computers are SHIT!
edited 5th Jul '16 3:39:56 PM by Memers
@Bense: But the laws never apply to the people in charge. Never have. Never will. In any society. It's a major reason why people want to be in charge in the first place.
Trump delenda estIn other news a lot of news sites are predicting that the harsher than expected language used in the statement is a huge huge hit to her campaign and unless Trump sticks his foot in his mouth again he will take the lead...
Check, Please!! I want off this ride.
As someone who has IT degrees, I would expect the federal government to have computers on par with modern corporations like Amazon. They wouldn't be the most modern computer hardware and software, of course... For instance, I would expect Windows 7 instead of Windows 10, but they would be using hardware and software that came out within the last 5 years or so. Basically, machines that are new enough for the purposes they exist for, but also old enough that the kinks have been worked out of them.
Wizard Needs Food Badly

@Tactical Fox - I assume that was not directed at me?
If it were a republican, I'd feel the same way. I really am not interested in throwing Rice or Powell or whoever to the dogs just to prove a point when as a practical matter it wasn't a serious breach.
Now someone like that NSA contractor, you bet your ass I want him prosecuted. Intent and motive is all important in these cases.
EDIT- On the subject of "It's okay because Sec State's system sucked" arguments....I don't buy it and it still sounds like whitewashing. It was a flaw in the organization's culture coupled with a few other things, and which isn't a scandal but nor is it something to ignore. Were the systems old? Probably, but no evidence has been given that these specific systems were actually interrupting the business of the state, merely conjecture that it has done so.
edited 5th Jul '16 1:31:48 PM by FFShinra