Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[mheslep]

4. Colin Powell never assembled a staff of lawyers to delete his old emails, and to do so in such a way as they were completely obliterated (per the FBI), not just tossed into the trash bin.

 

[Evo]

1. She claims she was told it was OK, but has produced no evidence to support that. At the same time, she was also told it was not ok.

2. Having the private server was merely a starting point - an enabler: the felonies she committed were based on using it to mishandle classified documents. We wouldn't be having this conversation if all she did was use it to handle non-classified business.

3. Colin Powell has not even been accused of the crimes in #2. His actions were not, as far as we know, equivalent to hers.

I'm not saying it was "OK", I'm saying I can believe that she could be "clueless"

4. Colin Powell never assembled a staff of lawyers to delete his old emails, and to do so in such a way as they were completely obliterated (per the FBI), not just tossed into the trash bin.

5. Why would he have to?

I'm also not saying that some emails weren't intentionally deleted to hide things she didn't want known, now THAT I disapprove of and THAT I can believe. Now ask me if I think that Trump hasn't done shadier things in business deals.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not saying it was "OK", I'm saying I can believe that she could be "clueless"

Highlighting the Slate article on Powell in response to the Clinton story suggest her case is similar. It is not.

5. Why would he have to?

He did not. Clinton should not have. Government officials are required, since a while before Clinton, to maintain their records. One reason is to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. It was FOIA that triggered the demand for Clinton's emails. Her legal team then destroyed many of them, claiming them personal, and then turned over what they said was all of the work email.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm saying I can believe that she could be "clueless"

I've heard this elsewhere too and I still find it disturbing that our next president knows almost nothing about basic digital security when WW3 may very well be digital.

 

[RonL]

Having served as a government employee for a number of years, the tests and certifications that must be taken and renewed on a regular basis by everyone that is issued a computer, completely eliminates the excuse of not knowing what was wrong or being in the dark, by lack of knowledge.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Having served as a government employee for a number of years, the tests and certifications that must be taken and renewed on a regular basis by everyone that is issued a computer, completely eliminates the excuse of not knowing what was wrong or being in the dark, by lack of knowledge.

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

 

[mheslep]

I've heard this elsewhere too and I still find it disturbing that our next president knows almost nothing about digital security when WW3 may very well be digital.

If that was the case, it would not bother me in the slightest given a healthy respect for the rules and sufficient judgement to delegate to those that do understand. FDR couldn't have had the slightest notion of how atomic weapons worked but the US program went ahead with gusto.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If that was the case, it would not bother me in the slightest given a healthy respect for the rules and sufficient judgement to delegate to those that do understand. FDR couldn't have had the slightest notion of how atomic weapons worked but the US program went ahead with gusto.

The entire world is a digital network. The atomic bomb was a pretty isolated technology.

 

[RonL]

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

Someone else might beat me to to it, but I'll see what I can come up with, the government has a pretty serious firewall, the very reason for a private server.

 

[Evo]

The entire world is a digital network. The atomic bomb was a pretty isolated technology.

McCain didn't even know how to use a computer, his wife, daughter and aides had to read him e-mails, there are members of the NSA that don't use e-mail.

Some NSA Friends in Congress Admit They Don’t Use Email

Leading national security hawks Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., likely agree. The duo admit they don’t use email.

"I don't email at all," McCain told the National Journal last week. "I have other people and I tell them to email because I am just always worried I might say something. I am not the most calm and reserved person you know.”

Graham, on the other hand, appears never to have caught up with the Internet revolution. “You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one,” Graham told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program Sunday.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...friends-in-congress-admit-they-dont-use-email

 

[axmls]

MCCain didn't even know how to use a computer

The quote you posted does not indicate that he didn't email because he didn't know how, but that he didn't email to avoid accidentally sending something he would regret. I imagine this is common, because if something bad does get out, they can always use the "it wasn't me" excuse.

 

[Evo]

The quote you posted does not indicate that he didn't email because he didn't know how, but that he didn't email to avoid accidentally sending something he would regret. I imagine this is common, because if something bad does get out, they can always use the "it wasn't me" excuse.

I posted this earlier.

John McCain 'technology illiterate' doesn't email or use internet
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has admitted that he never uses email and that his staff has to show him websites because he is only just "learning to get online myself".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-illiterate-doesnt-email-or-use-internet.html

John McCain Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/03/john-mccain-doesnt-know-how-use-computer-video

 

[jim hardy]

"I don't email at all," McCain told the National Journal last week. "I have other people and I tell them to email because I am just always worried I might say something. I am not the most calm and reserved person you know.”

Do i ever understand "foot in mouth syndrome" !
That he recognizes his temperament and copes with it raises my esteem for McCain.

Maybe Trump should tap him for public speaking coach.

edit - oops, off topic... sorry

 

[Evo]

Anyway, we're getting sidetracked. I wanted to say I came across an article in Politico that might prove that the missing emails that were deleted from Hillary's servers were indeed "personal, and it's shameful if true.

But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-us-russia-bilateral-presidential-commission of https://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/pmdainitiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”

What could explain this lack of emails on the Russian Nuclear Agency? Were Clinton’s aides negligent in passing along unimportant information while ignoring the far more troubling matters concerning Rosatom? Possibly. Or, were emails on this subject deleted as falling into the “personal” category? It is certainly odd that there’s virtually no email traffic on this subject in particular. Remember that a major deal involving Rosatom that was of vital concern to Clinton Foundation donors went down in 2009 and 2010. Rosatom bought a small Canadian uranium company owned by nine investors who were or became major Clinton Foundation donors, sending $145 million in contributions. The Rosatom deal required approval from several departments, including the State Department.

continued..

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...server-investigation-fbi-214016#ixzz4DfkPjGvU

This lowers her closer to Trump's level, just not as crazy.

 

[mheslep]

...
This lowers her closer to Trump's level, just not as crazy.

That would be the case ... if Trump was for sale as the article suggest for Clinton, and he had been investigated by the FBI for criminal action and coming very close to being indicted.

Trump has own nonsense, nonsense, really nonsense.

 

[RonL]

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

This is a start point, maybe why 7 million + and two years of wading through everything produced so little. But anyone given a government computer is required to do the tests.

https://www.dhs.gov/topics

 

[Astronuc]

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

I would expect that specific training programs and certs are not publicly available, however, there is a requirement for training of those using federal information systems.


Subpart C—Information Security

Responsibilities for Employees who Manage or Use Federal Information Systems
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 4118; Pub. L. 107–347,
116 Stat. 2899.
SOURCE: 69 FR 32836, June 14, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/214650.pdf
5 CFR Ch. I (1–1–12 Edition) § 930.301 (while it is he 2012 edition, the paragraph dates to 2004).

 

[CalcNerd]

I am kind of sickened by my choices for President. I will openly admit, of the top three republicans, the best man won (Trump, Cruz, Rubio-couldn't even win Florida-that says something). Sadly, they were the top three! Hillary is very lucky to have such competition, as if any decent and qualified candidate were running against her, she would be the one lagging far behind in the polls. I may very well end up casting my vote based upon who they select as their Vice President.
.
However, onto Hillary: She doesn't live in the same world as any of us or even a typical cabinet member even. Remember, she is the wife of a former President, WHO has had secret service protection for nearly a quarter of a century (and the last president to get secret service protection for life)! Her home may be every bit as secure as her office. So her keeping a server at home, which would be negligent for the everyday Joe (or any of us), doesn't register (or probably actually apply) to her.
.
You can certainly find plenty of dirt on Hillary at "Skeletons in the closet" website about past political presidential contenders. Not sure if the website admin has updated for this election (probably has several more volumes of information to add for both of our contenders!).
.
President Obama won his first election on a Change, Change, Change jingle. And yet he kept the Patriot Act, kept Gitmo open, kept using drones, in fact he increased drone strikes, doesn't sound like Change, Change, Change to me. Yeah, we got ObamaCare, but it seems like the insurance companies now have Uncle Sam enforcing health care and insurance upon us (admittedly, something had to be done, but I suspect it was done and implemented to benefit Corporate insurance companies and not for the benefit of our Citizenry).
.
Well Trump might actually be the REAL DEAL! However, he might also light up a few countries too. Do you really want to dump the Devil you know for the Devil you Don't? Trump has a large group of the republican party wetting their pants. Aside from a dedicated Anarchist, can anyone feel comfortable with Trump? He has made statement after statement that he would do this or do that. Admittedly, it is talk and that may be part of his election strategy. But it bothers me. Can a President survive on misdirection? And the press may be cooking the books, so to speak, trying its best to give Hillary the election (well aside from Faux News, that is), selectively quoting out of context, the press is good at that!
.
Today's press has been brow beaten and kowtowed to the point of nearly being unrecognizable by our press decades ago. Fortunately, they don't hold back on potential candidates.
.
As for the FBI and their ending their investigation, perhaps there is a conspiracy. They know who Donald is too. Perhaps they had to decide if they really wanted to make him their next Commander in Chief or "roll the dice". I know I would have preferred a dice roll myself and leave it in the hands of the people (who will be the real losers in this election, regardless of the winner).

 

[Astronuc]

Why Comey decided not to indict Clinton

"For an indictment you need probable cause, but prosecutors and investigators are looking for far more. You're looking down the road at a substantial likelihood of success at trial that's beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-fbi-director-comey-didnt-140432047.html

Interesting analysis.

 

[mheslep]

Hosko suggests, as have some others, that Comey did not want to be the fulcrum upon which the 2016 election swings, that the electorate should decide. I'm not sure this was Comey's rationale, though I can sympathize with that motivation.

The problem is that it suggests important politicians are above the law, that they are too valuable. I'm more inclined to put the burden back on the Democratic electorate, that they should have put up a candidate not under threat of indictment. The consequence of these passes, if that's what this was, is that it will encourage more lawlessness. There is already enough mindset among high level polls that they can do and say whatever they want, that they'll get a pass.

Reid, Romney tax smear with no libel vulnerability

...When asked about critics who said his smear of then-Republican presidential candidate Romney echoed the tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, he brushed them off and said with a smile, "Romney didn't win, did he?"

Pelosi, is the Obamacare mandate constitutional (decided by 1 vote in SCOTUS): "Are you serious"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hosko suggests, as have some others, that Comey did not want to be the fulcrum upon which the 2016 election swings, that the electorate should decide. I'm not sure this was Comey's rationale, though I can sympathize with that motivation.

The problem is that it suggests important politicians are above the law, that they are too valuable. I'm more inclined to put the burden back on the Democratic electorate, that they should have put up a candidate not under threat of indictment. The consequence of these passes, if that's what this was, is that it will encourage more lawlessness. There is already enough mindset among high level polls that they can do and say whatever they want, that they'll get a pass.

So they are accusing Comey of lying in spite of his stellar reputation. From this unsubstantiated accusation you are drawing a conclusion? Doesn't that come under the heading of fantasy or wishful thinking; and then extrapolation from a false premise?

How about the possibility that he is telling the truth and there was no evidence that she intentionally violated any laws? Do we really need more conspiracy theories?

I noticed that he was just asked about this. So now he would have committed perjury. Is there anything but supposition to support this notion?

 

[Rick21383]

So they are accusing Comey of lying in spite of his stellar reputation. From this unsubstantiated accusation you are drawing a conclusion? Doesn't that come under the heading of fantasy or wishful thinking; and then extrapolation from a false premise?

How about the possibility that he is telling the truth and there was no evidence that she intentionally violated any laws? Do we really need more conspiracy theories?

I noticed that he was just asked about this. So now he would have committed perjury. Is there anything but supposition to support this notion?

Give me a break.

She lied about not sending and receiving classified emails including ones that contained top secret information on private servers which any reasonable person can deduce she did to intentionally avoid detection of her dealings.

She compromised national security as Comey all but said foreign actors likely hacked her servers.

She covered it up by improperly deleting emails that cannot be recovered.

"But there's no proof of intent!"By any other criminal standard, intent to commit the negligent acts would be sufficient.
Even with the standard that the director seemed to apply, the intent can be circumstantially inferred.

Even more egregious is that this was just at the investigation stage. Lack of proof of intent, especially when coupled with perjury and evidence of covering up the crime, should not be a reason to not recommend charges.

It's actually incredibly transparent how rigged this whole thing is.

 

[CalcNerd]

She lied about not sending and receiving classified emails including ones that contained top secret information on private servers which any reasonable person can deduce she did to intentionally avoid detection of her dealings.

She compromised national security as Comey all but said foreign actors likely hacked her servers.

She covered it up by improperly deleting emails that cannot be recovered.

"But there's no proof of intent!"By any other criminal standard, intent to commit the negligent acts would be sufficient.
Even with the standard that the director seemed to apply, the intent can be circumstantially inferred.

Even more egregious is that this was just at the investigation stage. Lack of proof of intent, especially when coupled with perjury and evidence of covering up the crime, should not be a reason to not recommend charges.

It's actually incredibly transparent how rigged this whole thing is.

While all of your points might even be valid, short of stacking a jury with all Fox News watchers, you would not likely get any conviction. I believe that is why Comey dropped the case. Hillary just has to many connections. You've got to be a realist. Unless you can convict before November, or know you can impeach later, you are going to be cannon folder for the next 4 years. And truthfully, no legal proceedings move any faster than a donkey cart.
.
Good ole Ken Starr spent millions for what? Discrediting Bill Clinton, the President of the United States? Most people by then knew what kind of President he already was. All he really did was help FOX NEWS sell air time. Bill and Hillary were selling the Lincoln bedroom out to the highest bidders, often with questionable backgrounds.
.
I suspect that many other presidents did similar dastardly deeds.
.
As I have stated before, if you lock her up (especially before November!), you will most likely get Trump for President. Do a little more digging (and you don't have to dig deep) before you campaign to hard for that.
.
While Hillary has all sorts of warts and rides a broomstick, she has still garnered enough experience on her resume to claim to be the best presidential candidate in decades. That she isn't an overwhelming favorite speaks volumes of what most of us really think about her. However, dig into Trump's past and you will likely convert, albeit reluctantly.

 

[mheslep]

Good ole Ken Starr spent millions for what?

The Starr investigation was not about philandering. It was about pursuing Clinton's serial sexual harassment and likely assault of women, and of Clinton's perjuring himself before federal judge, for which Clinton was later disbarred. So there's that.

I suspect that many other presidents did similar dastardly deeds.

I suspect your narrative with no evidence is wrong. Thus the benefit of the Ken Starr investigation, which helped to reveal the lie about a "vast right wing conspiracy" and "bimbo eruptions".

she has still garnered enough experience

A business card and desk placard that says "Secretary" or "Senator" is not the same thing as experience. Experience would include things like negotiating an international agreement (see Kerry on Iran, Rice on Gaza and Palestinian elections) or actually running a state (see Romney) or large organization with a bottom line (see Romney, Trump).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OMG, Rep. Cummings stated that a review has revealed that 2 of the 3 emails that were marked classified were in fact mismarked and were not classified.

Even so, none were properly marked as classified. Only a "(c)" at some point down the page of the email indicated so. It was also indicated that at least some classification referenced the time of a phone call that had already taken place. The classification was only relevant before the call took place.

This is sounding more and more like a tempest in a teapot.

The ultimate irony in all of this is that the State Department was in fact hacked. It is only known that Hillary could have been hacked. So the fact is, the information might have actually been safer on her personal server!

 

[CalcNerd]

I suspect your narrative with no evidence is wrong. Thus the benefit of the Ken Starr investigation, which helped to reveal the lie about a "vast right wing conspiracy" and "bimbo eruptions".

No, my evidence is not wrong, in this case. I merely won't bother to support it. That I used the word "suspect" was me being kind. "Know" would be a more appropriate word, but then I would be obligated to provide some type of reference. Books are written about every presidency. However, anyone can dig into nearly any presidency and find things that every President did that was not acceptable with 20/20 hindsight. President Carter may be the exception, but I actually consider him one of the poorest acting presidents too.
.
You might investigate our 40 year relationship with the Iranians and the behind the scenes negotiations (some bordering on treason) to recover our Hostages in the 1979 event and how it probably cost President Carter the election (not sure how to feel about that, as he was a sorry president). However there were other interested parties involved that did not want to see a re-elected Carter (on both sides of the aisle, see what happens if you elect an idealist or someone who won't compromise!). Later the following Reagan administration did both business and battle with the Iranians. Dig into that story, there are lots of sources and press, but I suggest wiki. None reflect well on that presidency, and ironically, President Reagan is considered a Great President! Those actions have definitely affected how we are able to negotiate with the Iranians.
.
Or how about the plan by George W. Bush to go after Iraq for the Twin Towers, even after he helped several of Bin Laden's relatives out of the country after 9/11? I kind of feel Bill's indiscretions aren't of the same magnitude as a police action which suffers 5000 American and 100,000 Iraqis killed for the premise of hunting down weapons of mass destruction on fabricated evidence. "do I need to provide references for this commonly known number or EXACT numbers?"
.
So, you are being rather partisan about your want for evidence.

 

[jim hardy]

How about the possibility that he is telling the truth and there was no evidence that she intentionally violated any laws?

You cannot be serious, Sir.
It's a basic premise "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
I suppose you'll argue over definition of "is" ?

18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

——

18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c) Whoever corruptly

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

——

18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

——

18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

——

18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

——

18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …

(f) 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 not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Now this sentiment i do understand

Hosko suggests, as have some others, that Comey did not want to be the fulcrum upon which the 2016 election swings, that the electorate should decide. I'm not sure this was Comey's rationale, though I can sympathize with that motivation.

Now why on Earth did Clinton go see Lynch ?
They know darn well
it's FBI's job to produce evidence, that's what cops do,
and it's prosecutor's job to decide whether to present those facts to a jury

so why is FBI making the decision whether to prosecute ? Because somebody knew darn well Comey was willing to take the hit .
Clinton tainted Lynch's image , giving her a plausible excuse to pass the buck down
and that's against this one

18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c) Whoever corruptly
...
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,..
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

Touche . They pulled it off. Shift the decision to somebody who's not supposed to make such decisions.
A plot worthy of Shakespeare.
That decision belonged to the prosecutors not the cops. Don't you watch "Law and Order" ?

It wasn't FBI's decision to make.
She should have pled to misdemeanor and paid a fine like Petraeus
or Lynch should have mustered the courage to withhold adjudication
or Obama should have manned up and pardoned her.

The ramifications of this are huge.
Attitudes start at the top, why should anybody now respect any law?

See Lincoln's Lyceum adddress.

They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws:

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

crumbled indeed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You cannot be serious, Sir.
It's a basic premise "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
I suppose you'll argue over definition of "is" ?

I just don't pretend to be an attorney. I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night. I'll take Comey at his word; especially given that he is so highly respected on both sides of the aisle.

Or is it the argument that people here know the law better than the Director of the FBI?

 

[jim hardy]

Or is it the argument that people here know the law better than the Director of the FBI?

He knows exactly what he did. He 'took the bullet' for Lynch.
He is after all a former Attorney General who's very aware he is no longer in a prosecuting role but an investigative one.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/
Prosecutorial Discretion Law & Legal Definition

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.

The law is very easy to read, i posted it for you.

 

[nsaspook]

I never believed Clinton had any sort of truly classified (cryptographic, sources and methods) material on her server because if she did the people responsible for maintaining the nations communications security should have taken proper action to secure it. What I am bothered about is the lack of judgement and plain stupidity in making a collection of valuable State Dept information available for use without proper access controls. Each bit of information on its own might not be highly classified but a bulk collection of low level information can be used to create a mosaic of internal operations that can be invaluable to an opponent looking to gain the upper hand on some negotiation or tactic. This is OPSEC/COMSEC 101, her lack of DISCIPLINE in the server mess was disgusting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/u...hillary-clintons-emails-is-released.html?_r=0

 

[mheslep]

I never believed Clinton had any sort of truly classified (cryptographic, sources and methods) material on her server...

You now understand your belief was incorrect, that per the FBI Clinton did indeed have classified material up to TS on those servers?

 

[mheslep]

...I kind of feel Bill's indiscretions...

It is misinformation to call Clinton's actions for which he was investigated by Starr as "indiscretions". Indiscretions are not criminal. He was impeached and disbarred for breaking the law.

 

[nsaspook]

You now understand your belief was incorrect, that per the FBI Clinton did indeed have classified material up to TS on those servers?

I've seen lots of TS (SCI/NOFORN/etc...) material when I had access as a communications manager at several major military telecommunications hubs long ago with access to (SCIF) embassy traffic encryption gear. Most of it is regular State work product that's very time sensitive and much less sensitive a few months later because the events have already happened that needed that classification while we developed a response to them. I've seen nothing so far that actual or ongoing programs, active agents or sources and methods from some other agency were compromised. IMO if that had happened someone surely would have dropped a dime on her in public about it.

As secretary of state she had presidential authority to decide what State Department information was classified or not. How wise those decisions were is a separate matter to me
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not saying it was "OK"...

I know. I was just pointing out that what you listed as the clueless acts missed the worst acts. It's like focusing on a breaking-and-entering and ignoring the robbery it enabled. And to that:

I'm saying I can believe that she could be "clueless"

When you add in all of the other acts you didn't list, it becomes harder and harder to believe the "clueless" defense. For example, she lied about what she did for years (and apparently even under oath, per Comey's announcement). Do you really believe she's so clueless that she doesn't even know when she's telling the truth and when she isn't?

I'm also not saying that some emails weren't intentionally deleted to hide things she didn't want known, now THAT I disapprove of and THAT I can believe.

How can something done intentionally be a result of "cluelessness"? But yes, I read an opinion piece that suggested she did the whole personal server thing specifically to avoid oversight, to try to avoid scandals. That doesn't sound "clueless" to me, it sounds calculated.

 

[russ_watters]

So they are accusing Comey of lying in spite of his stellar reputation.

Please provide a quote: I don't think I've seen anyone suggest he has lied.

How about the possibility that he is telling the truth and there was no evidence that she intentionally violated any laws?

That's not what he said. He said: "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."

Not "no evidence", just no "clear evidence". Meaning the evidence suggests but would be difficult to prove that she did it on purpose. It's the extreme cluelessness defense.

And that's not surprising, is it? The most important security in her private server was protecting it from oversight. It was run completely out of the view of the government and the details of its operation would be tighter held secrets than the information on the server. IE, you would not expect to find on the server an email to the server's administrator instructing him to wipe it. Nor would you expect such an email to show up in anyone else's email chains; He wasn't a government employee.

OMG, Rep. Cummings stated that a review has revealed that 2 of the 3 emails that were marked classified were in fact mismarked and were not classified.

Even so, none were properly marked as classified. Only a "(c)" at some point down the page of the email indicated so. It was also indicated that at least some classification referenced the time of a phone call that had already taken place. The classification was only relevant before the call took place.

This is sounding more and more like a tempest in a teapot.

Huh? Doesn't the lack of classification markings on classified content suggest to you that someone improperly removed the classification markings? Did the emails compose and send themselves? Given that one of the emails recovered shows her instructing a subordinate to remove classification markings and send an email unsecure, this is evidence that it was done on purpose...er...well, we already know it was on purpose, just that she didn't know it was illegal.