The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

WWNDJD?

(What would Nixon's DoJ do? )

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort.

As opposed to the other FBI / DoJ?

Well... sure.

First and foremost... the FBI / DoJ historically really loathe to investigate political figures, especially during an election season (which is understandable).

Additionally, you're kidding yourself if party politics is absent at FBI / DoJ. Which is why Special Prosecutor is a thing.

**Tannhauser42**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
The intelligence community doesn't want to this to go away...

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email.

TL;DR - - Both the CIA and NGA agrees with the two independent IG that the two emails (out of 40 reviewed) were Top Secret at birth.

This is big...

The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort. Their best bet may be enpanel a federal grand jury...

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it, but is there anything new here that we haven't already known for some time new?

And I see nothing in that article using the term "at birth".

**whembly**

Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?

**BobtheInquisitor**

whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?

Is it possible that after the whole Benghazi fizzle, people just tend to assume anti-HRC/anti-Obama Administration investigations are partisan attacks full of crap hat go nowhere?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe that's what she's skating on.

**d-usa**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?

Is it possible that after the whole Benghazi fizzle, people just tend to assume anti-HRC/anti-Obama Administration investigations are partisan attacks full of crap hat go nowhere?

It's probably a combination of a variety of things.

- People thinking "It's the anti-Hillary scandal of the month."
- People thinking it's "gotcha politics".
- People thinking "Republicans have had a hate-boner for anything Clinton since the 90s" and not paying much attention to it.
- People thinking "Maybe she did something bad, but the Republicans are making too big a deal out of it".
- People thinking "Maybe she did something bad, but it doesn't affect me/the economy/jobs/immigration/whatever."
- The continuing fact that you have to spend more than 30 seconds explaining to people why you think she broke the law and why they should care. A scandal needs to be fresh and you need to be able to hook people with a 10 second audio clip to get their attention if you want them to listen to your 5 minute presentation on what really happened.

I'm with Ouze on his analysis of the situation.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?

I don't see how that's a red herring. High ranking officials have gotten away with similar violations on equally flimsy pretenses.

whembly wrote:

Additionally, you're kidding yourself if party politics is absent at FBI / DoJ. Which is why Special Prosecutor is a thing.

Are you under the impression that special prosecutors are immune to partisan politics?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?

I don't see how that's a red herring. High ranking officials have gotten away with similar violations on equally flimsy pretenses.

Sure and even in some cases, totally got away with it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422863/bill-clinton-pardon-classified-documents

whembly wrote:

Additionally, you're kidding yourself if party politics is absent at FBI / DoJ. Which is why Special Prosecutor is a thing.

Are you under the impression that special prosecutors are immune to partisan politics?

Of course not and let's be real... it ain't happening again (if ever).

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?

Do not misrepresent me, I have never "bought" such a thing. You, however, have still failed, after multiple attempts at explanation, to understand just what it is she can and should be in trouble for.

For the LAST TIME, she CANNOT be faulted for the simple act of receiving (regardless if it was sent to her by private email, post office, or folded up into a paper airplane and thrown in her general direction) classified material, correctly marked or not.

She CAN AND SHOULD be faulted for:
-Maintaining marked classified material on an unapproved system.
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself.
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it.

That second one is the big one. While she can reasonably claim that she wouldn't know if, say, a random military report should be classified, as it doesn't fall within her direct knowledge, she damn well should recognize when diplomatic assessments and such should be classified, as that falls directly within her duties.

**Jerram**

You left out the most important one, writing a classified email on an unclassified system and not properly marking it ie originating the spillage.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/breaking-hillary-intentionally-originated-and-distributed-highly-classified-information/

Both points he uses to arrive at his conclusion are available pieces of info (policy and the redacted emails) which is why while yahoo and reuters and the guardian may have tried to spin in when they referenced his article but none could say he was wrong.

(Edit: Fixed Typo)

**shasolenzabi**

Odd double post

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:

That second one is the big one. While she can reasonably claim that she wouldn't know if, say, a random military report should be classified, as it doesn't fall within her direct knowledge, she damn well should recognize when diplomatic assessments and such should be classified, as that falls directly within her duties.

I'm not trying to misrepresent you... but, my question stems from the "at birth" inquiry...

Again... according to Obama's EO in 2009, HRC and her staff should've known what to do.

Put it another way: It’s not sensitive because someone marked it... it’s sensitive because of what it is.

The real question is, those emails were supposedly marked from the sender - - who stripped the markings off in attempt to give cover to HRC and her staff?

Keep in mind that these sort of information are always "air-gapped", as the IC buzzwords goes.... meaning that, the conveyance of TS information is never accessible by public network/internets.

In other words... there is no way that any computer system should/could be connected to these types of data (ie, HRC's email server) and to the outside world. To do so is a major breach.

What hasn't been clarified is that someone had to have copied the information, onto a piece of paper or a transferable electronic media (ie, thumbdrive) and then copy it into an email in an uncontrolled system, which is how its likely got into HRC's email system. The person doing it had to know that it’s coming from a secure system, and has to know how sensitive the data really is. That's why the Intelligence Community got their hackles up on this...

It has to be done on purpose, and it has to be done knowingly. There has to have been conscious intent to do it. So, the questions naturally morphs into:
Who Dun It??

And to your point, HRC and her staff are trained to recognize this and should've reported the "spillage".

So, to recap:
-HRC went out of her way to conduct State's business on unsecured email system
-HRC own emails were TS from birth by virtue of Obama's EO
-Those emails were very LIKELY to have been marked appropriately anyways (sat image from NGA)... so, who removed the classification markings (a felony by itself)
-Rather than to turn over the server, HRC staff deleted about 30k messages and [u]went out of their way to print out[/u] the remaining 30k as they deemed as "states business". Electronic email metadata is lost by doing so.
-The State's admin who setup her email server is pleading the 5th in future congressional hearings

But, everyone is acting like:

So, any attempt to spin this as some sort of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against the Clintons is going to meet my massive eye rollings...

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
-HRC own emails were TS from birth by virtue of Obama's EO

Is that something you know because you read the EO and can point to the sections which specify as much, or is it a talking point you're repeating? Because from a very quick perusal of the EO you cited I'm not seeing any indication that Hillary's emails would necessarily be classified at all, let alone classified Top Secret.

whembly wrote:

So, any attempt to spin this as some sort of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against the Clintons is going to meet my massive eye rollings...

Who is trying to do that? Certainly no one in this thread.

**Jerram**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:
-HRC own emails were TS from birth by virtue of Obama's EO

Is that something you know because you read the EO and can point to the sections which specify as much, or is it a talking point you're repeating? Because from a very quick perusal of the EO you cited I'm not seeing any indication that Hillary's emails would necessarily be classified at all, let alone classified Top Secret.

Based on the redacted emails, the professionals disagree with you. Specifically 1.4 B and 1.4 D in the handful of redacted emails I've seen. In order to have an informed opinion as to whether the professionals are correct you would need to have seen the unredacted versions, surely you're not claiming you've done that are you ?

**BrotherGecko**

Not to break from the HRC discussion but did anyone see this?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/politics/donald-trump-likens-his-schooling-to-military-service-in-book.html?referrer=

And thought this?

http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/10/halfway-heroes-near-veterans-seek-recognition-for-almost-serving-in-military/

**d-usa**

Trump was never captured, so he has that going for him.

**whembly**

Heh... another Trump gaff...

*shrugs*

Not going to hurt him though.

**Grey Templar**

Please tell me Duffleblog is similar to the Onion

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Trump was never captured, so he has that going for him.

This makes his hair the most heroic hair ever.

**BrotherGecko**

Grey Templar wrote:
Please tell me Duffleblog is similar to the Onion

Thankfully yes it is.

**whembly**

Heh... would this work?

Spoiler:

**Grey Templar**

Yes, all of my yes

**BrotherGecko**

Hahaha, it gives the slightest impression of, "get off my lawn."

**whembly**

Oh my... what a trainwreck:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-for-e-mail-system-i-take-responsibility/

Hillary Clinton apologizes for e-mail system: ‘I take responsibility’

A day after again declining to apologize for her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton told an interviewer Tuesday that the arrangement was a mistake and that she is "sorry" for it.

"That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC News.

The statement was the furthest Clinton has gone in showing remorse for the arrangement, which mingled her work and personal communications and kept them outside the regular State Department e-mail system. The FBI is investigating whether the system, maintained on a privately owned computer server at Clinton's New York home, jeopardized classified information.

In interviews Friday with NBC and Monday with the Associated Press, Clinton had declined to apologize, even as she said the arrangement was a poor choice that she regrets. She told NBC interviewer Andrea Mitchell that she is sorry the issue is confusing for people, but insisted that she had done nothing wrong.

She would not apologize, she told the AP, because “what I did was allowed.”

Republican critics had begun to use the question of an apology against her, undermining the campaign's plan to address the complex e-mail issue more directly and with greater humility. Questions about the private system have contributed to Clinton's slide in the polls, with more people saying they do not trust her.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month found that 53 percent of Americans now see Clinton unfavorably. That rating rose by 8 percentage points since earlier in the summer, tipping the balance to a majority of Americans now seeing her in an unfavorable light.

Clinton turned over copies of roughly 30,000 e-mails at the State Department's request late last year, nearly two years after she left office. At the same time she directed that a slightly larger number of e-mails stored on the server be destroyed because she deemed them personal and not part of her government business. Initially she refused to turn over the server, but did so in August.

Clinton told ABC that she did not send or receive classified material on the account and said she is “trying to be as transparent as I possibly can.”

Portions of the ABC interview were set to air on the Tuesday evening newscast, and later on Nightline.

Great Hill... what's your orange jumpsuit size?

**Grey Templar**

I know. This is pure gold for the investigators.

**Dreadclaw69**

What is the full quote? I ask because I find it hard to believe that a politician of her level of experience would make such an utterly unqualified comment like that.

**whembly**

/tinfoil hat on...

I think the Clinton camp is hearing some damning news from the FBI's investigation and is desperately trying to leverage a means to skate on this issue...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What is the full quote? I ask because I find it hard to believe that a politician of her level of experience would make such an utterly unqualified comment like that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-mistake-im/story?id=33608970

Full quote... I think:

Clinton said... wrote:“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” the democratic presidential candidate told Muir in an exclusive interview in New York City. "What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

Still really, really bad...

**Grey Templar**

Especially since its clear much of what happened was definitely NOT allowed.

**whembly**

To the "yeah but, other Secretary of State did this too!" crowd...

Colin Powell: I used two computers at State

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he used two computers while leading the department, one for transmitting sensitive material and another for emailing “housekeeping stuff.”

“I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department,” Powell explained on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“But it was mostly housekeeping stuff -- what’s the status of this paper, what’s going on here.”

Powell, a Republican who served in the George W. Bush administration, has spoken before about his two computers, and said he wrote an entire chapter about it in his book.

But questions about Powell’s private email setup came as another former secretary of State, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, has struggled to answer questions about why she used a private email account while conducting official business.

Powell wouldn’t say whether it was inappropriate for Clinton to be sending work emails -- some of which were later determined to contain classified information -- from a private account. He noted that the State inspector general and FBI are looking into the matter, and that Clinton and her top aides are testifying before Congress.

“It’s best for me to talk about what I know and not what occurred under Secretary Clinton’s jurisdiction,” Powell said.

You see? It's not that hard to do this...

And that last 2 sentence... this man should be running for President. What he said is pretty damning to HRC... and yet, he's letting the process play itself out without jumping into the pot.

**Grey Templar**

I'm kinda surprised there isn't a permanent computer network for each of the various cabinet positions.

Seems like with each change it should be "Here's the password for the official X-position business computer and affiliated network"