Politics - USA

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.

**whembly**

I know I'm just as guilty of this, but could we direct the 2nd amendment debate to that existing thread?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/693437.page

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
Asterios wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Asterios wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.

maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.

They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.

problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.

If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people wanted it repealed and they voted for politicians willing to repeal it. It wouldn't be the end of the country any more than repealing slavery was.

The only people who will refuse to obey it are people who love their guns more than the constitution.

as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.

There really has only been one case that settled the "punctuation" question, and the number of rulings doesn't always serve as an indication for future rulings. Segregation was ruled constitutional many times, until it wasn't. Bans on interracial marriage were ruled legal, until it wasn't. Gun rulings have gone back and forth. The SCOTUS is always free to change their mind, and whatever their ruling is it will be constitutional since that is how rulings work.

It isn't easy to get established legal precedents overturned and historically SCOTUS has been hesitant to do it. It also becomes more difficult as time passes and more cases in the lower courts are decided based upon the precedent. The more cases that are decided based on rulings like Heller and McDonald the harder it will be to overturn those rulings because doing so would have a large ripple effect on those other cases and SCOTUS doesn't want to take responsibility for that kind of chaos in no small part because it generates a need for more SCOTUS rulings and their docket is limited.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:

Again...that is incorrect.

By LEGAL STATUTE... 'militia' is indistinguishable to 'the people'.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

!

Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:

Again...that is incorrect.

By LEGAL STATUTE... 'militia' is indistinguishable to 'the people'.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

!

Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.

See secton (b)(2).

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:

Again...that is incorrect.

By LEGAL STATUTE... 'militia' is indistinguishable to 'the people'.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

!

Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.

See secton (b)(2).

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Did you miss most of (A)?
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

So, guys under 17, over 45, (or not able-bodied) as well as all women not in the National Guard, are not in the militia. Definitely not "the people" but only a small part of the "the people".

Edit: So, (A) defined the militia, while (B) merely divides those who meet that definition into two classes.

Edit Edit: Eh, also off-topic at this point, so I'm moving on. As I said, I agree with your point, I just think you could have used better words.

**Asterios**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:

Again...that is incorrect.

By LEGAL STATUTE... 'militia' is indistinguishable to 'the people'.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

!

Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.

See secton (b)(2).

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Did you miss most of (A)?
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

but he is referring to the unorganized militia which while a militia it is not organized in other senses, but i could be wrong.

**d-usa**

Asterios wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Asterios wrote:

Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them

Have you tried reading the thing, or studied any of the history of the thing?

There are quite a number of things that are only in the constitution strictly because of slavery.

ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?

The Connecticut Compromise: bicameral legislature with one chamber based on population and one based on equality between states.

The Three-Fifths Compromise: how slaves are to be counted for purposes of representation in the House and electoral votes.

Article 1, Section 9: prohibiting any attempts to ban slavery until 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause: Free states had to return fugitive slaves to their owners.

I'm shedding a tear for whatever educational system failed you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

It isn't easy to get established legal precedents overturned and historically SCOTUS has been hesitant to do it. It also becomes more difficult as time passes and more cases in the lower courts are decided based upon the precedent. The more cases that are decided based on rulings like Heller and McDonald the harder it will be to overturn those rulings because doing so would have a large ripple effect on those other cases and SCOTUS doesn't want to take responsibility for that kind of chaos in no small part because it generates a need for more SCOTUS rulings and their docket is limited.

I agree with that. The current ruling from the 9th probably has the highest potential for making any significant impact at a national level, but even then it's still a high uncertainty that SCOTUS would do anything with it.

**Asterios**

d-usa wrote:
Asterios wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Asterios wrote:

Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them

Have you tried reading the thing, or studied any of the history of the thing?

There are quite a number of things that are only in the constitution strictly because of slavery.

ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?

The Connecticut Compromise: bicameral legislature with one chamber based on population and one based on equality between states.

The Three-Fifths Compromise: how slaves are to be counted for purposes of representation in the House and electoral votes.

Article 1, Section 9: prohibiting any attempts to ban slavery until 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause: Free states had to return fugitive slaves to their owners.

I'm shedding a tear for whatever educational system failed you.

and what Constitutional Amendment are those?

No. Subject Date submitted for Ratification[4] Date ratification completed[4] Ratification time span[5]
1st Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
2nd Protects the right to keep and bear arms. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
3rd Places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, prohibiting it during peacetime. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
9th Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
10th Reinforces the principle of federalism by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people through the Constitution. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
11th Makes states immune from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders; lays the foundation for sovereign immunity. March 4, 1794 February 7, 1795 11 months
3 days
12th Revises presidential election procedures. December 9, 1803 June 15, 1804 6 months
6 days
13th Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. January 31, 1865 December 6, 1865 10 months
6 days

**d-usa**

Asterios wrote:

and what Constitutional Amendment are those?

Have we reached the part of the discussion where you simply change the argument to suit your needs?

Asterios wrote:

Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them

Asterios wrote:

ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?

**Asterios**

d-usa wrote:
Asterios wrote:

and what Constitutional Amendment are those?

Have we reached the part of the discussion where you simply change the argument to suit your needs?

Asterios wrote:

Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them

Asterios wrote:

ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?

well lets see our discussion has been about the constitutional Amendments and this:

Asterios wrote:

ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?

and you have yet to show what Constitutional Amendments and/or laws (same thing) you do know what the Constitution is right? consists of preamble, 7 Articles, Bill of rights, and 27 amendments?

or at least that is what Cornell says is the Constitution:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

me thinks you are confusing US laws with the Constitution.

**d-usa**

So the answer is yes, we have reached the point of the discussion where you simply change the argument to suit your needs.

That's what, twice today? First the Democratic Party betraying Clinton and now slavery not being in the constitution?

I wonder if we will manage to get a hat trick today.

Edit: just in case anybody else is confused.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3

Are the three parts of the constitution that explicitly deal with slavery, and the bicameral legislature established by Section 1 is the result of the compromise regarding the form of representation in the legislature due to the influence slaves had on the population of certain states.

All to the contrary to the argument that slaves were not part of the constitution and that no laws were written because of them.

**Asterios**

d-usa wrote:
So the answer is yes, we have reached the point of the discussion where you simply change the argument to suit your needs.

That's what, twice today? First the Democratic Party betraying Clinton and now slavery not being in the constitution?

I wonder if we will manage to get a hat trick today.

and you have yet to show where Slavery is permitted in the Constitution. you have shown US laws and such, but not Constitutional laws and/or Amendments, it sounds like you are trying to back pedal out of an argument you know you are wrong on.

**motyak**

Just drop this topic. Whether it was or wasn't in the constitution is no longer relevant to this thread, and won't be after another 2 pages of arguing either. Thanks

**d-usa**

Noticed the red text after the edit, I'll drop it.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Three fallacies in one rebuttal! This could be a new record for the OT Forum.

Hardly. The e-mail thing is a big deal. If I were to do what she did, I'd be in jail - or, if not, only because a judge had decided not to put me there.

Democrats and their allies were out for blood when Republicans "mishandled" classified information, but have withdrawn into mocking indifference once it's their guy doing it. Some, I suppose, could charitably just be said to have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, due to being in jobs where they never handle classified information, or not having bothered to look up the rules for those who do.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Lawd Trump is something else:
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10157164117925725

He revoked Washington Post's press credential. (evidently Politico's as well)

One of their opinion writers had a response that was pretty good:

How to Cover Donald Trump Fairly: A Style Guide

The Pillars of Covering Trump:

1. Donald Trump is never wrong.

Donald Trump is infallible — like the pope but with more raw sexual charisma. If Donald Trump appears to be wrong in a story, either because of a statement or an action, or some combination of the two, it should be rewritten so that he is not wrong. A good baseline for what is fair and honest coverage is that fair and honest coverage depicts Donald Trump as the shining, golden god he is, envied of men and beloved of women. Unfair, dishonest coverage does not depict Donald Trump this way.

2. Style is as important as substance. A good post about Donald Trump includes at least one of the following words: “huge,” “great,” “manly,” “terrific,” “incredible,” “fantastic,” “remarkable,” “big”/”bigly,” “immense,” “girthy,” “magisterial,” “gargantuan,” “tumescent.” Ideally, this word would be in the headline. A bad post about Donald Trump includes the words or phrases “puny,” “dangerous,” “Godwin’s law,” “cocktail shrimp in a toupee,” “husk of dead skin and hyperbole,” “garbage fart,” “what results if you accidentally leave Guy Fieri in a microwave.”

3. Does Donald Trump contradict himself? Very well; he contradicts himself. Donald Trump is large. Donald Trump contains multitudes.

4. Who among us has not been in the position where what he means to say is something wise and temperate and what actually comes out of his mouth is a garbage fart? Equipped with this knowledge, it is often best to take into account what Donald Trump should have said and to report that instead of what he actually did say. (The great historian Thucydides used to do this, which is why Pericles’s Funeral Oration is so lovely.)

5. Remember the transitive property of Trump: Whenever Donald Trump loves something, it loves him back. Donald Trump loves women. Therefore, women love Donald Trump. Donald Trump loves Hispanics. Therefore, Hispanics love Donald Trump. Any polls that obscure these truths should be disregarded.

6. Donald Trump’s hair is real. Well, no. “Real” is putting it too mildly. Donald Trump’s hair is a fact that transcends reality or unreality, not to be questioned, merely to be admired, like the triune nature of God or the singular beauty and excellence of a Donald Trump building.

7. Two words: LARGE HANDS.

8. Facts are often biased against Donald Trump and should be used sparingly in reporting, if at all. Think of them as a garnish, not an entree.

9. Donald Trump’s word suffices. Fact-checking is at best gauche and at worst treasonous. What is fact? Donald Trump speaks truth, which is bigger than fact. Donald Trump loves you. You love Donald Trump.

10. Donald Trump believes that criticism is healthy. As Noel Coward put it, Donald Trump can take any amount of criticism, so long as it is unqualified praise.

Some Frequently Asked Questions on Fair Trump Coverage

Q: Can I just print a transcript of what Donald Trump actually said?
A: No. This is very mean and bad. What Donald Trump actually says is, of course, uniformly good and correct. But sometimes if you just write it out and give it to people to see, they will not think so. Therefore, this is to be avoided.

Q: What is a fair question?
A: An example of a fair question is “Donald Trump, why are you so good at business?” An example of an unfair or gotcha question is “Why did Lincoln succeed?”

Q: Can I describe what someone did at a Donald Trump rally?
A: Yes, if that someone is Donald Trump and what that someone did was “be awesome without interruption.”

Q: What if Donald Trump didn’t answer my question?
A: Not true. Donald Trump has given you the answer. Your question was not correct. This isn’t hard, just think of it like “Jeopardy!”

Q: In the statement issued by the Donald Trump campaign stating that it will stop credentialing Post reporters, the campaign said, “Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest.” What is a bad story that is honest that Mr. Trump would not mind?
A: A story about Hillary Clinton.

I gave the Obama administration gak for not engaging Fox News...

No one should engage Fox News. Put the remote down and slowly back away from the television.

So, Trump needs to quite whining and toughen up.

HRC only does interviews once a blue moon, so she's not much better in this regard.

It's not a certified Whembly post if there isn't a dig against Clinton in it!

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Three fallacies in one rebuttal! This could be a new record for the OT Forum.

Hardly. The e-mail thing is a big deal. If I were to do what she did, I'd be in jail - or, if not, only because a judge had decided not to put me there.

Democrats and their allies were out for blood when Republicans "mishandled" classified information, but have withdrawn into mocking indifference once it's their guy doing it. Some, I suppose, could charitably just be said to have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, due to being in jobs where they never handle classified information, or not having bothered to look up the rules for those who do.

There is a clear party allegiance divide about the email investigation. Being a non-US, non-Democrat with admitted lefty leanings, I will try to give an idea of why Democrats are not so concerned about it as Republicans.

The simplest explanation is “The boy who cried wolf.”

Republicans have for over 25 years been bringing accusations of scandals against the Clintons. The only bit that has stuck was that Bill Clinton was found to have got a blow job off Monica Lewinsky and lied to conceal it. This to Republicans may be the crime of the century, but a lot of people see it as a natural, understandable concern for personal privacy in the face of politically motivated intrusion. At worst, a bit sleazy, but being realistic how often have powerful men in history got a blow job off a sexy woman?

To go further, though, several of the more recent “scandals” have turned out to be complete nonsense. Benghazi fell apart when it turned out the main “prosecution witness” had been lying about it. That didn’t stop Republicans from going on about it for months more, until they got hold of the email affair.

The Rape Trial and Clinton University accusations both turned out quickly to be skimpy fabrications.

The history therefore can be seen to paint the Clintons as the victims of a long-standing political campaign of muck-raking and lies. This is not a convincing introduction to the latest “scandal”.

Republicans may well say that all the above simply demonstrates the Clinton's uncanny ability to sideslip away from real scandals, dodge dirt and shut down embarrassing enquiries by their machievellian power network of sleaze and corruption.

Or maybe it's because there really isn't anything substantive to find out.

Now we see a similar pattern of creeping accusation, factoid releases and no substantial action. Why that's happening I don't know. It could be that the FBI don't want to go into the next administration having made an enemy of the president either by finding them guilty of email fraud or by not finding their opponent guilty of email fraud. It could be that the charges against Clinton are trivial and technical.

At any rate, there doesn't seem to be a clear, open and shut case.

Seaward wrote:

Democrats and their allies were out for blood when Republicans "mishandled" classified information, but have withdrawn into mocking indifference once it's their guy doing it. Some, I suppose, could charitably just be said to have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, due to being in jobs where they never handle classified information, or not having bothered to look up the rules for those who do.

I've never heard of any of these Republican scandals, and they don't come up in the first three pages of Google on the topic. Do you have some links that I could follow up?

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There is a clear party allegiance divide about the email investigation.

No kidding.

Republicans have for over 25 years been bringing accusations of scandals against the Clintons. The only bit that has stuck was that Bill Clinton was found to have got a blow job off Monica Lewinsky and lied to conceal it.

You left out "under oath." Perjury, in other words.

This to Republicans may be the crime of the century, but a lot of people see it as a natural, understandable concern for personal privacy in the face of politically motivated intrusion. At worst, a bit sleazy, but being realistic how often have powerful men in history got a blow job off a sexy woman?

I have no problem with Clinton lying about it, or having done it in the first place, and I don't like the people who do. Once it becomes an issue of testifying under oath, though, that's where things change.

Or maybe it's because there really isn't anything substantive to find out.

What everyone seems to forget when using the "boy who cried wolf" analogy is that there eventually was a wolf.

It could be that the FBI don't want to go into the next administration having made an enemy of the president either by finding them guilty of email fraud or by not finding their opponent guilty of email fraud.

It could be, but if so, that's an even bigger issue.

It could be that the charges against Clinton are trivial and technical.

Trivial is one thing; technically breaking the law, though? That's...breaking the law.

I've never heard of any of these Republican scandals, and they don't come up in the first three pages of Google on the topic. Do you have some links that I could follow up?

Of course you have. Scooter Libby's the biggest and best example from the Bush years, and it's the most analogous, since it also involves deliberate, knowing evasion of confidentiality rules. I'll grant that there have been more under Obama, though I'll leave it up to you to decide if Democratic administrations just have a more careless approach to SCI.

**Kilkrazy**

Technically you break the law by driving at 71 mph in a 70 mph zone. This clearly is not the same as getting drunk, evading police in a 100 mph chase and crashing into a bus queue where you injure or kill 17 people.

I am aware that there have been more prosecutions for security breaches in the past eight years than under a previous administration. This of course may have something to do with the wider use of digital communications and the huge increase in security laws since 2001. It might also indicate that the current administration takes greater care with security and is more determined to enforce it.

I shall now go and look up the Scooter Libby affair, which I was previously ignorant about.

**Peregrine**

Seaward wrote:
You left out "under oath." Perjury, in other words.

Sure. But it was perjury about an "investigation" that was nothing more than a blatant attempt to take down a political opponent, asking questions that nobody had any business expecting answers to. Is it a crime? Yes. Should anyone really care? No.

Trivial is one thing; technically breaking the law, though? That's...breaking the law.

Yes, it's still breaking the law. But considering different levels of "breaking the law" is something we do all the time. We offer plea bargains, decline to charge people, etc.

Scooter Libby's the biggest and best example from the Bush years, and it's the most analogous, since it also involves deliberate, knowing evasion of confidentiality rules.

Except it isn't analogous at all. Libby leaked information about a political opponent for his party's gain, and was then prosecuted for lying about it (not for the original leak). There's no similar situation with Clinton. The rules for handling classified information were broken, but there's no credible argument that it was done for any malicious or selfish reasons. Nor is she being charged with obstruction of justice over it. One is an issue with corruption, the other is a reminder of why computer security decisions should be left to the experts.

**Seaward**

Peregrine wrote:
Sure. But it was perjury about an "investigation" that was nothing more than a blatant attempt to take down a political opponent, asking questions that nobody had any business expecting answers to. Is it a crime? Yes. Should anyone really care? No.

I disagree. We certainly should care. Perjury is perjury. The investigation that led to it may have been bs, but there's no exception to truthful testimony for that.

Yes, it's still breaking the law. But considering different levels of "breaking the law" is something we do all the time. We offer plea bargains, decline to charge people, etc.

That's certainly true. Treating knowingly failing to secure classified information the same as you would speeding is myopic, though.

Except it isn't analogous at all.

It's analogous in that there was a deliberate disregard for SCI in both cases.

You're correct that Libby went down for obstruction charges rather than that, though. I suppose it's also analogous in that both committed crimes for which they weren't prosecuted.

And of course it's analogous in the sense that Democrats lost their minds over Libby's deliberate mishandling of classified information while scoffing over Clinton's, and Republicans did the opposite.

**Goliath**

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure if I'm getting this right, but are you arguing that improperly storing classified information is the same thing as deliberately leaking it? Because that's what it's reading as from here.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Slightly OT.

I used to think that American presidential elections were a goldmine of entertainment and comedy, and with Trump's toupee on centre stage, they still are to a certain extent.

But you guys have nothing compared to our EU referendum

Rival fleets* are clashing on the Thames (river that runs through London's heart) as the IN and OUT campaigns fight for the future of Great Britain

The last time we had fleets clashing on the Thames was the 1680s when the Dutch sailed up and sunk the Royal Navy.

Bottom line: the American presidential campaign needs to up its game

* fishing boats, dinghies, and anything that floats

**Seaward**

Goliath wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure if I'm getting this right, but are you arguing that improperly storing classified information is the same thing as deliberately leaking it? Because that's what it's reading as from here.

Then you're not aware that both disseminated SCI they didn't have clearance to disseminate in ways that are illegal to do so.

**Kilkrazy**

That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31806907

The BBC wrote:Was this against the law?

Probably not. Mrs Clinton's email system existed in a grey area of the law - and one that has been changed several times since she left office.
...
The State Department inspector general report, released in May 2016, found that Mrs Clinton's email system violated government policy and that she did not receive permission prior to instituting it - approval that would not have been granted had she asked. Such transgressions, however, do not constitute criminal conduct.
...
A separate FBI investigation, however, is looking into whether her handling of information later deemed classified was illegal. Its report will be provided to the Justice Department, which would then determine whether to file charges. The Washington Post has reported that government officials have found little evidence that Mrs Clinton has "maliciously flouted classification rules".

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.

If she did what she's reported to have done, then yes, it has been. You can't just strip classification headers when it's convenient to do so.

**Gordon Shumway**

Seaward wrote:
Goliath wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure if I'm getting this right, but are you arguing that improperly storing classified information is the same thing as deliberately leaking it? Because that's what it's reading as from here.

Then you're not aware that both disseminated SCI they didn't have clearance to disseminate in ways that are illegal to do so.

Then you aren't aware that Richard Armitage was actually was the source of the leak, not Scooter, which he was never tried for.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.

If she did what she's reported to have done, then yes, it has been. You can't just strip classification headers when it's convenient to do so.

Where is it reported she stripped classification headers? I hadn't seen that. Also, if the classified information originated in the state Dept., she can strip the classification.

**skyth**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.

If she did what she's reported to have done, then yes, it has been. You can't just strip classification headers when it's convenient to do so.

So you totally ignore the motives between the two things just to get your dings in...

So the question is asked again...

Libby leaked information about a political opponent for his party's gain, and was then prosecuted for lying about it (not for the original leak). There's no similar situation with Clinton. The rules for handling classified information were broken, but there's no credible argument that it was done for any malicious or selfish reasons

So these two things are actually the same?

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.

If she did what she's reported to have done, then yes, it has been. You can't just strip classification headers when it's convenient to do so.

Where is it reported she stripped classification headers? I hadn't seen that. Also, if the classified information originated in the state Dept., she can strip the classification.

Because the secured fax wasn't working, she emailed her staff to remove the markings and fax it via non-secured. That's what Seaward was referring to...

And no, many of the emails in question originated outside of her department.

Folks who works with SCI/TS stuff... Hillary's handling is seriously stuff of nightmares and the FBI/Intelligence communities don't feth around with this. What we *should* be asking is this: Do we want to have two sets of laws? One for the connected and one for joe-schmoe? If yes, then HRC and staff easily skates.

If no: Then you're watching the FBI recommending an indictment of not just HRC... but her staff as well.

**Gordon Shumway**

That's why I qualified the emails originating from State, Whembly.

I like how you talk out of two sides of your mouth with this. On the one hand, the FBI don't feth around with this. On the other, we might have two sets of laws for those in power and those who aren't. It seems like you are setting yourself up to be correct no matter what the FBI determines to state that you were right.

Answer me this, if the FBI does not recommend indictment at the end of the day, will you drop all discussion of this email business because "they don't feth around"?