US Politics

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
I see, so it's only a felony because hillary did it.

No. Other people are in jail now for doing a fraction of what Clinton and her staff has done.

I have a hard time seeing the felony here when it appears to be a common practice and legal.

It does happen... but that doesn't mean it's legal. Just ask Gen. Patreous or the seaman snapping a photo on a submarine.

Patreous intentionally passed confidential information to a third party, didn't he? That is not comparable to what Hillary was doing as she made no attempts to deliberately hand confidential information to a third party.

The sailor also knowingly took photographs of classified areas of the submarine with the intention of showing them to his family at a later date. So he, again, had the intention of sharing classified information with a third party and had no authorisation to possess photos of the reactor at all.

**sirlynchmob**

Spinner wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

are you talking about the emails or benghazi?

Benghazi turned up nothing against hillary or we'd never hear the end of it.

Benghazi turned up nothing against hillary or we'd never hear the end of it.

or we'd never hear the end of it.

never hear the end of it

Please...please don't make that the metric for Benghazi investigations turning up something...

you're right, it turned up 7 congressional hearing reports all showing hilary did nothing wrong.

For the sailor, he's held to different standards because he volunteered and swore to follow the UCMJ. Violating the UCMJ can be a fellony depending on the article and correct me if I'm wrong, but hillary is not bound by the UCMJ as she's not in the military. so that's really an apples to oranges comparison.

Also, Kristian the sailor man pleaded guilty. He never learned the golden rule while in the navy. Deny everything, blame the other guy.

**jasper76**

The Arizona Republic has endorsed Clinton; this is the first time it has ever endorsed a Democrat since they started printing in 1890.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668

**BigWaaagh**

Another big GOP cross-over endorsement for HRC.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%e2%80%98national-security-for-dummies%e2%80%99-is-no-way-to-learn-the-presidency-john-warner-says-as-he-endorses-clinton/ar-BBwJsv1?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Didn't Petraeus knowingly give his mistress stuff she shouldn't have had, and haven't this been explained to you multiple times before whembly?

And I've explained that statute in question doesn't require intent. Only question is: Is this Classified Information 'properly handled'.

If the answer to that is 'no', then guess what, you broke the law.

By virtue of having all those classified information on her own homebrew email server at her resident most definitely, unambiguously broke the 18 U.S. Code § 793 statute. It also violates 18 USC §1924 as Hillary and her staff "knowingly removes documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location..." Meaning... SOMEONE had to extract the information from a secured SIPRnet workstation and manually transcribe/send this information Clinton's unclassified email server.

And the cleanup most assuredly violated 18 USC §2071 states that at anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined...".

The point is, we're highlighting the dichotomy between the rich and powerful to Joe/Janes with respect to the rule of law.

The Clinton's are very good at evading legal responsibility.

**Kilkrazy**

No, it's because I have looked at the results of the investigations.

**jasper76**

We're supposed to trust the results of whembley's own personal investigation of Clinton's email use over that of the FBI, if I remember correctly.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
No, it's because I have looked at the results of the investigations.

Really... did you know that the FBI/DOJ handed out FIVE immunities during the course of their investigations?

And, that one of those recipients of said immunity, a bigley witness to the case mind you, was allowed to represent as Hillary's attorney during her sit down with the FBI?

That's unprecedented.

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:
No, it's because I have looked at the results of the investigations.

The investigations that led to the Director of the FBI holding a press conference to tell the world that the Democratic Party's candidate for President is careless and incompetent at handling classified information? That's a terrible blow to the integrity of a presidential candidate regardless of the whether or not she was criminally charged. When's the last time the Director of the FBI held a press conference to inform the public that a presidential candidate was terrible at doing an integral part of the job of being president?

**jasper76**

When was the last time that a former Director of the CIA warned the American public that a presidential candidate is an "unwitting agent of the Russian federation"?

This election cycle is full of all kinds of firsts!

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
When was the last time that a former Director of the CIA warned the American public that a presidential candidate is an "unwitting agent of the Russian federation"?

This election cycle is full of all kinds of firsts!

Well... in fairness, the former CIA director is a big Clinton honk and is a private citizen.

FBI Dir still holds his appointed seat over the department.

But yeah... both candidates suck.

**Kilkrazy**

In other words the investigations into the Clinton Foundation, the email server, Benghazi and anything else that might have been investigated, didn't find any substantive points, so now you have to confabulate some.

**Frazzled**

No many points found. After meeting with Clinton in a private meeting (a gross miscarriage of ethics and would get a normal prosecutor booted form the case) the head of the DOJ decided not to prosecute.

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:
In other words the investigations into the Clinton Foundation, the email server, Benghazi and anything else that might have been investigated, didn't find any substantive points, so now you have to confabulate some.

Who's confabulating? The fact that the FBI investigation could have gone worse for Hillary doesn't mean that it went well for her.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning-lines/

1. "Extremely careless"

"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."

2. "Should have known"

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

3. "Especially concerning"

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

4. "Still obligated to protect it"

"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

5. "Generally lacking"

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.

6. "Hostile actors"

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

7. "Sophisticated adversaries"

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
In other words the investigations into the Clinton Foundation, the email server, Benghazi and anything else that might have been investigated, didn't find any substantive points, so now you have to confabulate some.

There were substantive points in each of those.

I'm just trying to help you.

EDIT: and if you're going by that standard, then Trump is looking pretty. He's not charged with any felonies for all of his shenanigans.

**Kilkrazy**

You think they are substantive but the FBI, DoJ and DoS don't.

Now let's look at the many other investigations that ended up not out producing any substantive points.

**skyth**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
No, it's because I have looked at the results of the investigations.

The investigations that led to the Director of the FBI holding a press conference to tell the world that the Democratic Party's candidate for President is careless and incompetent at handling classified information? That's a terrible blow to the integrity of a presidential candidate regardless of the whether or not she was criminally charged. When's the last time the Director of the FBI held a press conference to inform the public that a presidential candidate was terrible at doing an integral part of the job of being president?

Funny...I don't recall IT ever being an inregral part of the job of being president.

**whembly**

skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
No, it's because I have looked at the results of the investigations.

The investigations that led to the Director of the FBI holding a press conference to tell the world that the Democratic Party's candidate for President is careless and incompetent at handling classified information? That's a terrible blow to the integrity of a presidential candidate regardless of the whether or not she was criminally charged. When's the last time the Director of the FBI held a press conference to inform the public that a presidential candidate was terrible at doing an integral part of the job of being president?

Funny...I don't recall IT ever being an inregral part of the job of being president.

That has nothing to do with IT.

Zero.

Everything to do with following laws and proper procedures.

**Kilkrazy**

We have Trump's word for it that cyber is important.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
We have Trump's word for it that cyber is important.

Give me a break...

Just go ask anyone who has held secret clerance and ask them how big of a deal it is where there's a classified spillage.

To those individuals... this is stuff of nightmares.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You think they are substantive but the FBI, DoJ and DoS don't.

Now let's look at the many other investigations that ended up not out producing any substantive points.

No the DOJ refused to prosecute. Why they refused after meeting privately with Bill Clinton...who knows?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
No, it's because I have looked at the results of the investigations.

The investigations that led to the Director of the FBI holding a press conference to tell the world that the Democratic Party's candidate for President is careless and incompetent at handling classified information? That's a terrible blow to the integrity of a presidential candidate regardless of the whether or not she was criminally charged. When's the last time the Director of the FBI held a press conference to inform the public that a presidential candidate was terrible at doing an integral part of the job of being president?

Funny...I don't recall IT ever being an inregral part of the job of being president.

She took classes and signed off onthose classes regarding protecting security. She fired an ambassador for doing the same thing she did.

**Prestor Jon**

skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
No, it's because I have looked at the results of the investigations.

The investigations that led to the Director of the FBI holding a press conference to tell the world that the Democratic Party's candidate for President is careless and incompetent at handling classified information? That's a terrible blow to the integrity of a presidential candidate regardless of the whether or not she was criminally charged. When's the last time the Director of the FBI held a press conference to inform the public that a presidential candidate was terrible at doing an integral part of the job of being president?

Funny...I don't recall IT ever being an inregral part of the job of being president.

The handling of classified information is a daily part of being president so the safe and proper handling of classified material, something the FBI clearly labeled Hillary as being terrible at, is an integral part of being president.

**Vaktathi**

Lets be real, even if we accept that Hillary was guilty of violating the law, no justice department is going to indict the frontrunner candidate of a major political party that late in the game.

**Frazzled**

Vaktathi wrote:
Lets be real, even if we accept that Hillary was guilty of violating the law, no justice department is going to indict the frontrunner candidate of a major political party that late in the game.

NOW YOU GET IT>

**WrentheFaceless**

Wouldnt the GOP be licking their lips and chomping at the bit in anticipation to start impeachment proceedings day 1 into Presidency. I would think they would want her to win so they can get their tax payer funded Salem trial

**whembly**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wouldnt the GOP be licking their lips and chomping at the bit in anticipation to start impeachment proceedings day 1 into Presidency. I would think they would want her to win so they can get their tax payer funded Salem trial

Eh... she'll still be in office.

Remember, the House impeaches.

Then, the Senate removes... there's not enough votes in Senate to do that.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
. It also violates 18 USC §1924 as Hillary and her staff "knowingly removes documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location..." Meaning... SOMEONE had to extract the information from a secured SIPRnet workstation and manually transcribe/send this information Clinton's unclassified email server.

Oh, please, you didn't give a flying feth about that a year ago every time I tried to explain it to you. In fact, you continually dismissed that particular issue as a "red herring". So why do you suddenly miraculously care about it now?

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:
. It also violates 18 USC §1924 as Hillary and her staff "knowingly removes documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location..." Meaning... SOMEONE had to extract the information from a secured SIPRnet workstation and manually transcribe/send this information Clinton's unclassified email server.

Oh, please, you didn't give a flying feth about that a year ago every time I tried to explain it to you. In fact, you continually dismissed that particular issue as a "red herring". So why do you suddenly miraculously care about it now?

Explain what? All i could remember from our conversations that you worked on a different network. You don't work on SIPRnet workstations... right?

Edit: the "red herring" argument we got into was that they needed to be "marked" in order to be classifed... which is incorrect. One of the first lies the HRC sprouted in defense of her malfeasance.

Question for you:

1) Do you acknowledge that she had classified information on her server?

2) If you acknowledge #1, how did said classified information reach her server?

**Tannhauser42**

No. I flat out told you, multiple times, about the greater problem that the markings were being willfully removed or that there were failures to mark them to begin with. I NEVER said "they needed to be "marked" in order to be classifed." And you continually dismissed that concern because it didn't play into your narrative that everything is Hillary's fault, all day, every day.

**gorgon**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Another big GOP cross-over endorsement for HRC.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%e2%80%98national-security-for-dummies%e2%80%99-is-no-way-to-learn-the-presidency-john-warner-says-as-he-endorses-clinton/ar-BBwJsv1?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

In another election cycle, it'd matter. For this one, I think it's just more fodder for how Clinton is the candidate of the fancy pants Washington insiders.