The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: D.W. on October 10, 2016, 09:57:46 AM

Title: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 10, 2016, 09:57:46 AM
Missed snark opportunity:  Clinton could have handed him a tissue and asked about his health.

Double edged attack:  "You'd be in prison"
While it was a good zinger, it is easily riposted by pointing out that imprisoning political rivals once you have the power to do so is all too real a situation in many places around the world.  I'm all about enforcing the law but this kind of red meat for his base COULD backfire.  I doubt it though.

The pacing around the stage struck me as odd.  In character I guess, but something I'm not use to seeing from a candidate.  Outsider street cred though I guess?  :P

I hate to agree with Trump on anything but they did seem interrupt him more often. (or at least more forcefully)  In the moderators defense however, he was a lot more prone to talk without answering a question.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: ScottF on October 10, 2016, 11:07:06 AM
After watching last night I realized something. Listening to Hillary just makes me not want to vote for her. Listening to Trump speak makes me not want to vote for him or her simultaneously. I guess that means he won?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 10, 2016, 11:27:30 AM
For me Hillary the person is everything I hate about politicians.  Her platform at least is fairly tolerable if not welcome for me.  Mostly because she is a political whether vane and is predictable because of it.

Trump the person is just repellent.  His platform (when he bothers to give you broad strokes of his goals, not the path to achieve them) is... also repellent to me. 

So I guess IMO she won?  This election really is depressing stuff.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: ScottF on October 10, 2016, 11:35:34 AM
Very depressing. My son was asking me who I'd vote for (I'm Canadian/permanent resident so it's moot until I get citizenship). I told him while I believe it's everyone's duty to vote I just couldn't see myself voting for either. I told him about how a lot of poeple go the lesser of two evils route, and he'd need to make the same kinds of decisions one day. Just...yuck.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 10, 2016, 03:48:22 PM
It would be interesting if this election had the most people paying attention to it and engaged in it but the least number in recent times voting for either of the two main Presidential candidates.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Seriati on October 11, 2016, 04:17:54 PM
One thing of amusement for me, from this second debate.  The main stream media's hard sell on the idea that investigating Hillary is the sign of a banana republic dictator.  The actual sign of the banana republic is that Hillary didn't get indicted because of who she is, and the more details that come out on the limits on the FBI investigation, the immunity deals (that resulted in no testimony), the deliberate destruction of her subpeonad records, and the actual destruction even of materials that were provided to the FBI by the FBI the clearer that gets.  Appointing a special prosecutor is not evidence of a banana republic, bringing charges not supported by the law, or failing to bring those required under the law in a manner consistent with how you treat others is.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 11, 2016, 04:34:23 PM
Well IF he was able to win, he could certainly appoint people until he had a group willing to prosecute.  I don't see a conviction ever happening but it's his prerogative I suppose.  The whole problem is the assumption that we all know she's guilty.  Thus far she is either innocent (ya know, until proven guilty) or at least so good at CYA that they know it's pointless to try for a conviction. 

The whole precedent of "If I win my opponent will be in jail" is... well, tyrannical. 
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 11, 2016, 04:43:30 PM
Quote
Appointing a special prosecutor is not evidence of a banana republic, bringing charges not supported by the law, or failing to bring those required under the law in a manner consistent with how you treat others is.
But announcing that she will be put in jail is.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Seriati on October 11, 2016, 06:03:06 PM
Announcing she will be put in jail is just a conclusion based on the evidence in front of us.  Not a statement that he'd try to twist a court to convict without evidence.  That's pretty much the difference in what makes some thing a banana republic.

I disagree with D.W. on the implication that innocent until proven guilty is the same thing as her being innocent atm.  She did it, we know she did it, there's literally no doubt at all.  The only thing that is in doubt, is whether or not, she would be convicted under the law by a jury/court.  That's a legitimate question, our system is designed to fail to convict guilty people in many contexts.  However, this is a context where anyone not name Hillary Clinton has pretty much had the book thrown at them and actually been convicted, so I suspect she would not have faired well.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 11, 2016, 06:06:06 PM
Quote
Announcing she will be put in jail is just a conclusion based on the evidence in front of us.  Not a statement that he'd try to twist a court to convict without evidence.  That's pretty much the difference in what makes some thing a banana republic.
That's a remarkably blind comment.  Trump absolutely meant he will put her in jail and use a hand-picked special prosecutor to make it happen.  That he will "follow the rules" doesn't make his statement any less stark and frightening.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Wayward Son on October 11, 2016, 06:17:04 PM
Quote
However, this is a context where anyone not name Hillary Clinton has pretty much had the book thrown at them and actually been convicted, so I suspect she would not have faired well.

So you're saying that if someone like Colin Powel had used a private e-mail address instead of the government one, he unquestionably would have been thrown in jail?

Or if the Bush Administration had deleted 2 million e-mails, someone would have swung?

Seem kinda unlikely to me. :)
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 11, 2016, 08:23:11 PM
Quote
She did it, we know she did it, there's literally no doubt at all. 

I can absolutely refute that. Unless you redefine "we" to refer only to those who go in assuming guilt just because.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: rightleft22 on October 12, 2016, 11:14:06 AM
I do not understand this "email" scandal.

Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: DonaldD on October 12, 2016, 11:52:30 AM
rightleft22 - that's why it's such a great scandal. Nobody who wants to throw Clinton in jail over it understands it either.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2016, 11:59:56 AM
I heard a hilarious news blurb on the radio on the way in.  At least I thought it was.

"The leaked emails of Clinton staffer talking about cauterizing the story about emails so it blows over quickly. - it did not."

Paraphrasing but the "it did not" at the end, delivered totally dead pan as if nobody knew anything about the story, bout had me busting a gut.   ;D
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: DonaldD on October 12, 2016, 12:10:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Seriati:
Announcing she will be put in jail is just a conclusion based on the evidence in front of us.  Not a statement that he'd try to twist a court to convict without evidence.  That's pretty much the difference in what makes some thing a banana republic.
Granted, Donald Trump is not the President yet, but would it be acceptable for a President of the USA to make the statement "you would be in jail"?  That is basically the head of the government making a factual statement about the guilt or innocence of a person who might go in front of the courts.  If not OK, would it be OK for a prospective president to make the same factual statement?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 12:24:03 PM
Seriati, based on what we know of Trump's history and conjectures about possible crimes, would it be acceptable for Obama to campaign on Hillary's behalf with a message that there are reasons to believe that Trump might be guilty of crimes that would lead to his impeachment if he were elected?  He could then temper the remark by saying that we won't know about the outcome of those investigations into the extent of his crimes involving rape, fraud, illegal hiring practices, illegal operation of a charity and other things until after the election, hinting that the mess could be avoided.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2016, 12:53:50 PM
Granted, Donald Trump is not the President yet, but would it be acceptable for a President of the USA to make the statement "you would be in jail"?  That is basically the head of the government making a factual statement about the guilt or innocence of a person who might go in front of the courts.  If not OK, would it be OK for a prospective president to make the same factual statement?

So it was wrong for Bernie and Hillary to make claims about sending Wall Street fat cats to jail?  Or was it okay because they didn't name names?  That's without even getting into everyone on the left who similarly called for jailing Cheney and/or Bush.  So which is it?

I reject that a reasonable interpretation of his comment is that he was calling for a subversion of justice.  He specifically said he was calling for a special prosecutor.  It happens to be my opinion that a legitimate prosecution on these facts is likely to be successful, look at any set of prosecuted cases in this area and you'll be hard pressed not to find convictions on softer sets of facts.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 12:59:56 PM
Quote
So it was wrong for Bernie and Hillary to make claims about sending Wall Street fat cats to jail?  Or was it okay because they didn't name names?
If they committed crimes, certainly.  Can you provide the quote where she said that with context?  Don't bother with Sanders, since he's not the candidate.  If you got it from one of the media outlets I mentioned, don't bother.

Quote
That's without even getting into everyone on the left who similarly called for jailing Cheney and/or Bush.  So which is it?
Quotes, context, please.  It's worth making the effort, so we'll know if you're remembering far left radicals or mainstream political figures.

Quote
I reject that a reasonable interpretation of his comment is that he was calling for a subversion of justice.  He specifically said he was calling for a special prosecutor.  It happens to be my opinion that a legitimate prosecution on these facts is likely to be successful, look at any set of prosecuted cases in this area and you'll be hard pressed not to find convictions on softer sets of facts.
"Because you'd be in jail" doesn't sound like a conditional statement, does it?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2016, 01:03:41 PM
Maybe this is a blind spot for us on the left.  The concept that the system is so corrupt that justice can somehow ONLY be achieved by someone like Trump is absurd.  Even if, like me, you believe she's in the wrong; if she's above the law right now, she sure as heck will still be above the law if Trump were to take office. 

I find it unbelievable (actually impossible to believe) that after all this effort to drag her down, that she and her allies have the juice to cover for her such that you only need to strip away that protection and "justice will be served".  Bull Poop.  If she hasn't gone down yet, it's because she outmaneuvered the system.  Sucks, I find it disgusting, but that's the way it goes.  Until/unless we value principals over party loyalty...
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 01:04:57 PM
DW, that's *if* she committed a crime.  Comey categorically says that she did not.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2016, 01:07:18 PM
I don't believe she committed a crime.  I think she intentionally found away around it.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: DonaldD on October 12, 2016, 02:02:31 PM
I also await the direct quotes, Seriati - but in the meantime, could you answer the question?  Is it OK for the president to declare, prior to trial, the guilt of a person?  I will note that even minor legislators refrain from such statements in order not to be perceived as trying to pervert the course of justice.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2016, 03:04:11 PM
DW, that's *if* she committed a crime.  Comey categorically says that she did not.

Can you provide that quote.  Would love to see it.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2016, 03:17:44 PM
DW, that's *if* she committed a crime.  Comey categorically says that she did not.

He categorically *did not* say that. He said that no reasonable person in his position would move to prosecute. That can be taken any number of ways, and shouldn't be taken to mean any more than it literally means. It doesn't mean she's guilty and he's covering up, and it also doesn't mean she's 'innocent'. It more likely means that prosecuting would go nowhere, and even then it might not quite mean that either.

He stated clearly that she was extremely careless, which according to the letter of the law is a crime when dealing with classified information, notwithstand Lynch's blatant contempt of the Congress when directly asked about this. Lower ranking people have gone down for FAR less (like showing one person one document), however even then we cannot state with certainty that means Hillary is *guilty* on this.

This is me trying to be fair about the issue. But conclusions like Al's jump the shark on sticking to the facts.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 04:36:38 PM
DW, that's *if* she committed a crime.  Comey categorically says that she did not.

Can you provide that quote.  Would love to see it.
Sure (http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-director-comey-says-there-is-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/):
Quote
    Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton break any laws related to classified data?

    Director Comey: We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information.
Now I'd like to see quotes for all the things you've said just today that you haven't backed up.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: DonaldD on October 12, 2016, 04:44:17 PM
Not having sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion is not the same as categorically claiming Clinton did not break the law.  I can't imagine anybody in law enforcement ever categorically ruling out that somebody broke a law.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 04:49:02 PM
In other words, that's as clean a bill of health as any investigator can give without someone else confessing to the crime.  In yet other words, she broke no laws.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: DonaldD on October 12, 2016, 04:58:05 PM
I kinda disagree - an investigator could go out and say there was absolutely no proof of wrongdoing brought to their attention, which would be far closer to giving a clean bill of health.  Comey could have come much closer than he actually did to categorically saying she didn't commit a crime.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: rightleft22 on October 12, 2016, 05:03:28 PM
Trying to understand
Donald Trump's threat to put Hillary Clinton "in jail" by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate her private email as the first act of his precedency was wrong because.

The Precedent does have the authority to appoint special prosecutors?
Trump statement seemed to be implying he would try to influence such special prosecution investigations?
Was portraying himself as a third world dictator might who imprisons those that disagree and or threaten him?

I don’t know as a man who actually call for a foreign power to hack American citizens for his personal gain… and has started to imply the election will have been rigged if he does not win…

Is Trump undermining American democracy?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2016, 05:12:11 PM
Quote
Is Trump undermining American democracy?
Pretty much.
My problem with the statement is it assumes conspiracy to shelter her from charges.
That is a pretty big claim.  Bigger than the more typical "we KNOW she is guilty". 

Secondary to that is the optics of political reprisal against one's opponent if you gain power.  Typically I wouldn't make this connection but the Trump persona, is that of a bully.  His persona is one which will threaten you in hopes of getting his way.  Someone who relishes the idea of taking someone to court (as he can typically afford it in terms of time and money) and likes to impose that on someone else.  Whether a prosecution is even slightly viable or not doesn't (seem to) matter to him.  He just wants to flex and make someone squirm.  Those, to me at least, are traits of a dictator.  It just LOOKS bad, when he says something like that. 

This is coming from someone would would be lining up with rotten tomatoes were she to be placed in the stockades...
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: scifibum on October 12, 2016, 05:31:22 PM
Seriati, can you find us an example of a conviction on a softer set of facts? 

Preferably one where the mishandling was similar - classified information in the body of an email, where the person convicted wasn't the person who originally put it into the email chain.  And of course with a similar level of classification (the lowest).  And where the classification markings weren't as prominent as they are supposed to be. 

And ideally, it would be one where the conviction wasn't for a misdemeanor achieved via a plea deal.  Because, honestly, I would take a misdemeanor deal for myself right about now - jail time suspended - if it would save me from hearing about this email thing any more.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 12, 2016, 05:36:14 PM
There should at least be another investigation because Comey has conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton out the wazoo. A simple search of Comey Clinton conflicts of interest show them and in a case like this it's important not to have even the appearance of impropriety when here we have serious impropriety and millions of dollars of it.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: scifibum on October 12, 2016, 05:39:00 PM
What I'm getting at is that your softer facts probably didn't come from millions of dollars worth of investigation.  They were soft facts that likely would have been harder facts if they'd been investigated hard enough to prosecute, but everyone agreed to go for a plea deal so that wasn't necessary.

In Clinton's case the investigation was very thorough but the facts weren't very hard.  Find me an extensive investigation that resulted in a conviction for receiving or passing along an email written by someone else with the same kind of markings for the same level of classified information that would have been as easy to miss.


cherry, if the investigations keep coming up empty, obviously we just need more of them. 
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2016, 05:39:16 PM
Seems like a hilariously relevant article on this point http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-treated-clinton-with-kid-gloves-1475709394 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-treated-clinton-with-kid-gloves-1475709394).  Not that I know much about McDonell's situation, there is however, no way you could do any kind of honest review of the existing actions by federal prosecutors with respect to people not name Clinton and make the claims AI is making. 

I'll pull more quotes for you on the earlier topic later.  I don't always have hours to devote to comprehensive deep dives.  The quote for Clinton on Wall Street bankers is not terribly exciting, out of context "there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail," which should be enough to find the actual contexts if you can't wait.  She's used in a number forms and number forums, and even through her surrogates, to refer to putting Wall Street bankers in jail, particularly when she was more concerned with killing Bernie's candidacy.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2016, 05:39:59 PM
Seriati, can you find us an example of a conviction on a softer set of facts?

Seriously?  Can you at least do a google search first and tell me if you can't find anything. 
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: scifibum on October 12, 2016, 05:49:09 PM
I don't have any expertise with case law or court record searches, and I'm not willing to wade through the gigantic piles of extreme right wing conspiracy theory nonsense that come up with any search about classified email. 

You're saying you've made the comparison.  To what, is what I'm asking?

I suspect it's not comparable, and I already mentioned why "softer facts" doesn't mean those were the most a prosecution would have had to work with.  When someone's busted, they often cut their losses with a plea deal.  The few cases I remember reading about earlier this year were like that.  Someone got busted, they took a deal.  The facts may have been soft, but no one threw thousands of man hours into bolstering the case. 

And I don't believe anyone has ever been convicted for mishandling classified information in the same way that the FBI determined Clinton did. 
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2016, 07:26:52 PM
And I don't believe anyone has ever been convicted for mishandling classified information in the same way that the FBI determined Clinton did.

This is a red herring, as no case is 'the same' as any other case. In one instance it's someone showing their mistress a document, in another it's someone accidentally carrying a classified document out of the secured area. In Clinton's case it was handing over a stash of potentially classified information to private IT people. Even if she had reason to believe there probably wasn't any classified material on the machine, the mere doubt makes it a breach of the law. And we all know by now how much labor it took to actually determine whether there was or not, which means we can safely conclude Clinton did not engage in this exercise prior to handing it over to Platt to ensure they weren't receiving sensitive material.

That is the mere bare bones of what she obviously did wrong. I won't bother touching on whether she knew exactly what she was doing, or was trying to get around FOIA, or whether she ordered those people to destroy the data irretrievably, resulting in a Reddit post asking how to do it.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 07:49:46 PM
Quote
Is Trump undermining American democracy?
I think he's doing what he does every day in his business dealings, bending the rules as far in his favor as possible to get what he wants.

Quote
cherry, if the investigations keep coming up empty, obviously we just need more of them. 
And a natural corollary to Cherry's logic is that if Republican investigations keep coming up empty, then they are colluding with the Democrats.  Can't trust 'em as far as I can bribe 'em.

Quote
there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail,"
Well, I must say that is pretty definitive, on a par with "looks like it could rain, eh?"

Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote
Comey just jury nullified her. He said she was guilty but he doesn't think it should be a crime for her.
You say he said she was guilty, even after I provided a quote from him that said she broke no laws.  I'm constantly fascinated by how your mind works.

Quote
I actually worked with classified information for a while while I was at the Naval Nuclear Power School in Florida and later at the training reactor in Ballston Spa. If we even threw away some of our notes or took them out of the building with us by accident because we forgot something in our pocket and were caught we would certainly be in violation of the law and prosecuted for it, no excuses. Obviously ignorance of the law is no excuse, as the old saying goes, but carelessness is absolutely no excuse either.
Of course, people at the bottom are not expected to make any judgment calls, just follow strict rules of behavior.  You probably had people reviewing your every action to make sure you didn't blow something up, too.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 12, 2016, 08:13:20 PM
Deleted my post again after someone already read it. Gonna have to stop doing that...

But yeah, Comey said she was guilty because she was careless with classified data and then he said she was not guilty because she didn't do it with malicious intent which isn't the standard in the law. He just made that part up.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 08:14:17 PM
Deleted my post again after someone already read it. Gonna have to stop doing that...

But yeah, Comey said she was guilty because she was careless with classified data and then he said she was not guilty because she didn't do it with malicious intent which isn't the standard in the law. He just made that part up.
Which part of the quote I gave where he said she broke no laws do you think means she broke laws?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 12, 2016, 08:16:12 PM
I'm saying in describing her actions and her carelessness he was describing the actions of someone who committed a crime, thereby in effect saying she was guilty.

Then he turns around and says but she didn't do it on purpose so I'm going to find her not guilty anyway.

So I guess the point of contention that should be able to be proven one way or another pretty easily is...

Do you have to have malicious intent to be guilty of a crime regarding the improper handling of classified information or can simple carelessness in its handling suffice to make you guilty of a crime?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 12, 2016, 08:16:52 PM
You got me right. It was fine. I was just wondering how much I should go into my background in handling classified information.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 12, 2016, 08:19:28 PM
Quote
Do you have to have malicious intent to be guilty of a crime regarding the improper handling of classified information or can simple carelessness in its handling suffice to make you guilty of a crime?
That's why the investigation was turned over to the FBI, with dozens of professional investigative agents involved, rather than to either of us.  They decided it wasn't a crime.  Is the FBI just another political tool of the Democratic Party?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 12, 2016, 08:25:00 PM
So can it be a crime for someone else to carelessly mishandle classified information in a way similar to what she did but not be a crime for her because her position allowed her greater latitude to decide how she wanted to handle it?

If there's an assertion that a different standard of justice was applied to her I could buy that.

My contention is that if any of us did anything like that, even much less that that, it would be a crime.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2016, 08:51:20 PM
You got me right. It was fine. I was just wondering how much I should go into my background in handling classified information.
As much as you are able.  I hate trying to discuss this topic without knowing what is and is not actually permissible.  Even just the basics.  Is there even such a thing as "classified email"? or is all classified info that makes its way into an email someone F'ing up?  Do they have hard-line connections intranet to transmit this stuff?  Do they use some more impressive point to point encryption or something? 

Is there a threshold for HOW classified something can be to be discussed in email?  How terrified should I be about cyber security and the way it's being handled (or not handled) currently?   :P
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2016, 09:01:30 PM
I agree with you, D.W., if I understand correctly what you're saying between the lines. Some of the laws regarding handling classified info are probably foolish and obsolete in the email age, and certain when using the .gov email addresses they are sent, to my knowledge, through servers that could be hacked just like any other. In principle, though, they are at least supposed to be kept on machines in secured areas, which is something, and if the servers using that domain are somehow monitored with extra security maybe that makes them safer in a legitimate sense. This last point is the thing I really don't know.

However in the case of Hillary that good question is somewhat beside the point because when looking at this case we're talking about a machine kept by civilians in an unsecured area, which is over and above the issue of the method of transmitting those emails. Even Blumenthal's PC was hacked, which contained copies of many of those emails, meaning his machine was also a security risk.

In terms of how classification through email is supposed to work, there are various statements out there by government intelligence people that address that. There are mixed messages on that score, some of whom say the classification system is broken anyhow, and others who say that even a novice in government would know not to do what Hillary did. It's pretty easy to cherry pick answers to suit any position one may have on the subject.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 12, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Well I can't answer any of that because we didn't even have email when I was handling classified information. It was when I was attending Naval Nuclear Power School in Orlando and the reactor prototype in Ballston Spa from around 1990 to 1992. Basically all of our notes were considered classified and we had to stamp them as such with our little red stamp. They could have been confidential instead of classified. I probably still have the stamp somewhere. But if we walked out of the building with any written information that would have been a crime and we would have gotten busted. One time between ET "A" School and Nuclear Power School when I had to wait around for a couple of months painting fences and doing odd make work jobs the guy who gave out the assignments talked to me early one morning and told me when he asks for volunteers I should raise my hand. I was skeptical of course because NAVY is supposed to stand for Never Again Volunteer Yourself but I took a chance and so my assignment was to go dumpster diving and digging through trash cans looking for classified material that had been thrown away. It was a good job though since it was only a half day assignment and we got the rest of the day off starting at lunch time. I didn't find anything but if I had and they could trace it back to the person who threw it away they wouldn't have gotten off as easy as Hillary. I can't even imagine how the CO would have them in front of him and say anything like what Comey said, basically that they were careless but it wasn't a crime.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 12, 2016, 09:08:53 PM
I think with Hillary an added issue is that her techs had access to that information so they would also need a security clearance. If the data was kept on the government servers like it was supposed to be then the techs would have the necessary clearance. That's certainly a violation of the law as well, allowing people without the right clearance access to classified information. Members of her staff also apparently didn't have the security clearance to see the information they were handling.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2016, 09:18:53 PM
I think with Hillary an added issue is that her techs had access to that information so they would also need a security clearance. If the data was kept on the government servers like it was supposed to be then the techs would have the necessary clearance. That's certainly a violation of the law as well, allowing people without the right clearance access to classified information. Members of her staff also apparently didn't have the security clearance to see the information they were handling.
This makes perfect sense to me, IF classified emails are A: meant to be a thing at all, and B: regulations are in place prohibiting this practice or mandating explicitly that all those with access to the server also have clearance. 

Both seem ridiculously easy to verify, however it's just not info I have.

As demonstrable by the fact she is not already in jail... I can only conclude that "B" at least, is not the case.  If "A" is a thing (with "B" NOT a thing) then we have Luddites writing the policy books over there.  :(
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 13, 2016, 01:50:53 AM
First of all, one of the  emails that was classified was retroactively deemed "Confidential" because it contained Kofi Annan's phone number and a number of others were similarly classified. 

We don't know what was in the emails deemed to have a higer retroactive clearance, but there is a strong indication of something that almost definitely would have been included in emails to Hillary Clinton. A huge diplomatic issue while she was Secretary of State was the response of the Pakistanis to what they saw as armed drone attacks in Pakistan. This was widely reported in the Pakistani press, and any emails from a US representative in Pakistan referring to specifics in those news articles could have fit the definition of being classified information. The source doesn't matter, the fact that information is in a public news article doesn't matter, it's just the information. And if that seems silly to you, it is still how the system works. When Snowden's betrayal put secret information into the public sphere, people with clearances were warned that they should not even browse news articles about Snowden on their home computers because they could be in technical violation of their security clearance.

If Hillary Clinton recenived email discussing drone strikes in Pakistan, the person who would be accountable for the error is not the recipient, it is the person who generates the email. And I don't see that person going to jail for a technical violation based on quoting a newspaper article highly relevant to US foreign policy.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 13, 2016, 01:52:41 AM
Meanwhile, have any of you who claim to care about the Constitution with reference to the 2nd Amendment have any defense of Trump stating he will violate the Constitution with respect to prosecuting his political enemies starting with Hillary Clinton?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
If she committed a crime, it wouldn't be illegal or unConstitutional to prosecute her.

Should political enemies automatically be off the hook just because they are your political enemies and you don't want to have the appearance of impropriety?

Isn't this exactly why the Independent Counsel's office was created and it's constitutionality was upheld in Morrison v. Olson?

Of course you want a truly independent counsel in there, someone who is thoroughly vetted and agreed upon by all sides as to their impartiality. And Comey definitely wasn't anything of the sort.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 13, 2016, 08:25:07 AM
Quote
Of course you want a truly independent counsel in there, someone who is thoroughly vetted and agreed upon by all sides as to their impartiality. And Comey definitely wasn't anything of the sort.
How about Trey Gowdy or one of the other bulldog committee chairs who investigated her?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 08:31:21 AM
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/26/trey-gowdy-demolishes-hillary-clinton-fbi-director-james-comey-video/

"Trey Gowdy was on Fox News last night and effectively pinned the donkey's tail on James Comey, essentially branding him as a disingenuous hack who was taking his marching orders to clear Hillary Clinton very seriously."

To be honest I'm just going to admit that I don't know everything about this investigation. I didn't know about Trey Gowdy or what he said until just now. All I know is that the whole thing has the appearance of impropriety and it looks like a setup, that Comey is corrupt and in the pocket of Hillary and Obama. That's what undermines our justice system much more than another investigation would.

Plus once Trump is President all of those emails can be easily retrieved from the NSA. Then we'll have some real idea of what we're even talking about.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 13, 2016, 08:40:53 AM
Yes, RedState, of course.  How about this (http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/technology/hillary-clinton-bleachbit/)?

Quote
The latest focus point in Hillary Clinton's long email controversy may be a little-known tool for freeing up computer storage space.

Trey Gowdy, a Republican congressman from South Carolina, looked to reignite criticism about Clinton's handling of emails on a private server by saying her team used a software tool called BleachBit to have messages "deleted where even God can't read them."

"You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails or for bridesmaids emails," Gowdy said in an interview on Fox News Thursday. "When you are using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

However, BleachBit may not be quite as sinister as Gowdy makes it out to be. It's one of many services you can download online to free up space on your computer by removing old unused files and clearing out internet history and cookies.

An advanced version of the service also offers an option for "shredding files to prevent recovery."

"If you're a business user looking for a truly free system cleaner, one interesting option is open-source, cross-platform BleachBit," PCWorld wrote in a 2013 product review.

Jonathan Zdziarski, a computer security expert, characterized BleachBit as a fairly "amateur" tool that doesn't raise any red flags.

"It looks like the type of tool someone would run who's conscious of cleaning old crud off their system," Zdziarski said. "Someone trying to cover their tracks would likely pay for and use a much more expensive, specialized data destruction tool."


Andrew Ziem, the developer behind BleachBit, wrote in a blog post that the service "has not been served a warrant or subpoena in relation to the investigation."

"BleachBit is free of charge to use in any environment whether it is personal, commercial, educational, and government, and the cleaning process is not reversible," Ziem said in the post on BleachBit's website.

How come Gowdy didn't know that?  I guess that makes him a great DOJ Director.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 08:59:36 AM
I don't really buy into the BleachBit hype. Or in other words if you want to delete something there is nothing wrong with making sure it stays deleted. If they had deleted information they weren't supposed to but it could still be recovered would that make it better or would it simply mean that when they deleted the stuff they were supposed to delete they did an incompetent job of it?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 13, 2016, 09:12:55 AM
If Hillary Clinton recenived email discussing drone strikes in Pakistan, the person who would be accountable for the error is not the recipient, it is the person who generates the email. And I don't see that person going to jail for a technical violation based on quoting a newspaper article highly relevant to US foreign policy.

This is incorrect. If someone with clearance (read: training) unintentionally receives a classified document they would be obliged to turn it in and ensure it isn't floating around in the public. That would presumably mean, in this case, handing her machine over to the appropriate authority so they could delete the email in question and make sure it was unrecoverable. Simply keeping it and handing it over to private contractors would be a violation, even in the case of her innocently receiving a document she didn't request. To make your case more plausible you'd have to additionally suggest that she had no idea it was classified information. But that, then, begins to assert that she is a doddering moron, because anyone in her position ought to have known that highly sensitive diplomatic information would obviously be classified, markings or no. The markings signify when something is classified, but they are not what makes it classified; what makes it so is the kind of information it contains, and certain information is invariably and automatically classified.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 13, 2016, 09:13:59 AM
Quote
I don't really buy into the BleachBit hype.
B-b-b-but, that's what the killer Redstate/FOX article you cited used as the clincher for her guilt!!!!
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 09:23:03 AM
Well like I said that part to me is just hype. The real issue is if she deleted emails that she shouldn't have because she was supposed to keep them and turn them over. If she had been using the government server she was supposed to be using that wouldn't be an issue though would it? She couldn't delete any of the emails, or do I have that wrong? And that's the whole point. She used this server so she could delete emails she wasn't supposed to delete. She co-mingled personal and government emails which is a huge no-no, like a real estate agent co-mingling funds. And I think it's obvious she did so purposefully and with malice aforethought specifically so she could delete emails that were work related but embarrassing. Wikileaks has pretty much proven that already, indirectly at least.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 13, 2016, 09:28:30 AM
Jonathan Zdziarski, a computer security expert, characterized BleachBit as a fairly "amateur" tool that doesn't raise any red flags.

"It looks like the type of tool someone would run who's conscious of cleaning old crud off their system," Zdziarski said. "Someone trying to cover their tracks would likely pay for and use a much more expensive, specialized data destruction tool."


Yeah, this might make sense if Hillary had contracted professional data-eliminators to do the job. Except she didn't - she asked her IT people to do it. Last time I checked being in the IT business doesn't automatically include knowledge in how to destroy evidence. Any given IT person might happen to know this kind of thing, or not. It's not in their job description. But since it seems to be the case that these people went to Reddit asking how to destroy documents, it's pretty clear they did not have this kind of knowledge, and therefore the assumption that they'd have or know how to use a "specialized data destruction tool" is foolish at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. I didn't read that particular Reddit thread, but if it's like most then the comments would most likely lead someone to an easy-to-find and use software like BleachBit.

This doesn't prove that merely using BleachBit makes anyone guilty of anything, but the argument that because it's an amateurish software means they're not guilty is complete hogwash.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 13, 2016, 09:59:33 AM
Quote
This doesn't prove that merely using BleachBit makes anyone guilty of anything, but the argument that because it's an amateurish software means they're not guilty is complete hogwash.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here.  Clinton's accusers have taken the tack that she *is* guilty.  Cherry even uses the words "with malice aforethought" (again, the dictionary would be his friend if he could find one).  Pointing out the weakness in those arguments is the only defense that is needed.  The use of BleachBit gives some people the appearance of guilt, but anybody in IT worth their salt would look for the best tool available for the purpose; that one is not it.  Since that one is not considered one of the top ones, it doesn't prove anything like guilt or "malice".  All it does is give a little jazz to people who want her to be seen as guilty but don't themselves really know what they're talking about.

In other words, to all our friends here who reject the possibility of her not being guilty, people like me who defend her are not claiming that she *is* innocent of any crime, only raising counterpoints to what are often pitifully and plainly prejudiced attempts to insist that she *is* guilty of crimes both known and others for which no evidence has even been suggested.  Cherry epitomizes one leg of that platform by claiming that a video of Obama that surfaces 8 years after it was shot is somehow a strong indicator that damning information about Clinton will be revealed when she leaves office.  That's all the proof he needs; you don't need any, since you have a personal opinion for which you have said you don't even need that much evidence.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 10:11:43 AM
So what was the point of her using a private server then?

Edited to add: I will just come right out and say it. Her use of a private server was illegal in and of itself. In that sense it's already proof that she was breaking the law.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 13, 2016, 10:13:18 AM
That's all the proof he needs; you don't need any, since you have a personal opinion for which you have said you don't even need that much evidence.

Sigh. I took a chance initiating replies to you again, and I regret it. I'll revert to my previous policy, then.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 10:16:00 AM
The video of Obama was meant to prove that the press will hype up anything negative about a Republican but will downplay or ignore negative things about Democrats. I stand by my assertion that if there was a video of Bush, Romney, McCain, Trump, or Palin doing what Obama was caught on camera doing (and good luck to Sarah in trying to pull that off) it would have received much more attention including bits on the late night comedy shows and SNL as well. It's hard to take seriously the assertion that it would have been ignored like this if a Republican had done it. Every bit of evidence and simple observation contradicts that idea.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 13, 2016, 10:21:33 AM
Quote
anyone in her position ought to have known that highly sensitive diplomatic information would obviously be classified

Perhaps I  was unclear.  If someone writes somewhere in an email (or an attachment to an email) a reference to the Karachi Times reporting on an armed drone strike in a specific Pakistanti village, that information could be considered classified if it is on the computer of an American with security clearance. Even though the information is not "highly sensitive diplomatic information", it's a reference to specific ionfromation from a public news article. 
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 13, 2016, 10:22:48 AM
cherry,

After the 11 hour Benghazi hearing, why should anyone believe that Trey Gowdy has any credibility?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 10:45:59 AM
After Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video that none of the attackers even knew about and after she said that knowing full well it was a lie how can anyone believe her either?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 13, 2016, 10:47:00 AM
Thanks for posting about BleachBit.  At least one mystery solved about WTF Trump was talking about re: the emails.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 13, 2016, 10:48:08 AM
So what was the point of her using a private server then?

Edited to add: I will just come right out and say it. Her use of a private server was illegal in and of itself. In that sense it's already proof that she was breaking the law.

I think it was firmly in the gray area, not illegal.  What was the point?  To circumvent the law. (different from breaking it)
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: NobleHunter on October 13, 2016, 11:04:41 AM
After Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video that none of the attackers even knew about and after she said that knowing full well it was a lie how can anyone believe her either?
You mean none of the attackers who used the video to cause a riot to cover their attack? Those attackers?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 13, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
That's all the proof he needs; you don't need any, since you have a personal opinion for which you have said you don't even need that much evidence.

Sigh. I took a chance initiating replies to you again, and I regret it. I'll revert to my previous policy, then.
Better luck next time, but be more clear about what you mean when you say it instead of giving me and others room to interpret and you having to clarify later.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 13, 2016, 02:57:04 PM
So if that video hadn't been made the attack never would have happened?

A brown spotted sand flea jumping up and down on a dune in the middle of the desert could pass gas into the hot Arabian wind and that would be all the provocation Islamists ever need to conduct all the attacks they ever had and ever will. 
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: NobleHunter on October 13, 2016, 02:59:54 PM
So if that video hadn't been made the attack never would have happened?
I get the impression that the attack was planned before the news about the video broke. It was just a useful opportunity.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 13, 2016, 03:51:25 PM
So if that video hadn't been made the attack never would have happened?

A brown spotted sand flea jumping up and down on a dune in the middle of the desert could pass gas into the hot Arabian wind and that would be all the provocation Islamists ever need to conduct all the attacks they ever had and ever will.
Sounds to me like you're saying that if they knew about the video it would have pushed them so far over the edge that they couldn't possibly resist launching an attack like that.  For once I might be willing to agree with you.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: rightleft22 on October 14, 2016, 10:31:25 AM
Quote
Her use of a private server was illegal in and of itself.

Something I still don’t understand.
Isn’t this a failure of the government/Whitehouse IT Security team or whatever is responsible for such things?

I ask this because I could see myself in a similar situation asking my IT guys to setup something so I could more easily work from home and expecting them to tell me is such a thing was legal or not.   I would also expect IT Security to know if and when I had setup anything illegal and shut it down before any emails or whatever were sent.

If Hillary was told such a thing was illegal and used her power to intimidate IT to set it up we have a problem otherwise its at best its poor judgment and a failure of government/whitehouse IT

Either way someone in IT should be fired!
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 10:37:52 AM
If Hillary was told such a thing was illegal and used her power to intimidate IT to set it up we have a problem otherwise its at best its poor judgment and a failure of government/whitehouse IT

She was advised repeatedly not to do it, by government people and by her own people, but internal emails suggest she insisted against their protests. They were scrambling to make it happen and to organize everything, and still there were major hiccups that needed addressing (such as all her emails being blocked initially by people with .gov addresses, and other such issues). I've never seen a record that she was told it was illegal, but if you think about that kind of statement it would basically be someone threatening her (e.g. "What are you doing is illegal, so stop) and there is no chance almost anyone would have taken that stance with her even if they privately thought it was a problem.

More to the point, I don't think that much internal scrutiny is really possible in some ways. It's not like there's a Star Trek security force monitoring all communications and can catch something off-book when it's happening. Things fall through the cracks in real life, happen and go unnoticed, or else are noticed but it would be more trouble than it's worth to confront it. I can't say how Hillary convinced them to go along with it, or really how much resistance she met with, but it's not reasonable to expect white house IT to oppose her wishes in the matter meaningfully. She was WAY above them all.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 14, 2016, 10:50:36 AM
Far more likely is the law has not kept up with technology.  Guidelines and protocols are not (always/ever?) legally binding.  She knows this, saw a loophole, and exploited it.

I've heard amazingly little (read nothing) about lawmakers trying to enact law that would make it crystal clear this is NOT legal and is a cyber-security threat we cannot tolerate at this level of our government.

Why not?  Is this just a cudgel to beat her with but a loophole others want to keep in place in the event it will ever benefit them in the future?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 10:58:32 AM
D.W., you may be right about the security issue not being legally clear. But the FOIA issue certainly is legally binding. On the security issue she may have found a loophole, but with FOIA she blatantly ignored it and then handed over what she felt like giving them.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 14, 2016, 11:03:04 AM
D.W., you may be right about the security issue not being legally clear. But the FOIA issue certainly is legally binding. On the security issue she may have found a loophole, but with FOIA she blatantly ignored it and then handed over what she felt like giving them.
Indeed, and it is my suspicion/assertion that this server existed explicitly/exclusively for that purpose. 
But where is the proof?  Oh, right, this system is perfect for making sure we can't get any...  Funny how that worked out. 
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Wayward Son on October 14, 2016, 11:14:35 AM
Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free?  ???

(And please don't say it was because Hillary included classified information in her e-mails and Colin didn't.  Because it took a long investigation, reviewing thousands of e-mails, before they found those handful of e-mails that had classified information in them.  I'm sure that if someone looked at all of General Powell's e-mails, they would find that some accidently contained classified information, too.  With the volume of correspondence a Secretary of State handles, and the sometimes nebulous nature of what is considered "classified," it would be far more surprising if he didn't slip up a few times.)

Oh, yes, and why, if deleting a few thousand e-mails is so obviously an attempt to hide damning information, and anyone (like Hillary) should be thrown in jail for doing so, no one is clamoring for someone to be prosecuted for deleting somewhere between 2 million and 22 million e-mails that Congress requested from the Bush Administration and were supposedly deleted?

This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so.  ::)
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 14, 2016, 11:21:02 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-colin-powells-emails-are-not-like-hillarys/article/2000949

"First, "tens of thousands of emails…passed through the private server Clinton used while in office." Powell did not have a private server for his State Department emails.

It is simply not reasonable to compare a small number of now classified emails – and by small, again, we mean two -- forwarded to Powell's private email account with Clinton's decision to circumvent the use of a government server entirely.

Second, Clinton's predecessors have had far, far fewer emails retroactively classified than Clinton.

The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information."
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 14, 2016, 11:21:49 AM
Quote
Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free?
It's pretty obvious.  He's a Republican and his name is not Clinton.

Quote
Second, Clinton's predecessors have had far, far fewer emails retroactively classified than Clinton.
You can't find what you won't look for.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Seriati on October 14, 2016, 11:41:19 AM
Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free?  ???

If this was a serious question, rather than attempt to protect Hillary, you may have started by looking at their dates of service and the level of technology in the State Department at the time each was in office, which alone answers why Colin Powell's use of private email - on occasion - is something completely different than diverting all government communications to a private server.  Or one could look at the specific changes in IT policy that were put in place over time that make it clear that Clinton was operating in a different environment.

Or one could honestly ask, if any other government employee could have diverted their entire work related email load through a personal server?  And if they could have gotten away with it.

Quote
This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so.  ::)

They sound hollow, because they cause you cognitive dissonance.  That's the only reason.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 14, 2016, 11:43:33 AM
Just because we WANT behavior to be illegal, does not make it so.  It's frustrating to people on both sides of the aisle when people abuse the system to do wrong.  That doesn't mean we can lock them up.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 11:43:37 AM
Oh, yes, and why, if deleting a few thousand e-mails is so obviously an attempt to hide damning information, and anyone (like Hillary) should be thrown in jail for doing so, no one is clamoring for someone to be prosecuted for deleting somewhere between 2 million and 22 million e-mails that Congress requested from the Bush Administration and were supposedly deleted?

While some people may have a double standard, your mistake is in thinking that only a double standard can explain why someone might think what some of us think. Did you...I dunno...read my thread on the Bush admin? It's funny you should forget about that when it comes to this issue and try to reduce the Hillary question to one of merely taking partisan sides.

The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

This is an issue that partisan defenders of Hillary don't want to acknowledge. It's not just about whether she is 'guilty' of having sent and/or received classified emails. We could even write that off as an accident, or as retroactive, and forget about it. The far more important issue as I see it is that these were stored on a machine in the hands of civilians. We can even forget about cyber-security for the purposes of this particular issue. I don't really understand how there can be a defence for handing over potentially sensitive material to Platt. Retroactive or not, it's about whether data on that server ought to have been protected from those without clearance. There was stuff on there ranging from intel on the ground to insider diplomatic information about the impending invasion of Libya. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Platt IT people had no business being anywhere near that stuff.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 14, 2016, 11:47:35 AM
Any other candidate (and no reason this one couldn't try) would be taking Hillary to task for cyber-security.  Or at least suggesting she better hire some damn good consultants as she obviously hasn't a clue of the threats that exist out there.  Oh, and may want to hire some with clearance...

Instead we get, "maybe the Russians can hack her email next?" 

WW3 may indeed go down soon.  It will be cyber-war, and it's not looking good for our team...
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: rightleft22 on October 14, 2016, 11:58:50 AM
Quote
“I don't think that much internal scrutiny is really possible”

That would very much a surprise and concern to me.

I work in a company that allows people to work from home and our IT would know.
Add to that the reality that you can’t interact with others on a computer without analytics being sent every which way.

If Hillary was able to bully IT and personal advisers that may not be illegal but it is a problem.
That said imagine what an arguably proven bully like Trump who can only work with those that agree with him might try to get away with.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 12:33:44 PM
I work in a company that allows people to work from home and our IT would know.
Add to that the reality that you can’t interact with others on a computer without analytics being sent every which way.

My instinct wouldn't be to assume that the government (even at the highest levels) operates as effectively as a well-run private business. That being said I don't really know what they keep track of at State, so I can only guess at exactly what Hillary had to do (or not do) for to his to pass.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: rightleft22 on October 14, 2016, 12:40:40 PM
I recall reading about the IT security around the US president and it was very tight so assumed such security practices were setup and monitored for all connected to the Whitehouse.   But I have often been proven to be wrong and an ass.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: NobleHunter on October 14, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
I recall reading about the IT security around the US president and it was very tight so assumed such security practices were setup and monitored for all connected to the Whitehouse.   But I have often been proven to be wrong and an ass.
That was a reasonable assumption. But since when has reasonable matter to bureaucracy?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 12:45:36 PM
I recall reading about the IT security around the US president and it was very tight so assumed such security practices were setup and monitored for all connected to the Whitehouse.   But I have often been proven to be wrong and an ass.

Though it be not written down, yet forget not that he is an ass.
-W. Shakespeare
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 14, 2016, 01:53:41 PM
Quote
The far more important issue as I see it is that these were stored on a machine in the hands of civilians. We can even forget about cyber-security for the purposes of this particular issue. I don't really understand how there can be a defence for handing over potentially sensitive material to Platt. Retroactive or not, it's about whether data on that server ought to have been protected from those without clearance. There was stuff on there ranging from intel on the ground to insider diplomatic information about the impending invasion of Libya. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Platt IT people had no business being anywhere near that stuff.
It was an inexcusable mistake and showed poor judgment.  What should be the consequences?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 02:35:17 PM
It was an inexcusable mistake and showed poor judgment.  What should be the consequences?

One answer that's been mentioned is that the person should have their security clearance revoked. That's not even a criminal charge but rather a precaution against that person being so trusted again. It would be rather bizarre, though, to be President and not have a security clearance  :P

In principle having that on you would make you ineligible to be President, from what I've read, but I haven't confirmed whether that's really true. Obviously in Hillary's case they're not going to strip her clearance, which means that in practice there's nothing that can be done about it once the criminal matter has been dropped.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 14, 2016, 02:50:52 PM
In that case, do you agree that the matter should be dropped here and in the media as well?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 03:24:28 PM
In that case, do you agree that the matter should be dropped here and in the media as well?

It may not be a reason to pursue her legally, but I think it's still a fine reason not to vote for her.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 14, 2016, 05:55:07 PM
In that case, do you agree that the matter should be dropped here and in the media as well?

It may not be a reason to pursue her legally, but I think it's still a fine reason not to vote for her.
Perhaps, but what then are you voting for?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 06:39:51 PM
Quote
It may not be a reason to pursue her legally, but I think it's still a fine reason not to vote for her.
Perhaps, but what then are you voting for?

Personally I don't vote for candidates I don't believe in. If that means I don't vote then fine. I don't subscribe to the theory of tactical voting; I think it's a menace. The two party system is an illusion held up in part by this kind of false dilemma. "You can't vote for that person, you're wasting your vote!" or "You need to stop X from winning!" No I don't.

ETA - Actually I'll amend that statement. There is one reason I could think of to vote tactically - to save lives. For instance, if Jeb had been the GOP candidate I'd have been convinced that voting for anyone else would prevent deaths. For that purpose I would subdue my principle. I see no compelling evidence that nominating Trump in this election would directly cause deaths, therefore that kind of reasoning does not apply here in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 14, 2016, 06:41:32 PM
It's not an illusion that either Trump or Clinton will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 14, 2016, 07:02:24 PM
Just out of curiosity how would Jeb have been more dangerous than Trump or Clinton?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 14, 2016, 07:29:57 PM
Wow, this is exactly the point I was trying to make a while back, that Trump might actually be good for our relationship with Russia. I didn't go so far as Jill Stein is going, but her point is spot on, though I will admit it's obvious to me that Russia is playing games now with our election with all their posturing about nuclear war and bringing their children home and such. But the fact is that Trump does seem to have a better relationship with the Russians than Hillary. Why is that? And is that a point in Trump's favor? If it's not then why not?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html

"On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia."

I think the best policy in Syria right now is obviously to keep Assad in place. I'm not certain but I think Trump sees that too, and if Trump works with the Russians to make that happen by betraying the "rebels" who have already betrayed us anyway by working with al-Qaeda and ISIS, then I don't see how it's a bad thing especially if the Russians with Trump's backing can put pressure on Assad to not only help completely destroy ISIS but stop with their own terrorist actions against Israel and elsewhere.

I also can't help but notice the media gives ample play to Johnson but almost none to Stein, obviously because Johnson will siphon off more potential Trump voters and Stein would be more likely to steal would-be Hillary supporters. But the media is already exposed as corrupt so that's not really any surprise I suppose.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 14, 2016, 07:36:00 PM
Quote
But the fact is that Trump does seem to have a better relationship with the Russians than Hillary. Why is that? And is that a point in Trump's favor? If it's not then why not?
Umm, because Trump is a novice and by all evidence thus far, easily manipulated / riled up.  Also, he's likely to be SO contentious / disruptive domestically that Russia will have a free hand to do whatever they want.  What's not to love? 

Are they opposed to Hillary?  Ya, because she's going to at a minimum keep giving them crap if not come down on them harder. 

I think, "Confusion to my enemies", about sums it up.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 14, 2016, 07:51:49 PM
How has Hillary seriously opposed them up to now though? How as President would she be getting in their way?

They already have Crimea. She gave them the uranium deal. The only thing I can think of on the table at the moment is Syria and if she is insisting that Assad be deposed while Trump might be more inclined to let him stay.

I suppose there is Iran but Obama already gave everything away to them so I don't see how that's it either.

And if the Russians are still so bad why was it okay for Hillary to be trying to hit the reset button with them (and failing) but it's wrong for Trump to see if his Russian reset button is as defective as hers turned out to be?

Is it something we can just admit already, that Trump will have a better relationship with Russia than Hillary? Or is that a negative against Trump because with that better relationship the Russians will surely take great advantage of him to our detriment?

And if I remember correctly it was Obama himself who mocked Romney in regard to Russian relations, zinging him with, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” So are the Democrats admitting that Obama (and Hillary as Secretary of State) took the cold war out of the freezer and put it back on the table for dinner?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 14, 2016, 07:58:02 PM
Quote
Just out of curiosity how would Jeb have been more dangerous than Trump or Clinton?
Dangerous isn't a word I would use with him, more likely his blandness and lack of ambition would threaten progress in critical areas.

Quote
Wow, this is exactly the point I was trying to make a while back, that Trump might actually be good for our relationship with Russia.
Interesting that you're parroting the Russian equivalent of Trump, who says that electing Hillary will lead to a nuclear WWIII.  Glad to see that you're plugged into the Kremlin's thought leaders about US global policy.  They *love* Trump as much as you do.

Quote
How has Hillary seriously opposed them up to now though?
If I can follow your thinking (not sure, but I'll give it a try), Trump would be good because he would have a good working relationship with Russia, whereas Hillary is bad because you think she has had a good working relationship with Russia.  The difference is pretty clear to some, but not to all.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: D.W. on October 14, 2016, 08:02:36 PM
I said "giving them crap" not getting in their way.  Uranium deal?  Put half our arsenal on a boat and give it to them, I don't much care.*  Why do you?  Syria, I'm with you on.  Unless the "strategy" is to continue keeping the middle east a train-wreck for as long as possible (which is... *A* strategy, I guess) I don't understand not rolling over on that one.  It has ZERO to do with Russian relations thought and everything to do with our public not being on board with another occupation in another sand box. 

Crimea... that one is at least about Russia.  The problem is, we (the U.S. as a nation) don't care.  Cold, but true.  The problem is our internal propaganda is that we DO care.  External propaganda as well.  So when our actions demonstrate we don't care there is a disconnect.  Both at home and abroad. 

Again, I don't think we are honestly fearful of it coming to war with Russia.  However I think we see it as A:  not our problem, B:  a bad precedent to set that we will enforce the sovereignty of others and C:  implying it is (still?) our job to constrain Russia.

*Correction:  I DO care to the extent that I believe we can secure them better from theft.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 14, 2016, 08:09:27 PM
Well I think I agree with you both, Al and DW.

I'm not saying I know the answers so that makes it easier to agree because I wasn't asking something I already know.

Crimea is a sore spot but nobody in America really cares. I do and so does the administration, I think, and rightfully so, but there isn't really anything we can do about it and I don't even think we're really trying anymore.

Syria is it.

And I agree with you Al that Russia is playing in our politics with their ridiculous nuclear war funny business.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 10:20:27 PM
It's not an illusion that either Trump or Clinton will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017.

An example of the illusion would be "don't vote for Bernie, he can't win." Or in the case of right now, Johnson. Johnson doesn't actually have much of a chance, and wouldn't even if the press gave him a field day, but that only means he's not a fantastic candidate. But even so if he was given a fair deal, so to speak, he might pull enough of the vote to screw one of the parties over. And then the other side would realize that they, too, could field a competing candidate with their voters and split that vote too. So rather than a third candidate ruining an election for one party (which is what happens), a third and fourth candidate would create a de facto four party system, since both votes would be split. Imagine, for instance, if, late in the primaries, both Trump and Sanders broke away from the parties and ran as independents. And let's say the GOP and Dem candidates were Clinton and Cruz (or Bush, even). Now you have a four way race where, honestly, I feel like any of them could have won it. But the 'illusion' here comes from the idea that wasting your vote on anyone but the two 'obvious' candidates is a waste. If they are bad candidates they should be rejected, period. If no one else runs against that deserves it then the country is screwed, but it leaves open a niche for a strong third party candidate to come along and secure those votes. Right now that can't happen because people have been brainwashed into thinking they have no choice but to prevent the worse of the two from getting into power. Well I don't think that's how it has to be.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Fenring on October 14, 2016, 10:23:57 PM
Just out of curiosity how would Jeb have been more dangerous than Trump or Clinton?

Any member of PNAC is automatically a massive warmonger. Pretty simple. These are the guys who planned Iraq 2.0 five+ years before it happened, and who called for a "new pearl harbor" to galvanize the American resolve the go to war abroad. If you think W was the architect of any of that, think again. It was his brother and a few others.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Wayward Son on October 15, 2016, 01:02:48 PM
Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free?  ???

If this was a serious question, rather than attempt to protect Hillary, you may have started by looking at their dates of service and the level of technology in the State Department at the time each was in office, which alone answers why Colin Powell's use of private email - on occasion - is something completely different than diverting all government communications to a private server.  Or one could look at the specific changes in IT policy that were put in place over time that make it clear that Clinton was operating in a different environment.

Or one could honestly ask, if any other government employee could have diverted their entire work related email load through a personal server?  And if they could have gotten away with it.


So you're saying that the environment Clinton was working in was unique, not one that was extant before she took the job.

However, even though what she did was "unique," it is still obvious to many--like Trump--that it was a crime worthy of a prison sentence.

And they base this on the precedents of other crimes--even though you have admitted it was in a unique environment.

Do you see how the two ideas don't fit together? :)

Did Hillary break the rules by not using the government e-mail server for government correspondence?  Yes, of course.

Does this reach the level of criminality that makes it "obvious" that she should serve jail time?  Well, no.

The closest comparison is Colin Powell's use of non-government (and doubtlessly just as unsecure) e-mail for non-government e-mails.  But, of course, we only have his word on it (just like we had Hillary's that no classified information were in her e-mails), so I don't find that definitive.  All other comparisons was merely analogous, with very specific differences.

The FBI found she did not have any intention of mistreating classified material.  And so far, there has been no evidence of an actual security breach.  And the FBI did not believe it reached the level of a crime.

So it is not obvious that she committed a crime worthy of jail.

You can talk about how these two events differ, but you still haven't talked about how Clinton's unique acts were so obviously egregious that there is no question that she should be incarcerated, when the closest similar act is ignored.

Quote
Quote
This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so.  ::)

They sound hollow, because they cause you cognitive dissonance.  That's the only reason.

Sorry, it's hollow because I can recognize the cognitive dissonance of those calling for her jailing.  :P

Quote
While some people may have a double standard, your mistake is in thinking that only a double standard can explain why someone might think what some of us think. Did you...I dunno...read my thread on the Bush admin? It's funny you should forget about that when it comes to this issue and try to reduce the Hillary question to one of merely taking partisan sides.

I am glad that someone is still upset about the similar egregious loosing of e-mails by the Bush Administration, Fenring, I would still like the phrase "Of course she should be punished for deleting those thousands of e-mails" to be amended with "just like those in the Bush Administration were punished for deleting 22 million e-mails."  But the second part always seems to be left off. :(
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: rightleft22 on October 15, 2016, 01:42:05 PM
Quote
I see no compelling evidence that nominating Trump in this election would directly cause death

Trump taps in the the collective shadow of America. Historically when a leaders core support comes from the shadow, ( and even a very small part of the collective become enthralled), very destructive things happen.

Part of the reason reasoning with trumps followers can be so difficult is that the shadow is not about reason.

As Trump himself has said He could kill someone and get away with it.

A shadow left in the dark cant be seen  and not seem made conscious.

If this happening wasn't so scary it would be fascinating to see it play out.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 15, 2016, 03:08:33 PM
In all of the hatred and anger that Trump is exposing and encouraging, it's actually pretty hard to see exactly what this cohort of (mainly white male) people are so angry about.  They never had good jobs, they never paid much in taxes, very few of them ever fought in a war or even joined the army.  He's got about 40% of the vote right now, comprising about 50,000,000 voters.  What are they so mad about, and what would they do to change things if they could?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 15, 2016, 04:33:30 PM
You wouldn't care to hazard a guess?

Is there nothing you think Obama is doing wrong that Hillary will continue doing wrong as well?

And if you can't think of anything that fits that description how about anything that a reasonable person of another political persuasion might disagree with that Obama is doing now that Hillary will continue doing as well?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 15, 2016, 05:01:48 PM
You wouldn't care to hazard a guess?

Is there nothing you think Obama is doing wrong that Hillary will continue doing wrong as well?

And if you can't think of anything that fits that description how about anything that a reasonable person of another political persuasion might disagree with that Obama is doing now that Hillary will continue doing as well?
Obama is fairly mainstream.  Trump is so wacko that the GOP had to build a special fringe for him to stand on, and most in the GOP are as afraid of him as Democrats are.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 15, 2016, 05:08:02 PM
Quote
In all of the hatred and anger that Trump is exposing and encouraging, it's actually pretty hard to see exactly what this cohort of (mainly white male) people are so angry about.  They never had good jobs, they never paid much in taxes, very few of them ever fought in a war or even joined the army.  He's got about 40% of the vote right now, comprising about 50,000,000 voters.  What are they so mad about, and what would they do to change things if they could?

Here's a good explanation that addresses your question http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ (http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/).  I will summarize with the section headings, but I strongly recommend anyone read this - it makes about the best argument that I have yet heard:

6. It's Not About Red And Blue States -- It's About The Country Vs. The City
5. City People Are From A Different *censored*ed Planet
4. Trends Always Start In The Cities -- And Not All Of Them Are Good
3. The Rural Areas Have Been Beaten To *censored*
2. Everyone Lashes Out When They Don't Have A Voice
1. *censored* Are Heroes





Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 15, 2016, 05:16:27 PM
As I wrote my response on another thread I noticed it provides one answer to your question also, Al.

One answer, and it's just one among many, is simply the 2nd Amendment.

Obama and Hillary have a view of it that is diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the Trump supporters, and for many of them that is reason enough to support him over her.

I understand many Hillary supporters don't take the 2nd Amendment seriously, not in terms of protecting the right of the individual to keep and bear arms which many don't even believe is a valid interpretation anyway, but plenty of Americans do take that seriously and they believe that taking it away is a threat to everything, literally.

Remember the thing that made George Washington so special at the time? It was that he left office peacefully. That's something that can't be taken for granted. It couldn't be taken for granted then, and it certainly can't be taken for granted now. Even if you think that would never happen in America, that an elected official in charge of the military would refuse to give up power, you have no way to guarantee that, certainly no way to guarantee it not knowing what the country or the world will look like in twenty years, or fifty, or two hundred. The 2nd Amendment is that guarantee.

Okay, you may think all of that's foolish but that's the way plenty of Trump supporters see it. That's how seriously they take it. It's not just something for here and now. It's a bequeathment to our posterity just as our ancestors handed it down to us. That's just not something you mess around with.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: DJQuag on October 15, 2016, 06:20:50 PM
I read that article the other day, Greg, and was about to post a link to it in reply to Al's question. It does give great insight.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 15, 2016, 08:06:17 PM
Quote
Remember the thing that made George Washington so special at the time? It was that he left office peacefully. That's something that can't be taken for granted. It couldn't be taken for granted then, and it certainly can't be taken for granted now.
That is so wacko that I can't even think of a rational response.  I gather you think Obama is going to -- what?  Declare marshal law? Confiscate all weapons?  I remember a physics teacher who wrote on a test paper that the student's answer to a question was not only not right, it wasn't even wrong.  You're somewhere out in that distant mental universe circling a dense dark star.

Greg, DJQuag, I'll read it.  Thanks for suggesting it.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 15, 2016, 09:09:01 PM
I already answered that question by noting that the worry isn't just for now but in perpetuity. We have no idea what America's leaders whose great grandparents haven't even been born yet are going to be like and what some of them might want to do.

Al, what is it exactly you think should be able to get done regarding gun control that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is stopping? What's the end game?
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: DonaldD on October 15, 2016, 09:24:36 PM
It's hypothetically just as likely that those weapons will be used to keep someone in power, if it just so happens that the office holder's supporters are the better armed, and he or she is aware of that...
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 16, 2016, 05:56:33 AM
I read that article the other day, Greg, and was about to post a link to it in reply to Al's question. It does give great insight.
Read it.  I understand what he's saying and can't argue with any of it, only crawl under my bed and wait for the apocalypse that will return America to its colonial past when everybody was happy, healthy and loved their lives.
Title: Re: The Second Debate - 2016
Post by: AI Wessex on October 16, 2016, 06:00:27 AM
Quote
Al, what is it exactly you think should be able to get done regarding gun control that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is stopping? What's the end game?
As the Heller dissent pointed out, the 2A does not address self-defense.  That was left to the states to decide for themselves.  Odd that Originalists like Scalia relied on cherry-picking state Constitutions and discarded drafts of the 2A to support his argument.  Not to mention that DC is not a state, so isn't covered by the 2A.

The "end game" is reasonable regulation that balances personal freedoms with public benefit, which it always has been.  Heller created a right that makes it much harder to get there.