Author Topic: The Second Debate - 2016  (Read 14341 times)

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
The Second Debate - 2016
« 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.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #1 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?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #2 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.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #3 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #4 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #5 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.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #6 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. 

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #7 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #8 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.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #9 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #10 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. :)

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #11 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.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2016, 11:14:06 AM »
I do not understand this "email" scandal.


DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #13 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.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #14 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

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #15 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?

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #16 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #17 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.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #18 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?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2016, 01:03:23 PM by AI Wessex »

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #19 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...

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2016, 01:04:57 PM »
DW, that's *if* she committed a crime.  Comey categorically says that she did not.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2016, 01:07:18 PM »
I don't believe she committed a crime.  I think she intentionally found away around it.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #22 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #23 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #24 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.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #25 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:
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.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #26 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.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #27 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.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #28 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.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #29 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?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #30 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...

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #31 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #32 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.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #33 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. 

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #34 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.  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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #35 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. 

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #36 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. 

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #37 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.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #38 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?"


AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #39 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #40 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.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #41 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?

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #42 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?

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #43 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.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #44 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?

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #45 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.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #46 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

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #47 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #48 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« Reply #49 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.