Jump to content

US Elections - From Russia with Love


The Anti-Targ

Recommended Posts

Quote
18 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Is there anything Clinton can do to blunt the effects of the release of those emails?  One thing they've done is to point out that this is manipulation of our election by the Russians in order to help elect Trump.  I think it's a good point to make.  I think many Americans have a strong aversion to Russian manipulation of our elections.  Is there anything else that can be done?  At this point, I think the Clinton campaign has to prepare as if Russia has the emails and will post them before the elections.

Can't imagine she can do anything. Once they get out, it shows she was grossly negligent and that's a prosecutable offense. 

But is that the standard for prosecution, that she was hacked? Surely criminal gross negligence is proven / provable if she has an e-mail system that is hackable, or rather more hackable than her secure SoS e-mail system. And as the FBI has elected not to prosecute based on current information, which includes the vulnerability of the server, then she's clear on that. What can lead to prosecution is if she lied to the FBI and there was highly classified e-mails that she knew were highly classified. She's pretty much immune from prosecution for having an under-secured private email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But is that the standard for prosecution, that she was hacked? Surely criminal gross negligence is proven / provable if she has an e-mail system that is hackable, or rather more hackable than her secure SoS e-mail system. And as the FBI has elected not to prosecute based on current information, which includes the vulnerability of the server, then she's clear on that. What can lead to prosecution is if she lied to the FBI and there was highly classified e-mails that she knew were highly classified. She's pretty much immune from prosecution for having an under-secured private email.

I think the argument was that one of the elements of gross negligence is that an unauthorized third party actually gained possession of the classified emails.  Since there is no proof yet that a third party gained possession of the classified information, you can't establish gross negligence.

Personally, I'm not sure this distinction that a third party gained possession to the classified information is that critical.  It's possible it is, but I'm not sure.  Comey really focused on intent.  He did not find that Clinton had any intent to mishandle the classified information.  I think that might save her even if Russia did hack her server.  If the release is in October, I doubt that Comey prosecutes Clinton.  Even if Russia releases the emails in August, I wouldn't be surprised if Comey declines to prosecute.  If there is any way to avoid prosecution of Clinton, Comey will take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But is that the standard for prosecution, that she was hacked? Surely criminal gross negligence is proven / provable if she has an e-mail system that is hackable, or rather more hackable than her secure SoS e-mail system. And as the FBI has elected not to prosecute based on current information, which includes the vulnerability of the server, then she's clear on that. What can lead to prosecution is if she lied to the FBI and there was highly classified e-mails that she knew were highly classified. She's pretty much immune from prosecution for having an under-secured private email.

Yep.  She was either negligent or she wasn't.  I don't see how whether she actually got hacked makes much difference in that context.  But I'm not a lawyer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comey won't be able to avoid prosecution if any hacked and released e-mails that aren't currently in the possession of the FBI prove that Clinton knowingly lied to the FBI / under oath, or are at least prima facie evidence that she probably lied to the FBI or under oath.

Like just about all political prosecutions, what would bring Hillary down is not what she did, but the cover up. At this point her highest risk of prosecution is perjury or perverting the course of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To paraphrase Stefan Molyneux: Gotta hand it to Bernie Sanders, he promised cheap education and for an average of $27 per contribution, he gave his supporters a lesson in how the DNC works.

I also see Trump is now openly asking the Russians to help.  Helping out each other where you can is sure to be a improvement in US-Russian relations considering recent tensions.

American politics is much more entertaining than most other places. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Comey won't be able to avoid prosecution if any hacked and released e-mails that aren;t currently in the possession of the FBI prove that Clinton knowingly lied to the FBI / under oath, or are at least prima facie evidence that she probably lied to the FBI or under oath.

Yeah, that's true, but at this point, it's complete speculation what's in those deleted emails.  I'm assuming it's mostly personal emails, with some work emails thrown in by accident.  I'm not going to assume that there's a smoking gun in there right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Yeah, that's true, but at this point, it's complete speculation what's in those deleted emails.  I'm assuming it's mostly personal emails, with some work emails thrown in by accident.  I'm not going to assume that there's a smoking gun in there right now.

It's a Schrodinger's smoking gun right now. It both exists and does not exist until the box is open and we see what's inside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gross negligence is still super unlikely. It's been prosecuted once and failed then, and I think that case was someone actually leaving a ts document in the open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or do other people see Trump's whole Russia should hack into Hillary's e-mail schtick as a giant bait/troll? I don't know why people are taking what he said so deadly serious. I mean you don't really think he thinks it's actually a good idea? Unless he really is a Manchurian candidate, he's still got to be sufficiently patriotic that he would not want foreign powers getting their hands on emails that are possibly damaging to national security. Even though, as people have noted, Russia, Iran, China, Israel, Germany, France, the UK and several other countries probably do have her e-mails. Yeah, if people think it's only the USA's foes that snoop on them then they should have a wee chat with Angela Merkel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh I think I've hit my limit. I am alternating between being terrified Trump will win, and being utterly exhausted from thinking and worrying about it. Or maybe I'm just depressed. It's probably that. At this point I feel like Trump could murder a person in front of everyone and none of his followers would blink an eye. You'd probably just hear "YEAH making America Great again! go Trump! They deserved it." 

 

And could the DNC and Hillary please STOP shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. just stop doing things that make you look worse! stop ittttttt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is it just me, or do other people see Trump's whole Russia should hack into Hillary's e-mail schtick as a giant bait/troll? I don't know why people are taking what he said so deadly serious. I mean you don't really think he thinks it's actually a good idea?

Trump is almost certainly joking and/or trolling. However, it is being taken seriously because this topic is a rather sore point with most of the elite and their servants in the media. Trump is unpredictable -- it's not at all obvious what he will actually do should he win. The elites don't like this, but they've been relatively unworried because, up until now, it required a lot of imagination to create a scenario in which Trump wins. I'm sure you've read the laundry list of reasons why he cannot win (the demographics are against him, he has offended literally everyone in the country at one point or another, etc.) and while this is obviously propaganda, there is quite a bit of truth to it. The prediction markets currently consider Clinton twice as likely to win and Republican odds have not been significantly better since March.

The emails throw a huge amount of uncertainty into this scenario. If they're released in October, Trump most certainly can win and it's not clear what can be done about it at that point. Furthermore, this is precisely the scenario our elites like least: nobody knows the risks and the players are outside of their zone of influence. It could be that it'll all amount to nothing and Clinton will win as expected, but it's suddenly not looking as inevitable as it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Trump is almost certainly joking and/or trolling. However, it is being taken seriously because this topic is a rather sore point with most of the elite and their servants in the media. Trump is unpredictable -- it's not at all obvious what he will actually do should he win. The elites don't like this, but they've been relatively unworried because, up until now, it required a lot of imagination to create a scenario in which Trump wins. I'm sure you've read the laundry list of reasons why he cannot win (the demographics are against him, he has offended literally everyone in the country at one point or another, etc.) and while this is obviously propaganda, there is quite a bit of truth to it. The prediction markets currently consider Clinton twice as likely to win and Republican odds have not been significantly better since March.

The emails throw a huge amount of uncertainty into this scenario. If they're released in October, Trump most certainly can win and it's not clear what can be done about it at that point. Furthermore, this is precisely the scenario our elites like least: nobody knows the risks and the players are outside of their zone of influence. It could be that it'll all amount to nothing and Clinton will win as expected, but it's suddenly not looking as inevitable as it did.

Why? What evidence do you have that he was joking? That's a pretty huge assumption to make about something this important. And even if he was joking it would still be terrible because foreign espionage and election tampering are not issues that public figures should be taking lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact Trump is saying these things is just further confirmation that he lacks fundamental personal qualities necessary in a national president. But we didn't need further confirmation because we already know enough about him to know this. Or we know these things and still think he's the best option. But really, when it comes to baiting and trolling there are no sacred cows. It's fair game if it's a game you want to play. People are perhaps a bit too precious about it. It's not like Russia is going to decide to act or not to act based on some shit Trump says as a throw away line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Why? What evidence do you have that he was joking? That's a pretty huge assumption to make about something this important. And even if he was joking it would still be terrible because foreign espionage and election tampering are not issues that public figures should be taking lightly.

I cannot conclusively prove to you that he is joking, but the entire premise is a reformulation of a fairly old joke that already had several incarnations: hey, NSA/Snowden/etc., I forgot my password (or dropped my laptop or formatted my hard drive or whatever) -- can you please tell me what it was (or provide me with a copy of my files)? All Trump did was reformulate it as "Hey Russia, our former Secretary of State deleted some emails -- can you please share your copy of them with us?" I personally thought it was pretty funny.

As to foreign espionage and election tampering being serious issues, I agree with you, but rather than getting upset with somebody who makes a joke about them (which is relatively harmless), I think it would be much more productive not to nominate somebody who made foreign espionage much easier to an even higher position and thus potentially make election tampering by a foreign power a viable proposition. Ah well, that ship has sailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...