Ordos Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm talking about the presidential primaries. They don't have a say in the General Election except for D.C. but they do have delegates and hold a vote for the primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think Clinton's argument is that none of the emails that she received or sent were marked confidential/secret/top secret/etc., so she's not responsible that all these emails were found on her private server, and even if she forwarded these emails to someone without clearance, it's not her fault because they weren't marked. I don't buy this line of reasoning, but we've had this argument before. You are right not to buy this line of reasoning. She is playing with words here. It's not the markings on a document that make it classified, it's the content. She has been trained to recognize classified material, marked or not, as all clearance holders are. She knows this, she is just betting that most people do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Well, the big difference is whether or not the emails were shared inappropriately. As pointed out by Bonesy the state department routinely had insecure systems for top secret emails - with or without Clinton's server coming into the mix. Petraus wasn't busted for having state secrets - he was busted for sharing them with someone who didn't have clearance. To my knowledge we don't have any actual evidence that any of these TS emails were broadcast to anyone without clearance. You could make the argument that them being on a private email server is sharing them, but it's not nearly as cut and dried as Petraus writing down classified information in books and then handing them to his mistress. The circumstances are the same, Clinton's are possibly worse. Petraeus mishandled classified information by writing it down and holding it in an unsecured facility...his home. Even without passing it to his mistress he mishandled classified information. Consider now that not only were classified documents sitting on on a server at Platte River (not cleared to hold), a thumb drive with her lawyer (not cleared to hold) and her own home brew server (not cleared), but also that she transmitted such info over unsecured lines making it vulnerable to hacking. She also emailed classified info to her buddy Sid Blumenthal, who does not hold a clearance. There now seems to be email evidence that she instructed her staff to strip classified info of its markings in order transmit the information over an unsecured fax line. The recent revelation that some of the info in her emails was SAP is pretty breathtaking. Edited to add: Additionally, as Secretary of State, Hillary had Original Classification Authority. This means that she receives training to recognize classified information (and is required to take a yearly refresher course) and has the authority and responsibility to classify such information if sent to her unmarked or unclassified. In other words, even if she was the recipient of classified info stripped of its markings from another source, she should recognize it as classified info and immediately mark it and handle it as such. Claiming that she did not know it was classified because it was not marked as such does not give her a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 17 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said: The occasionally beautiful things I see when I go to check my email. I mean, what's the out on this one? I'd love to hear it. For those who don't click or whatever, that's a link to a Yahoo article describing a retweet or something from an openly racist neo-nazi tweeter (I don't know the proper terms for this internet shit, sorry). Here's another link from NBC, 'cause I'm gonna try to avoid the obligatory 'you can't trust Yahoo!!!' comment. And here's one from Politico. Want any more and you'll have to google yourself, 'cause I'm gonna go and make dinner. Eh. Probably retweeted by a staffer without even looking at who originally posted it. I guess it was pretty likely to happen when you can't be assed to vett content , and you actively court racists, What will be more telling is if he lets it stay and, if he does, what reasons he gives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 7 hours ago, DebL66 said: The recent revelation that some of the info in her emails was SAP is pretty breathtaking. Yes, that was a bit surprising. My understanding is that, contrary to what one might expect from the name, TS is not actually treated with rigorous operational security... but TS/SAP generally is actually supposed to be secret and should not be stored in random places (e.g. a home server) or transmitted via over random channels. I'm sure the Attorney General isn't going to do anything about it, but if there is sufficient evidence, it may be possible to raise enough of a fuss to do some serious damage to her campaign as this is a serious mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I dunno. The Republicans have been pushing at the Clinton email scandal for what, nine months now? How much traction has it actually had so far, ie with actual undecided voters or Clinton supporters, not people who already hate the Clintons? My impression is, not much, though that's from a distance, of course. Again, my feeling is it'll largely reinforce existing antipathy/apathy/support or have a marginal effect at worst. It would be a completely different story if information had actually leaked, I'm sure - but since it didn't, the story, to the average voter, is a bit abstruse, hanging on issues of proper protocol, classification levels, encryption, server security and other stuff that they probably find a bit dull and/or confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Quote I dunno. The Republicans have been pushing at the Clinton email scandal for what, nine months now? How much traction has it actually had so far, ie with actual undecided voters or Clinton supporters, not people who already hate the Clintons? My impression is, not much, though that's from a distance, of course. Again, my feeling is it'll largely reinforce existing antipathy/apathy/support or have a marginal effect at worst. It would be a completely different story if information had actually leaked, I'm sure - but since it didn't, the story, to the average voter, is a bit abstruse, hanging on issues of proper protocol, classification levels, encryption, server security and other stuff that they probably find a bit dull and/or confusing. What they need to do is pull her into Congress, really make their case in front of the nation. That'll really take her down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Yes, that was a bit surprising. My understanding is that, contrary to what one might expect from the name, TS is not actually treated with rigorous operational security... but TS/SAP generally is actually supposed to be secret and should not be stored in random places (e.g. a home server) or transmitted via over random channels. I'm sure the Attorney General isn't going to do anything about it, but if there is sufficient evidence, it may be possible to raise enough of a fuss to do some serious damage to her campaign as this is a serious mistake. Having some issues with the quote function: SAP is strictly need to know. So you could hold TS/SCI clearance and still not have access to SAP. It is impossible that Hillary would not recognize this sort of information...info that if received via unsecured means would make even those authorized to know shit their pants. It's serious business. If everything that has been alleged is true, I don't see how she could not be prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 25 minutes ago, mormont said: I dunno. The Republicans have been pushing at the Clinton email scandal for what, nine months now? How much traction has it actually had so far, ie with actual undecided voters or Clinton supporters, not people who already hate the Clintons? My impression is, not much, though that's from a distance, of course. Again, my feeling is it'll largely reinforce existing antipathy/apathy/support or have a marginal effect at worst. It would be a completely different story if information had actually leaked, I'm sure - but since it didn't, the story, to the average voter, is a bit abstruse, hanging on issues of proper protocol, classification levels, encryption, server security and other stuff that they probably find a bit dull and/or confusing. I completely agree. I find that the best scandals are clear and unambiguous, and this email thing fails on both counts. Republicans will no doubt keep beating this drum, but I doubt it will yield a sound they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I dunno. The Republicans have been pushing at the Clinton email scandal for what, nine months now? How much traction has it actually had so far, ie with actual undecided voters or Clinton supporters, not people who already hate the Clintons? My impression is, not much, though that's from a distance, of course. Again, my feeling is it'll largely reinforce existing antipathy/apathy/support or have a marginal effect at worst. It would be a completely different story if information had actually leaked, I'm sure - but since it didn't, the story, to the average voter, is a bit abstruse, hanging on issues of proper protocol, classification levels, encryption, server security and other stuff that they probably find a bit dull and/or confusing. People can understand very easily being convicted of a crime under the Espionage Act. People can also understand that gross negligence in handling the nation's most secret and sensitive information should disqualify you from running for the top office in the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I agree, people can understand an Espionage Act conviction. Has that happened? Does it seem likely to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Trump tells crowd he could shoot somebody and not lose voters. The really sad part is that he's probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Someone just posted this on my Facebook, claiming that Michael Bloomberg is strongly considering running for President as an independent if either Trump or Cruz wins the Republican nomination: http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/bloomberg-may-join-presidential-race/2/ Does anyone know if Second Nexus is generally considered a reliable news source? And would this help the Republican or Democratic candidate more if it happened? My initial worry is that this would actually make it more likely for Trump or Cruz to win the White House, as Bloomberg would siphon off more votes from the Democrats in swing states like Florida and Colorado. But I am no expert. P.S. I guess the information is fairly likely to be correct as the Washington Post is now reporting it, and their article says the New York Times was actually the first to mention it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-bloomberg-considers-a-presidential-run/2016/01/23/1a0f4176-c1ee-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I agree, people can understand an Espionage Act conviction. Has that happened? Does it seem likely to? It has not happened as the investigation has not been completed. As I said, if what has come out in the press is true, it is difficult to imagine the FBI would not make the appropriate recommendation. Petraeus went down for less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuenjato Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 2 hours ago, mormont said: I dunno. The Republicans have been pushing at the Clinton email scandal for what, nine months now? How much traction has it actually had so far, ie with actual undecided voters or Clinton supporters, not people who already hate the Clintons? My impression is, not much, though that's from a distance, of course. Again, my feeling is it'll largely reinforce existing antipathy/apathy/support or have a marginal effect at worst. It would be a completely different story if information had actually leaked, I'm sure - but since it didn't, the story, to the average voter, is a bit abstruse, hanging on issues of proper protocol, classification levels, encryption, server security and other stuff that they probably find a bit dull and/or confusing. There's no traction outside the right-o-sphere. It occasionally comes up in 'central' and left media as simply clickbait. Still, one can expect to hear about this--and BENGHAZI!--nonstop until the next talking point is manufactured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 35 minutes ago, Ormond said: P.S. I guess the information is fairly likely to be correct as the Washington Post is now reporting it, and their article says the New York Times was actually the first to mention it: Here is the New York Times article. However, note that the quote in this article says that he'll only run if it's Sanders for the Democrats and either Trump or Cruz for the Republicans (i.e. a clash of non-mainstream candidates). It would certainly be interesting as Bloomberg has a set of values which is a mix of the traditional Republican and Democrat ones: he's with the Democrats on social issues like abortion and gun control, but his positions on Wall Street is essentially the Republican one. However, I don't think he's likely to run as Sanders vs. Trump is probably not happening. Furthermore, even if he did run, I doubt he'd get very far with such a platform -- it works in New York City, but probably not many other places. That said, it would be awesome if we could get 4 candidates: Sanders, Trump, Bloomberg and somebody who is effectively Bloomberg's mirror image: socially conservative (like Trump is currently claiming to be), but strongly anti-Wall Street (like Sanders). If by some miracle this happened, we could finally separate the financial values from the social ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I could see a Sanders(D)-Bloomberg(I)-Cruz(R)-Trump(I) four-way race. I hope it doesn't happen, though. There's not much that could increase the chances of Trump winning more significantly though, so while it'd be interesting from a purely academic perspective, it'd also be absolutely terrifying from the potential results perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Inigima said: I agree, people can understand an Espionage Act conviction. Has that happened? Does it seem likely to? Inigima, But if that doesn't happen based upon a political decision made by the Justice department, is that kosher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 In other news, Ted Cruz is a lying weasel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 37 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Inigima, But if that doesn't happen based upon a political decision made by the Justice department, is that kosher? You're begging the question JUST A LITTLE there, don't you think, Scot? Maybe a lot of questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.