Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Understanding security clearances is not something to be marginalized. It is of paramount importance. If one doesn't understand that truth, one is living in fantasy. And looking foolish. And yet most people don't care. I get that it's important to you and deb. Do you get that most people don't think it's that big a deal provided that there isn't an actual breach? Again, totally get the idea that this is something that could be a crime. I also get that it wasn't so far shown to be leaked much less leaked to Clinton's mistress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Petraeus wasn't tried for mishandling of documents either. So they're different. Some people do care. The general public does not. Petraeus was actually prosecuted for being a creepy fucker, and said prosecution also revealed that he had broken protocol. I don't know that no one lost their lives or any info was leaked. However there is zero evidence that any one lost their lives or anything was leaked. I'm not saying what she did was or wasn't a crime. It is not however comparable to petraeus. Not recognizing that makes you appear to either be a partisan hack or incapable of understanding anything beyond security clearances. I was unaware that being a creepy fucker was against the law, and that you could be prosecuted for it. Furthermore, what the general public gives a shit about has no bearing on the law. Petraeus was prosecuted for unlawful removal and retention of classified information. If Clinton had classified information on an unsecure server, and it appears that she did, that is unlawful removal and retention of classified information. Petraeus wrote his down and held it it an unlocked desk drawer in his home. Clinton apparently had it sitting on a unsecure server. Furthermore, she seems to have directed her aides to either retype or cut and paste classified info from its original source in order to transmit via unsecure email. You understand that this is essentially taking classified information from a secure place, and transmitting/retaining on unsecure place. It is the same thing Petraeus did, only more egregious and involving more people. Are you willfully ignoring this? You have to be. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-justice-department-criminal-charges-against-david-petraeus I did not see any mention of prosecution for being a creepy fucker. Continuing your arguments makes you appear to be someone who does not understand the meaning of the word prosecution or the difference between feelings and the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Again, not saying that she shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm saying it's not the same as petraeus, and comparing the two just ends up arguing about why they're different. I get why it could be illegal. Do you get how it is very different from what Petraeus did? More specifically, you understand that petraeus got charged because of evidence that he gave this information willingly to another person, right? That's kind of a big deal. I get that in theory they're the same crime; the issue is that people in general don't get tried and convicted for what Clinton did (because if they did every state dept official would be tried for the last 16 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Critically, we need to define "most people." The people that know little about this are the majority. The people that do know obviously care. You are correct on this. But once there are conclusions made by those that know and have the position to to speak, it will become common knowledge. And people will become knowledgeable. I'm guessing whatever nebulous belief of Clinton's qualifications on national security will erode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Again, not saying that she shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm saying it's not the same as petraeus, and comparing the two just ends up arguing about why they're different. I get why it could be illegal. Do you get how it is very different from what Petraeus did? No. The only difference is that Clinton's alleged crimes are more egregious. What makes you think it is so different? Because Petraeus passed the info to his mistress? A mistress who also held a clearance? (still not ok). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Bones, you have a whole lot more faith in people than I do. 66% of Republicans believe Obama is a muslim. You think that people are going to be outraged that someone had a possibility of leaking things that maybe mattered? I think those that hate Clinton will use it repeatedly, those who don't won't care and will badly dismiss it, and a few people who Really Care about ts/SAP will be really angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 No. The only difference is that Clinton's alleged crimes are more egregious. What makes you think it is so different? Because Petraeus passed the info to his mistress? A mistress who also held a clearance? (still not ok). Yep, pretty much that deb. That and he wrote it down in a different format. And it was scandalous. And he was in the military. Clinton also hasn't committed any crimes. She hasn't even been charged with any crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 More specifically, you understand that petraeus got charged because of evidence that he gave this information willingly to another person, right? That's kind of a big deal. I get that in theory they're the same crime; the issue is that people in general don't get tried and convicted for what Clinton did (because if they did every state dept official would be tried for the last 16 years). Petraeus was prosecuted for writing classified info in a journal and keeping that info in an unsecure place. I don't know how to be any clearer than that. That was all it took, he broke the law right there, even if he never passed that info to anyone, Hillary similarly broke the law by holding classified information on a unsecure server. The fact that the information was cut and pasted or retyped from the source document and was unmarked is meaningless. It has derivative classification, just like the info in Petraeus' journal. Thus her word play that "she never received anything marked classified" is utterly meaningless, and anyone with the slightest understanding of classified information understands this. Despite what you seem to think, people do get prosecuted for what Clinton did, and in fact they are prosecuted for less. Are you hung up on the passing of info? I would certainly argue that passing classified info to someone who is similarly cleared is less damaging than keeping such info on a unsecure server and exposing it to hackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Who else has been prosecuted and convicted of what Clinton did? What hackers saw this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Yep, pretty much that deb. That and he wrote it down in a different format. And it was scandalous. And he was in the military. Clinton also hasn't committed any crimes. She hasn't even been charged with any crimes. Clinton had her aides do the same thing...they either copied and pasted or retyped the info from a secure document and put it in unsecure format. Petraeus wrote it down, they copied and pasted it, but it is the same thing. That is scandalous. And she was Secretary of State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Kal, I can't say that I do or don't have more faith in people; I'm pretty jaded. But in this case it's not about who does or does not hate Clinton to me. I know it's hard to imagine as I am currently a partisan, but I want the least damage to my country possible. I want this to go away. Both because I think my candidate can win without this shit, and because I hope somehow this is a bad dream. But you act like TS/SCI is something Alan Dean Foster made up. I assure you it is not. If as you say only people with code word access are upset, THERE IS A GOOD GODDAMNED REASON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Allegedly. And writing it down isn't the same as copying or forwarding emails. Again, who else has been convicted of this crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Bonesy said: Watching the NFL games now but here for now: http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/ The is as accurate as anything I've read yet. I guess to be more precise, my question is more on why I should care. I've read the articles about this and doubt I'll learn anything new from it. Why should I care that she's being investigated? Isn't that what's to be expected? Why should I care that they've yet to find anything with which to charge her with? It seems pretty damn reasonable for there to be an investigation, but an investigation shouldn't really mean yammering for a charge if there are no charges that apply. Unless she's charged and then somehow disqualified from running for the presidency, public perception is what's going to matter here. I would guess that most people don't understand the difference between one server and another. I would guess that most people hear that she sent emails and would think "so, what, I do that every day." Further, just speaking from conversations within my own social circle, a lot of people generally assume that government networks are slow and frequently down such that it can impede one's ability to do their job. Several of my friends who work in relevant fields where they regularly access these TS networks have jokingly said that the government would be crippled if they started charging everyone who mishandled classified documents because everyone mishandles classified documents because there often is no other way to do it. These comments from friends become less and less anecdotal when I start seeing articles from other public figures agreeing that it really isn't uncommon for public officials to use private email. That's not to mention that Rice and Powell haven't fallen under scrutiny when they didn't even provide their emails or claimed they'd erased them. It starts to look like a partisan hack job and that's unlikely to make the public care about the email problem. I recognize my not caring can be can be labeled partisan. I'm solidly Democratic and it's unlikely anything beyond total disqualification would stop me voting democratic in the general if HRC is the nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Allegedly. And writing it down isn't the same as copying or forwarding emails. Again, who else has been convicted of this crime? Whew, that is real willful denial there. Writing it down is copying the information from its classified source. Copying and pasting is copying the information from its classified source. You understand that what apparently was done is, in the most basic of terms, there were documents on a system exclusively used for classified information. This info is to stay on this system, and be transmitted via this system, where it is secure. Clinton directed her aides to "turn this into nonpaper and send unsecure". This means she directed her staffers to strip the classified information of its classification identifiers and send the still classified information over an unsecure system. Or retype the information from the secure system into an nonsecure system. Either way she instructed them to take classified information from a secure place to an unsecure place. That is an illegal thing to do, and it shows that it was willful. Petraeus did the same thing by writing classified information down and bringing it home. Who else was prosecuted for mishandling classified info? Lots of people...off the top of my head a case that should be familiar to you is Sandy Berger. Google it if it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneofYourBiz Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Dr. Pepper, it is not illegal for public officials to use private email. It is illegal to use private, unsecured email for transmission of classified information. Clinton also did not just have a private email, but a private Server. Since you mentioned Rice and Powell, Rice has stated that she did not use personal email for State business, while Powell said he had a secure set up at State for sending classified and used personal email for nonsecure correspondence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 More ignorance in the face of things not understood. If wish this was not happening. But it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 More ignorance in the face of things not understood. If wish this was not happening. But it is. What ignorance? Someone asked why they should care. You gonna be a dick and say they should and call it denial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 And berger took physical copies of classified information away, right? So it is like petraeus. It isn't like clinton, as taking from a secure to an unsecured server doesn't have precedence. How about another case, deb? Got any others? You're 0 for 1 so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Starting to wonder. Much as I despise the government trend towards classifying everything, it does seem a solid case could be made against Clinton on these grounds. Which kills her candidacy. With the republicans, we have the birther suit against Cruz, also real iffy, but potentially a candidate killer. Which leaves us with Sanders verses Trump for the big contest. And regardless of which gets elected, neither gets a second term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh, I think a solid case could be made. Maybe. It's not like the server was a secret and there's very little evidence of maliciousness or intent to commit. In both the petraeus and the berger cases the intent was clear to get classified info away; while ignorance of the law shouldn't be an excuse, it often has been. As to the presidency I suspect it won't hold a lot of water unless an actual trial takes place. Like I said, explaining to people that Clinton even had a Private email server and why that is bad or even what it is is going to be hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.