U.S. Politics: Blame it on Canada!

[Dr. Pepper]

13 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

More ignorance in the face of things not understood.

If wish this was not happening. But it is.

Uh, yeah.  I pretty explicitly expressed my ignorance.  Then I asked for your alleged expertise since you keep saying you know all about what's going on and why I should care.  So far all we get from the alleged experts in this thread are "but but but emailghazi" or "but petraeus had to resign why won't Hillary resign from her non-existent position as CIA director" or "but here's a link and zero answer".  

[NoneofYourBiz]

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.

You cannot be this dense, and if you are, no explanation will make you less so.

Sandy Berger took physical copies from a secure place to an unsecure place. Petraeus wrote it down and retained it in an unsecure place. Clinton directed her staff to copy information from a secure place and send via unsecured channels to an unsecure place. The crime is the a) movement from secure to unsecure, and retention in unsecure.

Also, case 1: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article29506825.html

Please note that in this instance the investigation revealed no intent to distribute the classified information, but he was still prosecuted.

[Bonesy]

I'm not gonna be a dick. I'm a dick or I'm not.

Mass murder has precedence. It's still wrong.

And this matters to many people that know why it matters.

A reliance on the opinions of those that have no idea is irresponsible.

[Kalbear]

You understand that the physical copies part matters though, right?

As well as a willful intent to knowingly violate the law, right?

You get that both of those things were true with petraeus and berger, and weren't true that we know of with Clinton. You got that, right?

In fact do me a favor and just keep comparing it to berger. It makes it seem a bit less crazy and one track minded. Again I'll ask - any examples of this being prosecuted with email? Any at all?

[Bonesy]

Dr. P,

Pose specific questions and I will try to answer them.

I'm not going to post my resume for obvious reasons, but I will try to help out where I can.

[NoneofYourBiz]

You understand that the physical copies part matters though, right?

As well as a willful intent to knowingly violate the law, right?

You get that both of those things were true with petraeus and berger, and weren't true that we know of with Clinton. You got that, right?

In fact do me a favor and just keep comparing it to berger. It makes it seem a bit less crazy and one track minded. Again I'll ask - any examples of this being prosecuted with email? Any at all?

I put one in my earlier reply to you. Again Petraeus did not have a hard copy of a classified document, he had handwritten notes about classified information, not the actual document. Still bad.

Here's another electronic mishandling that was prosecuted, Lyle White:

White pleaded guilty under a pretrial agreement Wednesday to violating three military regulations: improperly storing classified documents on a non-secure site - namely an external hard drive found at his Virginia Beach home; maintaining possession of the documents; and deliberately removing them from his Navy office without the authority to do so.

http://pilotonline.com/news/military/sailor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-documents/article_75a82c57-550e-5be3-bf96-3d6c01a37e51.html

[NoneofYourBiz]

You understand that the physical copies part matters though, right?

As well as a willful intent to knowingly violate the law, right?

You get that both of those things were true with petraeus and berger, and weren't true that we know of with Clinton. You got that, right?

In fact do me a favor and just keep comparing it to berger. It makes it seem a bit less crazy and one track minded. Again I'll ask - any examples of this being prosecuted with email? Any at all?

1. Physical, electronic, handwritten is all the same.

2. Clinton directing her staffers to strip classified information of identifiers is intent and clearly shows she understood what she was doing.

[Bonesy]

Yes.

I'm done with this conversation.

I'm trying not to show bias, and give as much knowledge as possible within the

restrictions.

Anyone reading this, do your own research

[NoneofYourBiz]

Dr Pepper, apologies for not replying with quote but that function keeps jacking up for me.

Bonesy cannot be too free with the information he shares. I would think that would be obvious but perhaps not.

Your assertions of "screaming emailghazi" and "asking Clinton to resign from a non existent CIA position" lead me to believe you either aren't reading the posts or are not seriously interested in what Bonesy or anyone else has to say, and instead simply trolling.

If you have a question, ask.

[NoneofYourBiz]

Ooh, Kalbear look, this guy was simply taking photos..what happened to him? Whoops, prosecuted.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-sailor-charged-for-taking-photos-inside-nuclear-submarine-2015-7

[Dr. Pepper]

8 minutes ago, DebL66 said:

Dr Pepper, apologies for not replying with quote but that function keeps jacking up for me.

Bonesy cannot be too free with the information he shares. I would think that would be obvious but perhaps not.

Your assertions of "screaming emailghazi" and "asking Clinton to resign from a non existent CIA position" lead me to believe you either aren't reading the posts or are not seriously interested in what Bonesy or anyone else has to say, and instead simply trolling.

If you have a question, ask.

I have asked a question.  Multiple questions.  Others have asked these same questions.  I never once asked Bonesy to be 'free with information". He claims to be an expert and yet can not seem to make any commentary at all other than to let us know he's some sort of expert.  No one asked about him being free with specific information.  It's a perfectly general and simple question: why should we care?  

If he has something to say on this topic, he should just say it. That he won't say anything at all leads me to believe he's not an expert, probably also unlikely to be even vaguely knowledgeable about the topic.  Same with you, btw.

We get it.  There's an FBI investigation.  I don't think anyone at all has disputed this.  I also don't recall anyone disputing whether or not there are rules with handling classified information.  As it pertains to the investigation and the current election, WHY SHOULD WE CARE? I noted friends in relevant fields claiming it happens all that time, public officials have come out to state it happens all the time.  There's no dispute that sometimes people are prosecuted for this.  But when we're talking about an election for president in which Democratic voters have a vested interest in the white house remaining Democratic and no actual charges having been filed and the last high profile case resulting in a simple misdemeanor, why should we care?  

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, DebL66 said:

1. Physical, electronic, handwritten is all the same.

2. Clinton directing her staffers to strip classified information of identifiers is intent and clearly shows she understood what she was doing.

On #1: clearly it's not, or you could find some evidence for it.

On #2, Clinton allegedly did this, right? There has been zero actual evidence reported saying that this is the case. Now I'll agree with you that if she did direct them to do so that would be a very big deal and would make it really easy to prosecute. 

Now, this Lyle White thing - that might have some bearing. Save that he's military, it wasn't emails, it wasn't on a server set up by government officials and was well known ahead of time and there was clear intent in his case. But at least it's an electronic system. The Bryan Nishimura is again documents and not emails. 

The real problem here is that Hillary Clinton can - and already has - indicated that sending mails to private emails or even using a private server is something that is done all the time at the state department. That's why I say that right now it looks really bad for the state department  -because this is apparently how they handle a lot of their secure information. It's hard to say that she did something out of the ordinary for her position when there were apparently 20 years worth of people doing that same thing. 

 

Quote

 

Mass murder has precedence. It's still wrong.

And this matters to many people that know why it matters.

A reliance on the opinions of those that have no idea is irresponsible.

 

Okay, Bones - someone asked you for help and you shot them down. You're right, you aren't trying to be a dick. You were a dick. 

I'm not claiming it doesn't matter. No one is. Some people are asking why it does matter. Others are simply shouting that it's illegal, which isn't particularly helpful given that there's been no trial. But ultimately again I go to the common people thing: how many people are going to care that someone who legally had access to secure information looked at them on their own private server? When there is no demonstrated harm? 

No one - not a single person - is claiming that it isn't wrong. If Deb and you would understand that for even a smidgen of a second that'd be awesome. I am pointing out that it is different in many substantive ways from a crime that was committed by Petraeus - and ways in which make it harder to prosecute. That doesn't make it right. It makes it different. It is different from a number of other document-related things in that someone had to take a willful action to copy said document. This isn't that, either. It's also not clear whether or not Clinton instructed anyone to cut the classified data part off. If she did, that shows intent. If she didn't - or you can't prove that she did - it makes it much harder to prosecute. 

It's also really hard to prosecute if you don't have the will to do so - and that goes to the common man part of it. Again, I'm not saying what she has done is or isn't illegal. I'm saying that if you can't explain it to most people why it's illegal and why it's so wrong, it's going to be hard to generate a lot of outrage and get pressure to prosecute. It wasn't that hard to generate said outrage with Petraeus because he was a creepy fucker and had done something that was easily understood: had hard copies of classified data that he handed to his mistress. Again, this says nothing about the legality of anything - it just says that it's hard to make the political will to prosecute. 

 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, DebL66 said:

Ooh, Kalbear look, this guy was simply taking photos..what happened to him? Whoops, prosecuted.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-sailor-charged-for-taking-photos-inside-nuclear-submarine-2015-7

Sorry - did Clinton take any photos? I fail to see how that's relevant. Heck, he also knew that what he had done was wrong - because he attempted to destroy the evidence. Any indication of that via Clinton? 

Again, I'm not claiming that having classified information in an authorized information is not (potentially) a crime. No one is. Please stop assuming that I'm arguing for the innocence of Hillary Clinton. I'm not.

I'm arguing that there is enough uncertainty around this to be a hard case to prosecute, and that there will likely not exist the political will to prosecute. 

[NoneofYourBiz]

Dr. Pepper, if you do not understand why someone who possibly holds a clearance cannot say much on a public forum, you should think a bit harder. I hold no clearance, and have never held a clearance, and thus have no restrictions. I do however work for a defense contractor and in that capacity have some direct knowledge of how classified information is handled. Certain individuals in my family hold or have held clearances of various levels. I work with numerous individuals with clearances, including retired GOs, a person formerly very highly placed at DHS, numerous retired SEALs and other operators, and it is entirely possible that I may someday be granted one as well in order to work on certain projects. I would by no means classify myself as an expert in this field but do not need to be to understand some very basic concepts here.

. Also much information is readily accessible to anyone via the Internet.

As to why you should care if your potential next POTUS flagrantly and willfully mishandled the highest level of national secrets, it should be obvious. If you don't care, I am quite sure I cannot make you do so.

[Kalbear]

So here's what bothers me about Clinton's email server and a way in which I think you could spin it real ugly for her: it is a clear way to get around the freedom of information act. And point of fact, multiple lawsuits around this have already started. Want something that sticks? Say that "Hillary Clinton used a private email account so that no one could ever legally force her to show her emails. It is the modern day equivalent of deleting recordings by Nixon". 

That being said, there's already a good precedent set for this: the 2007 Bush Emails. That even had emails related to the Plame case. And...no one got charged for doing anything, despite something like 140,000 emails being deleted.

Quote

Dr. Pepper, if you do not understand why someone who possibly holds a clearance cannot say much on a public forum, you should think a bit harder. I hold no clearance, and have never held a clearance, and thus have no restrictions. I do however work for a defense contractor and in that capacity have some direct knowledge of how classified information is handled. 

Gotcha. So you're admitting to having classified information (namely, how classified information is handled, which apparently Bonesy can't discuss) despite not having a clearance and transmitting that information on a public internet site. Are you going to self-report to the FBI, or should I do it for you? 

Quote

As to why you should care if your potential next POTUS flagrantly and willfully mishandled the highest level of national secrets, it should be obvious. If you don't care, I am quite sure I cannot make you do so.

Do you have a single bit of evidence so far that Clinton did willfully mishandle anything? Again, not a single email has been marked top secret or classified so far that we have seen. There has been zero intent established to indicate that she chose to remove classified indicators at all. 

[Bonesy]

Dr. P, I am an SME and no, I will not provide further proof. I can't. Feel free to find this to be bullshit.

As I continue to roll my eyes out of my head.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Bonesy said:

Dr. P, I am an SME and no, I will not provide further proof. I can't. Feel free to find this to be bullshit.

As I continue to roll my eyes out of my head.

So you're an expert, and you find that this sucks, but you won't tell us why and you won't answer any questions about it. But you'll happily respond 20 times to say how much it sucks without adding anything further. 

Awesome. Can you at least indicate what parts you're rolling your eyes at, or is that something that you're also a SME at that cannot respond to at this time due to potentially breaking the law? It'd be awesome if you could just post 20 quotes from me and other people with the  emoticon as a response - I'm sure you can understand how that would make your point significantly more clear. 

[Bonesy]

Jesus fucking christ you argumentative fucking maniac, can you not understand that I CAN'T TALK ABOUT MUCH IN DETAIL.?!!

[Dr. Pepper]

25 minutes ago, DebL66 said:

 

Dr. Pepper, if you do not understand why someone who possibly holds a clearance cannot say much on a public forum, you should think a bit harder.

If someone who allegedly holds a clearance cannot answer a basic question, then they really have no reason to come in claiming to have the right stance on this because alleged expertise.  

 

10 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

Dr. P, I am an SME and no, I will not provide further proof. I can't. Feel free to find this to be bullshit.

As I continue to roll my eyes out of my head.

Roll your eyes all you want but I didn't ask for proof of anything. I didn't ask what sort of job you did.  I actually initially accepted that you likely had a specialized understanding of this situation and could offer commentary. I simply asked for you to follow up on your statement of alleged expertise with a very basic question.  

 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

Jesus fucking christ you argumentative fucking maniac, can you not understand that I CAN'T TALK ABOUT MUCH IN DETAIL.?!!

Copied for pussy editing.

If that's the case, why are you bothering to respond? Why aren't you dropping out of it like you said 3 hours ago? I get that you claim that you can't talk at all about it. I don't get for a second why you need to repeatedly inform us of that as well as your distaste for what we're talking about. It's passive aggressive bullshit that at best makes it clear that maybe someone didn't say something precisely accurate.