What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
It is inappropriate for any email to anyone to contain classified information.  

As for the specific executive order maybe its that " (b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. "
Click to expand...


This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
Click to expand...
The duty to classify remains, but I agree it's not incumbent to mark something a unclassified. I just think it's really interesting that that person did in that instance. It's wrong to extrapolate a broader rule from that, I agree.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
Interesting that today's events didn't move the odds even slightly.  Hillary still at 4/9 and Trump still at ~10/3.

Clinton with a 9.8% lead in H2H polling average too.  Those start to matter now that the election is closer.
Click to expand...
As many people are frightened that Trump will drop a nuke as are comforted that he is  Republican in the white house.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Please link the law that states that government employees are not allowed to possess copies of their emails and other nonsecured documents.
Click to expand...
B1 - Data which is unclassified and as long as he/she obeys the Foia laws. Fine.

B2 - Data which is classified is not ok. - You want the chapter and verse for that? (eta - I see Henry has it below).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
B1 - Which FOIA law did Hillary break?    

B2 - None of the emails were classified while Hillary maintained them.  
Click to expand...
B1 - Hold on. I am talking about creating a rule as a matter of practice which would allow employees who handle classified information to email it to their private servers. Foia is a whole other thing, you just asked which laws would apply. I could see yes an employee emailing to his personal server unclassified info without violating Foia so long as IT and national archives knew about it and so long as they complied with retention and termination policies.

B2 - Again I am talking about creating a rule which federal employees would be following post-Hillary's practice. And you asked about the difference between .gov vs personal email with a personal server. - The difference would be that in the former instance (with nothing else done like downloading) the data would remain with the federal government; in the latter the data would be in the possession of the employee without doing anything else. As a defense all the employee would have to do is claim it was unmarked.

So - for instance - if a State employee heard the name of a human intelligence source in a foreign country, which is absolutely classified information, in the course of a meeting at State then calmly walked to his desk and sent an email to himself with that information, he would then have that information retained in his possession in his server. Illegal.

So - for instance - if a State employee saw a map of a military operation in a foreign country, which is absolutely classified information, in the course of a meeting at State then took a picture of that and calmly walked to his desk and sent an email to himself with that information, he would then have that information retained in his possession in his server. Illegal.

So - for instance - if a State employee saw an unmarked document with the information from a spy in a foreign government, which is absolutely classified information, in the course of a meeting at State then took that document and scanned that and calmly walked to his desk and sent an email to himself with that scan attached, he would then have that information retained in his possession in his server. Illegal.

All unmarked, all classified, all automatically on his server in his possession.

With a gov account that is not the case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
ENOUGH with the damn emails! 

-Bernie Sanders. 
Click to expand...


giphy.gif


 
Henry Ford said:
If it contains classified information, 18 USC 1924. 
Click to expand...
(a)


Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.


(b)


For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).


[SIZE=14.6667px][/SIZE][SIZE=10pt](c)[/SIZE]


In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
 
 

 
Quoting the same article as earlier  unless there is an example that fits-
 
 
"Sometimes information is so obviously sensitive that you can infer knowledge from the content," in which case the lack of markings may not matter for the purpose of establishing liability, Sales said.
 
[SIZE=13.3333px]Then [/SIZE]
 "I look at something which requires knowledge, and the first question I've got to ask is, 'How do they prove knowledge?'" said Bill Jeffress, a Washington criminal defense lawyer

Especially since email is "non secured".   It can't purposely contained classified information.  


 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
(a)


Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.


...
Click to expand...
First you know - you know - the statement that Hillary signed acknowledges that classified information is so marked or unmarked.

Also, the point I was making is that federal employees in the future - using the Hillary Rule - can say that if it wasn't marked they did nothing illegal by transferring classified information unauthorized/unsecure. So my point is that you are advocating that federal employees should be able to do that. So long as information is not marked - regardless of how sensitive or damaging it is - federal employees should be able to remove and transfer that information to anyone or anywhere regardless of the form or nature or whether an email or a memo or a picture or just plain words that they actually wrote themselves.

Is that what you are proposing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
B1 - Hold on. I am talking about creating a rule as a matter of practice which would allow employees who handle classified information to email it to their private servers. Foia is a whole other thing, you just asked which laws would apply. I could see yes an employee emailing to his personal server unclassified info without violating Foia so long as IT and national archives knew about it and so long as they complied with retention and termination policies.

B2 - Again I am talking about creating a rule which federal employees would be following post-Hillary's practice. And you asked about the difference between .gov vs personal email with a personal server. - The difference would be that in the former instance (with nothing else done like downloading) the data would remain with the federal government; in the latter the data would be in the possession of the employee without doing anything else. As a defense all the employee would have to do is claim it was unmarked.

So - for instance - if a State employee heard the name of a human intelligence source in a foreign country, which is absolutely classified information, in the course of a meeting at State then calmly walked to his desk and sent an email to himself with that information, he would then have that information retained in his possession in his server. Illegal.

So - for instance - if a State employee saw a map of a military operation in a foreign country, which is absolutely classified information, in the course of a meeting at State then took a picture of that and calmly walked to his desk and sent an email to himself with that information, he would then have that information retained in his possession in his server. Illegal.

So - for instance - if a State employee saw an unmarked document with the information from a spy in a foreign government, which is absolutely classified information, in the course of a meeting at State then took that document and scanned that and calmly walked to his desk and sent an email to himself with that scan attached, he would then have that information retained in his possession in his server. Illegal.

All unmarked, all classified, all automatically on his server in his possession.

With a gov account that is not the case.
Click to expand...
Technically there is no such thing as "absolutely classified information".   The executive orders define what may be classified, not what must be classified,  But I agree that in practice it works the wrong  way.   

So now which of your "for instances" would be appropriate to "email himself" to his .gov account?   

And sorry I didn't ask for a difference.  I said when it comes to what can be appropriately emailed there is no difference.  And "hold on" you brought up FOIA request with B1, not me.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Technically there is no such thing as "absolutely classified information".   The executive orders define what may be classified, not what must be classified,  But I agree that in practice it works the wrong  way.   

So now which of your "for instances" would be appropriate to "email himself" to his .gov account?   

And sorry I didn't ask for a difference.  I said when it comes to what can be appropriately emailed there is no difference.  And "hold on" you brought up FOIA request with B1, not me.
Click to expand...
Ok, you did not ask, you made an assertion and I refuted that assertion. There is very much a difference. Where that data lands is extremely important. There is a huge difference between the server in the guts of Foggy Bottom and someone's basement in outer suburbia, backed up in an apartment bathroom thousands of miles away no less, which is actually what happened here.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
First you know - you know - the statement that Hillary signed acknowledges that classified information is so marked or unmarked.

Also, the point I was making is that federal employees in the future - using the Hillary Rule - can say that if it wasn't marked they did nothing illegal by transferring classified information unauthorized/unsecure. So my point is that you are advocating that federal employees should be able to do that. So long as information is not marked - regardless of how sensitive or damaging it is - federal employees should be able to remove and transfer that information to anyone or anywhere regardless of the form or nature or whether an email or a memo or a picture or just plain words that they actually wrote themselves.

Is that what you are proposing?
Click to expand...
I think the question is not what federal employees should be allowed to do, but whether the criminal statute is violated by the conduct.  Subsection (c ) seems to require that it be marked for the removal to be a criminal offense, at least under this section. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
First you know - you know - the statement that Hillary signed acknowledges that classified information is so marked or unmarked.
Click to expand...
If only the item you quoted would have said:

Quoting the same article as earlier  unless there is an example that fits-
 
"Sometimes information is so obviously sensitive that you can infer knowledge from the content," in which case the lack of markings may not matter for the purpose of establishing liability, Sales said.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Also, the point I was making is that federal employees in the future - using the Hillary Rule - can say that if it wasn't marked they did nothing illegal by transferring classified information unauthorized/unsecure. So my point is that you are advocating that federal employees should be able to do that. So long as information is not marked - regardless of how sensitive or damaging it is - federal employees should be able to remove and transfer that information to anyone or anywhere regardless of the form or nature or whether an email or a memo or a picture or just plain words that they actually wrote themselves.

Is that what you are proposing?
Click to expand...
I am not proposing anything.  If I were to propose something then it would be that the government should, assuming it hasn't already invest

  • in systems upgrades so that no one is using private email because the government systems are too cumbersome (not meant to apply to Hillary)
  • in technology that automatically archives all emails so the IRS situation and now the State Department spends no effort in trying to find emails
  • make all email publically accessible  a short predetermined time to allow for rare exceptions after being sent from a .gov or opened if from outside of .gov   (There goes Ivan's fantasy football advantages...)
  • etc
But of course addressing real problems doesn't happen when we waste so much energy on this kind of nonsense.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok, you did not ask, you made an assertion and I refuted that assertion. There is very much a difference. Where that data lands is extremely important. There is a huge difference between the server in the guts of Foggy Bottom and someone's basement in outer suburbia, backed up in an apartment bathroom thousands of miles away no less, which is actually what happened here.
Click to expand...
Which of your "for instances" are appropriate ever?

And the exact statement was

" And for the billionth time!  If the content was inappropriate to emailed to a private server then it was inappropriate to email to a private account then it was inappropriate to email to a .gov account.  (i.e. the private server/private account is completely irrelevant when it comes to what can be sent.) "

Which you haven't refuted but instead pivoted.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
 

"Sometimes information is so obviously sensitive that you can infer knowledge from the content," in which case the lack of markings may not matter for the purpose of establishing liability, Sales said.
 
[SIZE=13.3333px]Then [/SIZE]
 "I look at something which requires knowledge, and the first question I've got to ask is, 'How do they prove knowledge?'" said Bill Jeffress, a Washington criminal defense lawyer
Click to expand...
He should probably do some research on that, being a criminal defense attorney.

 
Could she be more out of touch?

Hillary Clinton Verified account ‏@HillaryClinton

"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

 
Jim11 said:
Could she be more out of touch?

Hillary Clinton Verified account ‏@HillaryClinton

"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
Click to expand...
With what?  Statistics and reality?  Because on this issue she's uncharacteristic ally tethered to reality.  

 
Jim11 said:
Sure, that's why nearly all of these attacks are perpetrated by Muslims.
Click to expand...
If 1% of 1% of Muslims were radicals there would be daily mayhem.  It's just not the case.  A Muslim is more likely to be founding the next startup that will grow into the the corporation that hires out of touch angry white dinosaurs than to don a suicide vest.  Outside of rhetoric, that's the truth.  (You angry white dinosaur).  

You want to get involved in a real threat you can control: Donald Trump.  

 
Last edited:
pettifogger said:
I think the question is not what federal employees should be allowed to do, but whether the criminal statute is violated by the conduct.  Subsection (c ) seems to require that it be marked for the removal to be a criminal offense, at least under this section. 
Click to expand...
The acknowledgement Hillary signed clearly does not.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Which of your "for instances" are appropriate ever?

And the exact statement was

" And for the billionth time!  If the content was inappropriate to emailed to a private server then it was inappropriate to email to a private account then it was inappropriate to email to a .gov account.  (i.e. the private server/private account is completely irrelevant when it comes to what can be sent.) "

Which you haven't refuted but instead pivoted.
Click to expand...


- On the second point - BFS, you and I have never disagreed on that basic point. I submitted an additional point, just because there is no difference in one aspect does not mean that there are no differences in any other aspect to be raised. The retention of the data on one's own private server is a whole other act aside from sending the documentation via unsecure means. I am raising the prospect of the general practice you are suggesting and it is absolutely unacceptable for any government anywhere to allow its employees the practice of sending certain classified data (the examples I gave) - which as you say can never be sent marked or unmarked - to their own private server well outside the confines of that government.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
If only the item you quoted would have said:

Quoting the same article as earlier  unless there is an example that fits-
 
"Sometimes information is so obviously sensitive that you can infer knowledge from the content," in which case the lack of markings may not matter for the purpose of establishing liability, Sales said.
I am not proposing anything.  If I were to propose something then it would be that the government should, assuming it hasn't already invest

  • in systems upgrades so that no one is using private email because the government systems are too cumbersome (not meant to apply to Hillary)
  • in technology that automatically archives all emails so the IRS situation and now the State Department spends no effort in trying to find emails
  • make all email publically accessible  a short predetermined time to allow for rare exceptions after being sent from a .gov or opened if from outside of .gov   (There goes Ivan's fantasy football advantages...)
  • etc
But of course addressing real problems doesn't happen when we waste so much energy on this kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...


Well I agree with both your points. Your first one brings us back to Hillary though. We've covered that point well. On the second one, yeah on 1-2, on no. 3 though (Ivan aside, and actually I get those emails too, but I really don't care if anyone looks at them, unlike Hillary and her super secret yoga routines) the answer is solved by points 1-2, if everything is on the .gov then everything can be retained and searched by IT and Archives.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I know it's a fait accompli, but when is Hillary expected to cross the delegate finish line?
Click to expand...
Depends on percentage of votes Bernie gets in the remaining states. Some pundits are still discussing what it would take for Bernie to win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-22-primaries-arizona-utah-presidential-election-2016/


David Wasserman 11:38 PM
Warning: Bernie Sanders Not As Close As He May Appear Tonight


According to our delegate tracker, Sanders needs about 58 percent of the delegates from here on out to overtake Clinton in the pledged delegate count. Some of tonight’s results might give Bernie backers false hope: He could easily reach that share of the vote in Idaho and Utah. But as our scorecard indicates, wins of that magnitude won’t help Sanders meaningfully chip away at Clinton’s 300-pledged delegate lead. And, as Nate has noted, Arizona could easily negate Sanders delegate leads out of Idaho and Utah.
 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-22-primaries-arizona-utah-presidential-election-2016/




Harry Enten 11:55 PM
The Arizona Results Suggest Latinos Favor Clinton


There’s been an ongoing question during the Democratic campaign about which candidate is winning the Latino vote. In Nevada, the exit polls suggested Sanders carried the Latino vote, while an examination of precinct-level results argued Clinton did. In Florida and Texas, it was clear Clinton won Latinos. We don’t have any exit polls tonight, but it would seem that Clinton is again winning the Latino vote. In the votes counted so far from Santa Cruz County (83 percent Latino), Clinton is winning 70 percent of the vote. In Yuma County (62 percent Latino), she’s taking 67 percent of the vote.


 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
(a)


Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.


(b)


For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).


[SIZE=10pt](c)[/SIZE]


In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
 
 

 
Quoting the same article as earlier  unless there is an example that fits-
 
 
"Sometimes information is so obviously sensitive that you can infer knowledge from the content," in which case the lack of markings may not matter for the purpose of establishing liability, Sales said.
 
[SIZE=13.3333px]Then [/SIZE]
 "I look at something which requires knowledge, and the first question I've got to ask is, 'How do they prove knowledge?'" said Bill Jeffress, a Washington criminal defense lawyer

Especially since email is "non secured".   It can't purposely contained classified information.  
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know which law this is based on?

 
FOIA only.

Earlier I went through the timeline and pulled out all the entries related to Hillary changing her position on sending classified emails. Spoiler: she did. And Lied.

This time I pulled out only the entries related to FOIA violations. 

Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline



 



2012


Sept. 11: Islamic extremists launch the terrorist attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Nov. 7: Judicial Watch files Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request with State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information.

December: I (then at CBS News) file a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information.

Dec. 18-19: Judicial Watch files another FOI request with State Dept.

2013

Feb. 25: Judicial Watch files two lawsuits against State Dept. for failing to lawfully respond to FOI requests.


2014


June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.


2015


March 11: Associated Press sues State Dept. for Clinton emails and documents not provided under FOI request.

May 5-6, 2015: Judicial Watch files seven new FOI lawsuits related to Clinton’s use of private email server, seeking emails of her top aide Huma Abedin and records about Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation.

July 31: The federal judge in a Judicial Watch FOI suit, Emmet Sullivan, orders State Dept. to request that Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Human Abedin confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession, return any other government records immediately, and describe their use of Hillary Clinton’s email server to conduct government business.

Aug. 5: State Dept. sends letter to Clinton including Judge Sullivan’s order.

Aug. 6: Cheryl Mills’ attorney tells Judicial Watch it has instructed Mills to “delete any and all electronic copies [of potential federal records] in her possession” after her anticipated production of records on Aug. 10. Judicial Watch files an emergency request to block the destruction.

Aug. 31: State Dept. publicly releases 7,000 pages of Clinton emails. Among other revelations, they show that Freedom of Information (FOI) law was violatedsince responsive emails had not been provided earlier under various FOI requests. Documents can be found by visiting the State Dept. FOI page and searching “Hillary Clinton.”
Click to expand...
https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-22-primaries-arizona-utah-presidential-election-2016/


Nate Silver 12:03 AM
Sanders’s Tough Math


There are 131 pledged delegates at stake tonight for Democrats. It’s going to be hard for Sanders to win a majority of those given that Arizona has most of the delegates and Clinton is winning big there, but it’s not impossible if he crushes it in Utah and Idaho. So let’s say he almost does it. Clinton gets 66 delegates on the night and Sanders gets 65.

That would get Sanders up to 920 pledged delegates, while Clinton would have 1,242, with 1,889 pledged delegates still outstanding. Skipping a little bit of math, but Sanders would need 59 percent of the remaining total to tie Clinton in pledged delegates. That’s really difficult to do; it would be equivalent to beating Clinton by 18 percentage points the rest of the way out. Merely breaking even in delegates isn’t nowhere near enough for Sanders at this point.
 
squistion said:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-22-primaries-arizona-utah-presidential-election-2016/


Nate Silver 12:03 AM
Sanders’s Tough Math


There are 131 pledged delegates at stake tonight for Democrats. It’s going to be hard for Sanders to win a majority of those given that Arizona has most of the delegates and Clinton is winning big there, but it’s not impossible if he crushes it in Utah and Idaho. So let’s say he almost does it. Clinton gets 66 delegates on the night and Sanders gets 65.

That would get Sanders up to 920 pledged delegates, while Clinton would have 1,242, with 1,889 pledged delegates still outstanding. Skipping a little bit of math, but Sanders would need 59 percent of the remaining total to tie Clinton in pledged delegates. That’s really difficult to do; it would be equivalent to beating Clinton by 18 percentage points the rest of the way out. Merely breaking even in delegates isn’t nowhere near enough for Sanders at this point.
Click to expand...
After March 15, the primary reason to keep Sanders in the race became the potential cluster#### if Clinton became too burdened by the investigation to continue.  I'm still contributing, but solely because for me every delegate he gets is a mini-referendum on the future of politics in this country.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
FOIA only.

Earlier I went through the timeline and pulled out all the entries related to Hillary changing her position on sending classified emails. Spoiler: she did. And Lied.

This time I pulled out only the entries related to FOIA violations. 

https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/
Click to expand...
Protoypical example of how the media can run with a completely alternative view of reality.  I expect the IC is aware of the facts and that politics can only do so much to obscure it all.  I am emboldened to believe that the Hillary campaign may be the person who looks well that's actually riddled with Cancer.  There's a truth this will prevail or else an angry public will rebel.

 
Henry Ford said:
Do you happen to know which law this is based on?
Click to expand...
Guess we lost him for the night.  In case anyone's wondering, it's not to my knowledge.  In fact, the Department of State regulations even allow classified information to be transmitted via email.  See, e.g.: 5 FAM 753.1 "Marking Email: Classification and Sensitivity Markings."

I would imagine that the difficulty generally comes with the difference between internet email and intranet email.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Protoypical example of how the media can run with a completely alternative view of reality. 
Click to expand...
I agree the media can skew reality - but I think this is more an example of so much going on at the same time you almost need a color coded timeline to keep up with the several simultaneous stories. But the common thread is it's all sandbagging and deflecting and hiding and withholding - and only under the utmost reluctance is as little as possible revealed/submitted/disclosed and no more. And it's never a good revelation. At no point do you get the sense that there was an honest mistake, or ten, and a sincere desire to cooperate and clarify. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
261K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top