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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smack Tripper said:
Norcross has done more damage to Atlantic city present and future than trump ever could. He's also the most powerful dem in the region. I really hate parsing along party lines, I have equal if not greater contempt for Christie and things like the revel but norcross is the reason the state money went into that white elephant. To somehow paint the failure of Atlantic city on trump is a shot to her credibility. He  at least had some vision with taj. And I say that as a guy that is anti trump 

she rolled into and made a city on its heels look like a bunch of chumps with no plan for the future. 
Click to expand...
No one in Atlantic City had vision of anything other than dollar signs - a short term money grab.  That's all the casinos are/were.  But to claim that somehow the casinos have brought the entire state down with them is laughable.  There are a myriad of reasons for the problems around the state, but neither casinos in the north nor sports betting are magic bullets.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
1) Clinton did send and receive emails that were classified at the time

2) Hillary's email server was negligently insecure

3) Hillary did not archive work emails as she was required to do

4) Hillary and her attorneys did delete emails they were required to turn over

5) Some of the people Hillary was in regular contact with were hacked by nation states \

6) Hillary herself was hacked/eavesdropped

7) Hillary sent classified emails unencrypted from within hostile countries

8) Hillary sent TS/SCI emails from her account and "knew, or should have known" that unclassified email was "not appropriate" for that means of communication, ie it was all  unauthorized.

These things could probably add up to gross negligence. Throw in the continual lying at State and then the post-SOS period I think there's definitely argument for a GN case.

 

 



 
 
 
 

 


 
Click to expand...
The standard isn't "was this person grossly negligent in some way." If generic gross negligence was a crime we'd all be felons. I would have committed a crime this morning when I left the bathroom door open because I forgot my inlaws were in town. The standard is whether the person exhibited gross negligence is doing a certain specific thing provided for in the statute. You have to connect the dots, and to my knowledge the particular thing in the law has never been interpreted to include receiving emails on a private server. If it had been you can be sure we'd know about it, considering how people tried to link her behavior to Petreaus's behavior and those were nothing alike.

 
TobiasFunke said:
The standard isn't "was this person grossly negligent in some way." If generic gross negligence was a crime we'd all be felons. I would have committed a crime this morning when I left the bathroom door open because I forgot my inlaws were in town. The standard is whether the person exhibited gross negligence is doing a certain specific thing provided for in the statute. You have to connect the dots, and to my knowledge the particular thing in the law has never been interpreted to include receiving emails on a private server. If it had been you can be sure we'd know about it, considering how people tried to link her behavior to Petreaus's behavior and those were nothing alike.
Click to expand...
See above, it's not just one act, it's multiple, over a long period of time. There's magnitude of the acts and there's also the period of time they were comitted.

I'm not saying you're wrong but let's stop saying there is no basis to the 793f GN violation, Comey piled it on, there was definitely evidence. This is a unique situation, the lack of application in the past may have to do with the fact that there has never been a situation like this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I would have committed a crime this morning when I left the bathroom door open because I forgot my inlaws were in town.
Click to expand...
Take your work emails, put them on a thumb drive, hand it to your in-laws, wave good bye to them as they fly back to their apartment in Denver, then they put the thumb drive in their bathroom. Then they leave it there while various workers do repairs in their bathroom.

Now go tell your boss where his company documents are.

Report back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
See above, it's not just one act, it's multiple, over a long period of time. There's magnitude of the acts and there's also the period of time they were comitted.

I'm not saying you're wrong but let's stop saying there is no basis to the 793f GN violation, Comey piled it on, there was definitely evidence. This is a unique situation, the lack of application in the past may have to do with the fact that there has never been a situation like this.
Click to expand...
You can't say there's a basis for a violation of a particular statute unless you satisfy ALL of the requirements. Not just gross negligence in general, or in handling email, but specifically in having been "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense  ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed." 

Again, I'm not aware of anyone ever arguing successfully that receipt of email at a private server constitutes "permitting [information relating to the national defense] to be removed from its proper place of custody."  You can make the argument if you like but that's a big stretch IMO for a statute that clearly intended to apply to physical removals, and lawyers don't prosecute based on stretches.  And the other statutes require intent, so those are nonstarters.

I've been saying this is how it would go down for many months- that she made poor decisions but her behavior probably didn't violate a federal criminal statute unless you stretch some stuff beyond what it's been applied to so far.  Looks like I was right. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
You can't say there's a basis for a violation of a particular statute unless you satisfy ALL of the requirements. Not just gross negligence in general, or in handling email, but specifically in having been "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense  ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed." 

Again, I'm not aware of anyone ever arguing successfully that receipt of email at a private server constitutes "permitting [information relating to the national defense] to be removed from its proper place of custody."  You can make the argument if you like but that's a big stretch IMO for a statute that clearly intended to apply to physical removals, and lawyers don't prosecute based on stretches.  And the other statutes require intent, so those are nonstarters.

I've been saying this is how it would go down for many months- that she made poor decisions but her behavior probably didn't violate a federal criminal statute unless you stretch some stuff beyond what it's been applied to so far.  Looks like I was right. 
Click to expand...


And - again - the reason is likely that no one has ever been so abundantly stupid, brazen to do this: put all of his/her top shelf, cabinet level emails on a private server.

People sign the NDA telling them there will be hell to pay for this. Would YOU do it? I'd be scared out of my wits. People are threatened with prosecution for felonies for god's sake. Honestly we'd be idiots to try it once.

So that explains the lack of past cases on it but it surely does not preclude a singular case based on unique facts. It's a horrible defense to say hey no one would ever be this dumb so I should be let off for doing this exceedingly dumb thing which no one else has ever been dumb enough to do and whcih I was told - and which I told MY WHOLE DEPARTMENT, personally (which she did) - not to do.

To me yes intuitively also absolutely - sending, receiving and retaining information originating on secure server onto a private server - meets that definition of "permitting." Absolutely.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
And - again - the reason is likely that no one has ever been so abundantly stupid, brazen to do this: put all of his/her top shelf, cabinet level emails on a private server.

People sign the NDA telling them there will be hell to pay for this. Would YOU do it? I'd be scared out of my wits. People are threatened with prosecution for felonies for god's sake. Honestly we'd be idiots.

So that explains the lack of past cases on it but it surely does not preclude a singular case based on unique facts. It's a horrible defense to say hey no one would ever be this dumb so I should be let off for doing thsi exceedingly dumb thing I was told - and told MY WHOLE DEPARTMENT, personally (which she did) - not to do.

To me yes intuitively also absolutely - sending, receiving and retaining information originating on secure server onto a private server meets that definition of "permitting." Absolutely.
Click to expand...
You're saying nobody else has ever, at their request, received emails on a private server that contained information related to the national defense that originated on a public server? Because that's all it would take based on your interpretation of that statute, and I 100% guarantee you that's happened countless times.

Look, I've been saying the exact same thing for months and now a highly respected attorney who served as the deputy attorney general during the George W Bush administration said basically the exact same thing that I've been saying.  I've tried to explain it again today, repeatedly.  I've done all I can.  :shrug:

 
TobiasFunke said:
You're saying nobody else has ever, at their request, received emails on a private server that contained information related to the national defense that originated on a public server? Because that's all it would take based on your interpretation of that statute, and I 100% guarantee you that's happened countless times.

Look, I've been saying the exact same thing for months and now a highly respected attorney who served as the deputy attorney general during the George W Bush administration said basically the exact same thing that I've been saying.  I've tried to explain it again today, repeatedly.  I've done all I can.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
That's once. And yeah someone could be charged for it happening just once.

4-6 years, 2000 times, 110 times where the information was classified when it happened, 8 times when that information was the most sensitive kind of information on the books.

Maybe I missed your link to the Bush official, glad to look at it again if you want to repost it, however Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, in between, what this decision stands for is protection of officials at the highest level. I'm glad to see the opinion you posted but I think I've given a very reasonable argument for why the GN language could apply. If the Bush official states the same reasoning you did I guess I would have the same reply.

 
Everything classified information is on a non-secured network, it is a big deal.  I have been involved when non-classified data was hacked and it opened a case and was investigated for potential impact.  

 
Why did the FBI investigate to start with? They don't usually waste a lot of man power unless there is some actual violations that need further checking into. 

It really sucks that people who want to vote DNC at all costs in Nov cannot acknowledge that what Hilary did was wrong. I understand it is partly a creation of man over the last 25 years that gives us E-Mail Gate to start with but the fact is she screwed up, made a mistake if you want to label it that way...but this isn't Monica Lewinsky and an intern forgot to pick up the dry cleaning, that's an honest mistake. 

We are electing an official to the highest position of power, one she has almost had as 1st Lady from '92-'00, she knows what the office holds and IMO she isn't about the women's movement or being the first woman, that's all gravy for the main prize, total and absolute power. 

And the Right doesn't seem to be able to figure out what they stand for so you're left holding a really bad bag of #####.  

 
Least surprising decision ever.  No doubt it was going to be quick. Untouchable.   Hard to believe so many people are ok with this.  

 
Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material


This story was originally published on July 29, 2015.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Naval reservist was sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.

A federal attorney announced Wednesday that Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials.

Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended.

An FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.

He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.
Click to expand...
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Interesting.

Which of the listed traits (misogyny, Islamophobia, xenophobia, conspiracy theorist, no foreign policy background, narcissistic personality disorder and I'll add a lack of understanding of the basics of separation of power under our Constitution) do you think is applicable to Clinton?

What negative traits of Clinton do you think Trump does not share?
Click to expand...
Not going to disagree with your listed traits for Trump. As to Clinton:

Lousy foreign policy execution, definitely narcissistic personality disorder. Lack of understanding of the intent of the Constitution could be added, I think. Being sloppy, egotistical, and thinking she would be Queen - yeah, that's her. Thinking she can get away with anything - definitely.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
 


:rolleyes: Ah yes took a lot of time to think this one over....
Click to expand...
And meaningless. People are fired for what she did and never face charges. It amazes me how the lack of charges is some kind of stamp of approval for what she's done.

Anyone who has ever been fired for carelessness should go back to their employer and say "but I was never charged with a crime... give me a promotion!!!"

 
TobiasFunke said:
Also FWIW Comey didn't say what exactly she was "extremely careless" about.  For there to be a violation of 793(f) she would have to exhibit gross negligence in permitting particular documents to be removed from a proper place of custody or lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed, not just carelessness in her decision to set up a private server (which is what I suspect he meant). I haven't seen a single example of someone interpreting this language to include the receipt of an email at a private email address as "removal from a proper place of custody," and it seems Comey hasn't seen that either.
Click to expand...
I think he is relatively clear in those first three paragraphs that he is saying that, at least the content of 110 e-mails should not have been communicated via email - period.  And everyone involved was in a position such that they should have known that this was inappropriate.  Hillary's server made all of this even worst.  

The problem here in that if Hillary is "grossly negligent" in being a party to communicating classified information via non secured email, so is everyone else on these exchanges .  And if it takes the private server to raise to this level then the fact (per Comey) that the "use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent" again a large number of others are "grossly negligent".  While "everyone does it" might not make for an acceptable justification for Hillary, I'd assume that it creates all kinds of issues trying to single Hillary out for prosecution - especially for the feds who rarely take shots other than slam dunks.

ETA:  And keeping with the "everyone does it theme", Comey also reiterated that

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

which reminds us that there have been for a long time "culture wars" between the diplomatic mission at State and the intelligent gathering of other agencies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
I'm better with both of them dying off.
Click to expand...
Now what did I do?

You wouldn't still have the link to that article on the seven (if my memory is correct) groups that make up the coalitions that form the two major parties that you posted probably in 2007 or 2008?  I assume not, but besides the craziness believing that anyone has almost decade old links - or remembers them I figured no harm to ask.

 
timschochet said:
Energy/climate change, infrastructure spending, Middle East. 
Click to expand...
energy - we need to convert to natural gas for transportation

climate change - we are in a warming cycle likely to last another 50,000 years. Nothing we can do will stop that. We might be able to slow it down a little is all. Money is better spent preparing than preventing IMO.

infrastructure spending - yes we need better infrastructure - that's like being against Mom and apple pie. How did Obama do with his "shovel-ready projects" stimulus? I saw a lot of roads getting repaired in Illinois and Ohio that didn't look like they needed it (just saying).

Middle East - Get the Saudis to stop sponsoring Wahhabi schools. The Turks and the Kurds are probably our best friends in the area - give them support, tell the rest to consume feces and expire.

campaign donations for BUENO FOR PRESIDENT accepted on PayPal. Thank You very much.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I think he is relatively clear in those first three paragraphs that he is saying that, at least the content of 110 e-mails should not have been communicated via email - period.  And everyone involved was in a position such that they should have known that this was inappropriate.  Hillary's server made all of this even worst.  

The problem here in that if Hillary is "grossly negligent" in being a party to communicating classified information via non secured email, so is everyone else on these exchanges .  And if it takes the private server to raise to this level then the fact (per Comey) that the "use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent" again a large number of others are "grossly negligent".  While "everyone does it" might not make for an acceptable justification for Hillary, I'd assume that it creates all kinds of issues trying to single Hillary out for prosecution - especially for the feds who rarely take shots other than slam dunks.

ETA:  And keeping with the "everyone does it theme", Comey also reiterated that

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

which reminds us that there have been for a long time "culture wars" between the diplomatic mission at State and the intelligent gathering of other agencies.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you something and as usual I'm just interested in what you have to say:

- Say someone who works in military (DOD) or intelligence (IS) or diplomacy (SD), tomorrow downloads all their live emails into a pst, they then take their pst and all their prior archived pst's and put them on a hard drive, then delete all their live emails and their pst's off their work CPU, and leave, take that drive home with them, knowing full well they have classified information because of the security spillage you mention.

They then don't come back to work.

Have they committed a crime?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Now what did I do?

You wouldn't still have the link to that article on the seven (if my memory is correct) groups that make up the coalitions that form the two major parties that you posted probably in 2007 or 2008?  I assume not, but besides the craziness believing that anyone has almost decade old links - or remembers them I figured no harm to ask.
Click to expand...
Damn, you remember something I posted that long ago? I'm impressed!

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I think he is relatively clear in those first three paragraphs that he is saying that, at least the content of 110 e-mails should not have been communicated via email - period.  And everyone involved was in a position such that they should have known that this was inappropriate.  Hillary's server made all of this even worst.  

The problem here in that if Hillary is "grossly negligent" in being a party to communicating classified information via non secured email, so is everyone else on these exchanges .  And if it takes the private server to raise to this level then the fact (per Comey) that the "use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent" again a large number of others are "grossly negligent".  While "everyone does it" might not make for an acceptable justification for Hillary, I'd assume that it creates all kinds of issues trying to single Hillary out for prosecution - especially for the feds who rarely take shots other than slam dunks.

ETA:  And keeping with the "everyone does it theme", Comey also reiterated that

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

which reminds us that there have been for a long time "culture wars" between the diplomatic mission at State and the intelligent gathering of other agencies.
Click to expand...
If her motivation for the server was to avoid FOIA, then numerous people would have known why to use it.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I think he is relatively clear in those first three paragraphs that he is saying that, at least the content of 110 e-mails should not have been communicated via email - period.  And everyone involved was in a position such that they should have known that this was inappropriate.  Hillary's server made all of this even worst.  

The problem here in that if Hillary is "grossly negligent" in being a party to communicating classified information via non secured email, so is everyone else on these exchanges .  And if it takes the private server to raise to this level then the fact (per Comey) that the "use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent" again a large number of others are "grossly negligent".  While "everyone does it" might not make for an acceptable justification for Hillary, I'd assume that it creates all kinds of issues trying to single Hillary out for prosecution - especially for the feds who rarely take shots other than slam dunks.

ETA:  And keeping with the "everyone does it theme", Comey also reiterated that

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

which reminds us that there have been for a long time "culture wars" between the diplomatic mission at State and the intelligent gathering of other agencies.
Click to expand...
I don't see why any of that is a problem.  Should have prosecuted all of them.

 
Everything classified information is on a non-secured network, it is a big deal.  I have been involved when non-classified data was hacked and it opened a case and was investigated for potential impact.  

 
badmojo1006 said:
I never had the balls to make mead. I kept reading horror stories about how difficult it is. 
Click to expand...
Mead was the first alcoholic drink humans ever made, and it is by far the easiest. It's possible to make it complicated if you want, but the simplest recipe works just fine.

Take a glass jar and put about 25% raw honey in it with about 75% water. You don't even have to add yeast (as long as the honey is raw). Cap the jar and shake it vigorously for 30 seconds at least once a day for a month. It will start to become carbonated as it ferments, so take the cap off before and after shaking to relieve the pressure. Then just let it sit for between six months and two years. Taste it periodically throughout (as it become more tangy and less sweet) to find the point where it tastes best to you. Voila.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Let me ask you something and as usual I'm just interested in what you have to say:

- Say someone who works in military (DOD) or intelligence (IS) or diplomacy (SD), tomorrow downloads all their live emails into a pst, they then take their pst and all their prior archived pst's and put them on a hard drive, then delete all their live emails and their pst's off their work CPU, and leave, take that drive home with them, knowing full well they have classified information because of the security spillage you mention.

They then don't come back to work.

Have they committed a crime?
Click to expand...
I don't think I can determine that a "mishandling classified information" crime happened based on only these facts.  For starters the espionage act doesn't say "classified" but uses  "related to the national defense"" which per wikipedia (sorry) "judges have repeatedly said that being 'classified' does not necessarily make information become related to the 'national defense'".   Assuming that hurdle is cleared and the person is knowingly, purposefully taking such information rather than it just being a happenstance from some kind of  temper tantrum on the way out,  I would think that "having knowledge that the same [information related to national defense] has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer".  I don't think that previous part of the statute concerning "gross negligence" would apply unless they also "lost" custody,  one way or another of the hard drive.   I would also imagine that regardless of actual "intent" a rather strong inference of wrong doing would exist for investigators from the get go and prosecutors would be more comfortable in selling such an inference to a jury.

Clearly they are in violation of record retention policies assuming they hadn't been "print and file"'ing all along - at least until the end of the year. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Mead was the first alcoholic drink humans ever made, and it is by far the easiest. It's possible to make it complicated if you want, but the simplest recipe works just fine.

Take a glass jar and put about 25% raw honey in it with about 75% water. You don't even have to add yeast (as long as the honey is raw). Cap the jar and shake it vigorously for 30 seconds at least once a day for a month. It will start to become carbonated as it ferments, so take the cap off before and after shaking to relieve the pressure. Then just let it sit for between six months and two years. Taste it periodically throughout (as it become more tangy and less sweet) to find the point where it tastes best to you. Voila.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a pain in the ###.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Mead was the first alcoholic drink humans ever made, and it is by far the easiest. It's possible to make it complicated if you want, but the simplest recipe works just fine.

Take a glass jar and put about 25% raw honey in it with about 75% water. You don't even have to add yeast (as long as the honey is raw). Cap the jar and shake it vigorously for 30 seconds at least once a day for a month. It will start to become carbonated as it ferments, so take the cap off before and after shaking to relieve the pressure. Then just let it sit for between six months and two years. Taste it periodically throughout (as it become more tangy and less sweet) to find the point where it tastes best to you. Voila.
Click to expand...
The problem is that some yeasts produce better taste than others, or are more aggressive, plus the impurities in raw honey make mead cloudy.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Have to love how the press is happy to spill their dossiers of dirt now that the danger has passed.
Click to expand...
Here they come...defenders of the truth...now that she is in the clear...just so predictable...I like the black-out on Bryne's book even though his sales are going well...I'm sure they will zero in on that right after the election...

 
Mr. Ham said:
Good piece on gaps in Hillary's email records
Click to expand...
Any piece that starts out with "a myriad of revelations" in the past two weeks is not very good.  But more importantly these statements are not really equivalent-

  • "Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails."
  • " Clinton signed a declaration obtained by CNN, which said 'While I do not know what information may be 'responsive' fr purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.'"
 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Any piece that starts out with "a myriad of revelations" in the past two weeks is not very good.  But more importantly these statements are not really equivalent-

  • "Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails."
  • " Clinton signed a declaration obtained by CNN, which said 'While I do not know what information may be 'responsive' fr purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.'"
Click to expand...
Well given that by court order the second statement was to reflect the first if what you say is true that's a major problem from the outset.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top