Hilarys emails

[spence]

Funny how the FBI and IG don’t share your catch all definition. You’re sort of reminding me of the Cable Guy right about now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny how the FBI and IG don’t share your catch all definition. You’re sort of reminding me of the Cable Guy right about now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, not the FBI, discovered the hack. That's what the report says. Now, if the ICIG didn't really uncover a hack, that should be easy to prove, someone can just ask them if it's true or not. If it's not true, the people reporting this will look stupid and dishonest.

I don't have a clue what the ICIG is.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, not the FBI, discovered the hack. That's what the report says. Now, if the ICIG didn't really uncover a hack, that should be easy to prove, someone can just ask them if it's true or not. If it's not true, the people reporting this will look stupid and dishonest.

I don't have a clue what the ICIG is.

Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?

Can you really believe the CIA would have this information and not give it to the FBI performing an investigation into her email?

Oh I forgot, the republicans running the show, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein etc... are all in Clinton’s pocket...that makes perfect sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?

Can you really believe the CIA would have this information and not give it to the FBI performing an investigation into her email?

Oh I forgot, the republicans running the show, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein etc... are all in Clinton’s pocket...that makes perfect sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?"

Did you know that is the same flimsy allegation was made against a Republican, you'd be calling for them to go right to sentencing?

Comey is a Republican? Sure, sure. Just like you were going to vote for McCain, or whoever it was..

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny how the FBI and IG don’t share your catch all definition. You’re sort of reminding me of the Cable Guy right about now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because politics isn't involved when I look at it. I look at it as the guy that needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That's because politics isn't involved when I look at it. I look at it as the guy that needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has nothing to do with politics. When some gets into your FB account and sends messages to your friends people don’t run around screaming the servers have been hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Has nothing to do with politics. When some gets into your FB account and sends messages to your friends people don’t run around screaming the servers have been hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This post speaks volumes....

No wonder you think Hillary did nothing wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That's because politics isn't involved when I look at it. I look at it as the guy that needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(well that and you would be making a career of creating little rocks out of big rocks at Leavenworth if you did that)

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This post speaks volumes....

No wonder you think Hillary did nothing wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ve never once said she didn’t do anything wrong, just that it didn’t rise the the criminal standard you want to apply. Comey was right, there’s no prosecutable case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I still think trump should build his stupid wall out of hillaries emails. NO ONE CAN GET OVER THEM ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I still think trump should build his stupid wall out of hillaries emails. NO ONE CAN GET OVER THEM ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/...d-information/

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/...d-information/

Clinton’s email issues don’t fall anywhere under the espionage act of 1917. Not sure what he’s thinking,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton’s email issues don’t fall anywhere under the espionage act of 1917. Not sure what he’s thinking,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They fall under the Act, but various people or "experts" argue whether her actions are prosecutable. As to be expected, "conservatives" say they are, and "liberals" say they are not.

the Espionage act has been amended several times, and the wording is deemed by many to be too vague. It us argued that several have been convicted under the Act by stretching its language. But, nonetheless, they were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms. The point being that it was necessary to prevent future offenses.

Hillary certainly exposed classified info on an insufficiently encrypted server, rather than using the required government servers. Yet she defended prosecuting others because of the danger and precedent of careless mishandling of classified info. But she, of course, was above all that. It was not deemed important to prosecute her in order to prevent this from happening again.

When uneven application of the law openly exists, it destroys the people's confidence in government and its laws. The laws, apparently, apply to some, but not others. Greenwald points out Clinton's, and others in power, hypocrisy.

I'd like to see a debate on the subject between you and Greenwald. I would bet my money on him and that he would mop the floor with you.

[spence]

Well, considering I’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, considering I’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh...so it wasn't that hillary was careless or stupid..it was the system(protocols).....that's so weak

Lester Holt and Lincoln Chaffee are/were(republicans)...she wasn't prosecuted because she is hillary...anyone else would have been prosecuted...which protocol is that derived from?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh...so it wasn't that hillary was careless or stupid..it was the system(protocols).....that's so weak

Lester Holt and Lincoln Chaffee are/were(republicans)...she wasn't prosecuted because she is hillary...anyone else would have been prosecuted...which protocol is that derived from?

For what crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

For what crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not safeguarding classified information.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Not safeguarding classified information.

Did she even know any classified information was on her server? I'm not sure she did...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, considering IGreenwal’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

I didn't "intend" to deal with the notion. I said that I would like to see it--which was inspired by your "not sure what he's thinking" comment re Greenwald's article. He knows more about the subject than you do.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He cited two cases where there was no evidence of intent to distribute the info, and there was a case afterwards of the young submarine sailor who was prosecuted for taking photos of his ship even though there was no evidence that he intended to harm the U.S.

In all cases, there was the mishandling of classified information. Intent to distribute or harm was not necessary for prosecution. Those would be the motivation for mishandling. The negligent mishandling was the common thread. And it was all that was necessary for conviction.

Clinton dangerously mishandled classified information. Her motivation or intent were irrelevant. She put the U.S. in far greater danger than the two Naval officers that Greenwald cited, and than the young submarine sailor. And who were all convicted for their inappropriate handling of information and who had no "intent" to distribute it in any way that would harm the country.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

He cited two cases where there was no evidence of intent to distribute the info, and there was a case afterwards of the young submarine sailor who was prosecuted for taking photos of his ship even though there was no evidence that he intended to harm the U.S.

In all cases, there was the mishandling of classified information. Intent to distribute or harm was not necessary for prosecution. Those would be the motivation for mishandling. The negligent mishandling was the common thread. And it was all that was necessary for conviction.

Clinton dangerously mishandled classified information. Her motivation or intent were irrelevant. She put the U.S. in far greater danger than the two Naval officers that Greenwald cited, and than the young submarine sailor. And who were all convicted for their inappropriate handling of information and who had no "intent" to distribute it in any way that would harm the country.

In those cases you have people with access for intentionally stealing sensitive information under suspicious circumstances and in the case of the submariner obstructing justice. Again very different from some info bleeding into a non Gov system. As the FBI said they couldn’t find a single example of anyone being charged for similar.

Maybe Greenwald is just a hater?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

To hell with Hillary - she's done anyway. She'll never be eligible to get any kind of position that requires a security clearance so her gov career is over. Out to pasture for her and Bill.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In those cases you have people with access for intentionally stealing sensitive information under suspicious circumstances and in the case of the submariner obstructing justice. Again very different from some info bleeding into a non Gov system. As the FBI said they couldn’t find a single example of anyone being charged for similar.

Maybe Greenwald is just a hater?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was no evidence in those cases of intent to harm the US.

Hillary's use of a private unsecured server was a very suspicious circumstance, very unnecessary, very against regulations. Having her subpoenaed emails destroyed was very suspicious and an obstruction of justice. Claiming that there was no classified info in any of those emails and that they were all personal in nature suspiciously resembled an attempt to cover up her negligence.

Since when did it become required that an infraction only counted if there was a previous one that was similar. Either it was a violation or it wasn't. The similarity to others, if needed, was the negligent mishandling of classified information. And her unnecessary and willful negligence put classified information more easily available in cyberspace which no less put the US in danger than those other cases.

As for hating, there is a lot of that going on now in government, in the media, on this forum, in society in general. I don't see Greenwald hating any more than what is now becoming the norm. He seems to hate hypocrisy, such as Hillary's. As a Progressive, he seems, by a lot of his other articles, to hate a lot of the things you do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hillary's use of a private unsecured server was a very suspicious circumstance, very unnecessary, very against regulations. Having her subpoenaed emails destroyed was very suspicious and an obstruction of justice. Claiming that there was no classified info in any of those emails and that they were all personal in nature suspiciously resembled an attempt to cover up her negligence.

I still don't see how if her use of a private server was for any nefarious means why would she EVER communicate with other government workers on government servers? If she was trying to be secretive she didn't do a good job of it.

As for the deleted emails, that was shown in the investigation to be an oops on the part of IT, had nothing to do with obstruction.

Since when did it become required that an infraction only counted if there was a previous one that was similar. Either it was a violation or it wasn't. The similarity to others, if needed, was the negligent mishandling of classified information. And her unnecessary and willful negligence put classified information more easily available in cyberspace which no less put the US in danger than those other cases.

The government handles cases of improper handling of sensitive information all the time. Clinton dealt with classified information all the time, using secure systems. What they say was classified on her server is mostly a bunch of fluff...

[Sea Dangles]

Hmmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Can someone delete this thread and bad Jim from talking about Clinton's emails again...I see his OP went viral in the mainstream media

[wdmso]

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I just cannot state strongly enough how totally dishonest much of the Media is. Truth doesn’t matter to them, they only have their hatred & agenda. This includes fake books, which come out about me all the time, always anonymous sources, and are pure fiction. Enemy of the People!

7:11 AM - Aug 30, 2018
126K
84.8K people are talking about this


and some here are still worried about her e mails while the POTUS is attacking any department or persons all while promoting false narratives and make believe enemies... all to build an argument So that HE Trump can shut those critics down . while the GOP looks the other way

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Of the emails in question the vast majority were classified retroactively. The most sensitive info was about drone strikes that had already been talked about in the NYTimes but was considered SAP by another group.

Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

And should someone's opinion on the degree of sensitivity of info reduce the culpability of one who has failed to protect it.

And things being "talked about" in the NY Times is not an impressive or convincing reference.

You spoke a lot of weasel words in your little paragraph.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

Are you saying that Hillary's server was just as secure as the government's servers? Why would she even apologize for using hers if that were so? If she had used State's servers, no investigation of her would have been needed.

And you dodged my question.