Emailgate Update - For Hillary No News is Good News. Sadly, there is New News. ;)

[Tom Sawyer]

Or it means irrelevant and stupid. One or the other.

 

[dismal]

Or it means irrelevant and stupid. One or the other.

If it's irrevant and stupid how do you explain the FBI and inspectors general -- who are or are led by Obama appointees -- having such interest in it?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Or it means irrelevant and stupid. One or the other.

If it's irrevant and stupid how do you explain the FBI and inspectors general -- who are or are led by Obama appointees -- having such interest in it?

It's an interagency squabble. Clearly the state department did not believe the e-mails to be classified, as they sent them unclassified to Hillary. Some in the FBI and IG believe that they should have been classified. She made a bad mistake in judgement. Like all politicians she is flawed. Much less flawed than the rest of the group current running in my view.

 

[maxparrish]

I'd also like to commend you for how forward thinking you are in mentioning how only the FBI being compromised or Lynch being in on a conspiracy are the only ways she'll get off. That way, when it ends up leading to nothing, you'll have already set the stage for the argument about how that's not because it was nothing, but because it was even a bigger and more evil something.

But I cannot commend you for dodging. You've called it a "fake Hillary Clinton scandal". I'd like you to explain how you define a fake scandal. Are you accusing the IG and FBI of making it up? Are you saying that the investigation is only for the purposes of tidying up some loose security ends?

How do you tell the difference between fake and real scandals?

If you can't tell us, then the only fakery is in your posturing with ersatz complaints.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If it's irrevant and stupid how do you explain the FBI and inspectors general -- who are or are led by Obama appointees -- having such interest in it?

It's an interagency squabble. Clearly the state department did not believe the e-mails to be classified, as they sent them unclassified to Hillary. Some in the FBI and IG believe that they should have been classified. She made a bad mistake in judgement. Like all politicians she is flawed. Much less flawed than the rest of the group current running in my view.

You're missing the part of your analysis where it's the worst act of treason since Benedict Arnold betrayed the Union army to Adolf Hitler.

 

[maxparrish]

If it's irrevant and stupid how do you explain the FBI and inspectors general -- who are or are led by Obama appointees -- having such interest in it?

It's an interagency squabble. Clearly the state department did not believe the e-mails to be classified, as they sent them unclassified to Hillary. Some in the FBI and IG believe that they should have been classified. She made a bad mistake in judgement. Like all politicians she is flawed. Much less flawed than the rest of the group current running in my view.

Where did you get that mush, from Hillary or her Brock fan club at Media Matters?

 

[Keith&Co.]

We just had a three day fire-drill at work.

A submarine had a problem and sent a message and the Navy sent it to the contractors that might be able to help solve the problem.
At some point during the discussion, someone wondered aloud if the accumulation of facts in the message meant it offered classified information. No individual fact was confidential, but the thought was that maybe it was all one big secret message.
Computers were isolated from the internet and sent to IT to be wiped of all possible confidential or worse data.

So people at several commands AND the employees of more than two contractors had no computers for three days.

It shouldn't have taken three days, but the people with better-than-top-secret clearances, who are the initial classifiers of such data, were not sure if it was or wasn't classified. It was eventually decided, by the highest authority with the authority to make the decision, that it wasn't and they got their computers back.

I noticed, though, that the decision (classified yea or nay) was actually made by the actual classifiers. Not those that only generate derivative classified materials. Not by the people without security clearances.

I noticed that Congress had zero play in deciding the fact or fate of the information and the computers that were affected.

And the FBI had fuck-all to do with the whole circus.


Weird.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's an interagency squabble. Clearly the state department did not believe the e-mails to be classified, as they sent them unclassified to Hillary. Some in the FBI and IG believe that they should have been classified. She made a bad mistake in judgement. Like all politicians she is flawed. Much less flawed than the rest of the group current running in my view.

Where did you get that mush, from Hillary or her Brock fan club at Media Matters?

I'll give you a hint: I don't get my news from Fox! Maybe if you'd be willing to broaden your base, you would find more neutral news.

 

[maxparrish]

We just had a three day fire-drill at work.

A submarine had a problem and sent a message and the Navy sent it to the contractors that might be able to help solve the problem.
At some point during the discussion, someone wondered aloud if the accumulation of facts in the message meant it offered classified information. No individual fact was confidential, but the thought was that maybe it was all one big secret message.
Computers were isolated from the internet and sent to IT to be wiped of all possible confidential or worse data.

So people at several commands AND the employees of more than two contractors had no computers for three days.

It shouldn't have taken three days, but the people with better-than-top-secret clearances, who are the initial classifiers of such data, were not sure if it was or wasn't classified. It was eventually decided, by the highest authority with the authority to make the decision, that it wasn't and they got their computers back.

I noticed, though, that the decision (classified yea or nay) was actually made by the actual classifiers. Not those that only generate derivative classified materials. Not by the people without security clearances.

I noticed that Congress had zero play in deciding the fact or fate of the information and the computers that were affected.

And the FBI had fuck-all to do with the whole circus.


Weird.

I assume your point was that that only an originating body at the highest level could make that determination, which precludes an interagency dispute.

 

[maxparrish]

Where did you get that mush, from Hillary or her Brock fan club at Media Matters?

I'll give you a hint: I don't get my news from Fox! Maybe if you'd be willing to broaden your base, you would find more neutral news.

Let's see: you say you exclude a major news source, and then lecture that one ought to broaden their base.

And how less convincing are you trying to be?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'll give you a hint: I don't get my news from Fox! Maybe if you'd be willing to broaden your base, you would find more neutral news.

Let's see: you say you exclude a major news source, and then lecture that one ought to broaden their base.

And how less convincing are you trying to be?

FOXNEWS is not a major news source it. Is right wing infotainment. Every story needs to be directly tied to how bad liberals are. Seriously, every story.

 

[maxparrish]

The most serious potential violation is 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act.

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) 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, or (2) having knowledge that the same 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, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Note that Section 793(f) is for any information (classified or otherwise), and is triggered by lawful possession of national defense information when a security clearance holder “through gross negligence,” such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

a) It seems that Hillary had possession or control of documents relating to the national defense. Some or all of her classified documents (among the 1300 found) have been designated as “originally classified” , which by definition, means that their disclosure “reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.”

b) Clinton removed such information from its proper place of custody and put it on her server and/or put it in an email, and delivered it to someone in violation of its trust. In particular, she sent such information to Sidney Blumenthal, who lacked security clearances .

c) It also fits the definition of gross negligence for Clinton to have set up the arrangement whereby national defense information ended up on her private email server. It is clear from her warnings to State Department employees about the risk posed by hackers, that she knew so.

So it would seem that she violated the Espionage Act. Nothing "fake" in that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#.ViBujn6rSUk

 

[dismal]

If it's irrevant and stupid how do you explain the FBI and inspectors general -- who are or are led by Obama appointees -- having such interest in it?

It's an interagency squabble. Clearly the state department did not believe the e-mails to be classified, as they sent them unclassified to Hillary. Some in the FBI and IG believe that they should have been classified. She made a bad mistake in judgement. Like all politicians she is flawed. Much less flawed than the rest of the group current running in my view.

And you know this...how exactly? The 1000+ e mails that have been deemed to contain confidential information have been redacted before release.

And I'm no sure I understand exactly what you are suggesting this "squabble" is about. Sounds like you think the "squabble" seems over the people whose job it is to investigate whether this information was confidential thinking it is confidential, while Clinton loyalists insist it isn't while trying to dismiss, demean, and impugn the motives of the people doing their jobs.

Like if it came out the FBI were investigating Hillary for bank robbery that would be an "interagency squabble" over whether Hillary had robbed a bank.

 

[maxparrish]

If it's irrevant and stupid how do you explain the FBI and inspectors general -- who are or are led by Obama appointees -- having such interest in it?

It's an interagency squabble. Clearly the state department did not believe the e-mails to be classified, as they sent them unclassified to Hillary. Some in the FBI and IG believe that they should have been classified. She made a bad mistake in judgement. Like all politicians she is flawed. Much less flawed than the rest of the group current running in my view.

No its not an interagency squabble. Regardless if the State department wanted (for example) Hillary's server NGA (North Korean) satellite data declassified, it is ONLY within the purview of the originating agency to set its classification. As has been pointed out, an Executive Order updated by Barack Obama but which dates back to at least Bill Clinton’s presidency makes that clear. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf

As long as those agencies consider information classified, State and any other agency is bound to treat the data with that classification until an appeal could be completed.

Did State ever ask for this (e.g. NGA) data to be declassified to the extent that it could get transmitted on an unsecured, non-governmental e-mail system? If the answer is no, then such excuses are poopy.

State’s opinion on its classification is of no weight, period.

 

[dismal]

Well, you have to admire the gusto with which the squabblers are squabbling because they don't just say stuff like "well, if you blink at this a few times and look at it cross-eyed this could be considered confidential" but in a few dozen cases they have gone for the full balls-to-the-wall highest levels of government classification.

Squabble hard, people whose job it is to impartially investigate these matters!

 

[Harry Bosch]

The most serious potential violation is 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act.

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) 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, or (2) having knowledge that the same 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, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Note that Section 793(f) is for any information (classified or otherwise), and is triggered by lawful possession of national defense information when a security clearance holder “through gross negligence,” such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

a) It seems that Hillary had possession or control of documents relating to the national defense. Some or all of her classified documents (among the 1300 found) have been designated as “originally classified” , which by definition, means that their disclosure “reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.”

b) Clinton removed such information from its proper place of custody and put it on her server and/or put it in an email, and delivered it to someone in violation of its trust. In particular, she sent such information to Sidney Blumenthal, who lacked security clearances .

c) It also fits the definition of gross negligence for Clinton to have set up the arrangement whereby national defense information ended up on her private email server. It is clear from her warnings to State Department employees about the risk posed by hackers, that she knew so.

So it would seem that she violated the Espionage Act. Nothing "fake" in that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#.ViBujn6rSUk

Yea, like a lot of politicians she was reckless with her e-mails. Like most of them, she's a flawed person. There are many republicans who have committed the same such acts. Jeb Bush and Colin Powell to name a few. During the W Bush white house, 88 staff members had personal e-mails that came directly from the Republican National Committee.

As an aside, I think that this crop of politicians are the worse group that our country has ever had to choose from. I voted for Obama over Hillary last time. I'd probably vote for Mitt over Hillary today. But most of the republicans running today are just looney. Instead of putting all your time and effort into disqualifying candidates based on technicalities, why not put your resources into a moderate republican that can win votes?

 

[laughing dog]

Let's see: you say you exclude a major news source, and then lecture that one ought to broaden their base.

And how less convincing are you trying to be?

However less convincing his arguments are, they are more convincing than the "Fox News is a major news source" argument.

 

[maxparrish]

The most serious potential violation is 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act.



Note that Section 793(f) is for any information (classified or otherwise), and is triggered by lawful possession of national defense information when a security clearance holder “through gross negligence,” such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

a) It seems that Hillary had possession or control of documents relating to the national defense. Some or all of her classified documents (among the 1300 found) have been designated as “originally classified” , which by definition, means that their disclosure “reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.”

b) Clinton removed such information from its proper place of custody and put it on her server and/or put it in an email, and delivered it to someone in violation of its trust. In particular, she sent such information to Sidney Blumenthal, who lacked security clearances .

c) It also fits the definition of gross negligence for Clinton to have set up the arrangement whereby national defense information ended up on her private email server. It is clear from her warnings to State Department employees about the risk posed by hackers, that she knew so.

So it would seem that she violated the Espionage Act. Nothing "fake" in that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#.ViBujn6rSUk

Yea, like a lot of politicians she was reckless with her e-mails. Like most of them, she's a flawed person. There are many republicans who have committed the same such acts. Jeb Bush and Colin Powell to name a few. During the W Bush white house, 88 staff members had personal e-mails that came directly from the Republican National Committee.

As an aside, I think that this crop of politicians are the worse group that our country has ever had to choose from. I voted for Obama over Hillary last time. I'd probably vote for Mitt over Hillary today. But most of the republicans running today are just looney. Instead of putting all your time and effort into disqualifying candidates based on technicalities, why not put your resources into a moderate republican that can win votes?

Reckless as in occasionally using a personal email system to communicate official business OR reckless as in intentionally setting up a unapproved and insecure private server to do 100 percent of your official State Dept communiques, so as to avoid approved secure State Dept systems and any scrutiny?

Its not a matter of her making an occasional blunder, but of her gross negligence in setting up a private system to route the public's business - there would not be any need to have an FBI and IG investigation had her "occasional blunders" been done on State department systems and not hidden.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's see: you say you exclude a major news source, and then lecture that one ought to broaden their base.

No contradiction there.
He says he does not get his news from ONE network. Leaves plenty of room for a broad base.
You appear to get your news ONLY from one network. Leaves even more room for a broader base. Pretty much demands a broader base.

 

[maxparrish]

Let's see: you say you exclude a major news source, and then lecture that one ought to broaden their base.

No contradiction there.
He says he does not get his news from ONE network. Leaves plenty of room for a broad base.
You appear to get your news ONLY from one network. Leaves even more room for a broader base. Pretty much demands a broader base.

One not ought not proudly admit to eliminating a news source, and then shamelessly maintain that, however, it is good for others to broaden their own news sources. Hypocrisy in the application a principle of more inclusion when it amounts to "do as I say, but not as I proudly won't do" is not going to be taken seriously.

And finally, your after the fact apologetic of there being "no contradiction there" is equally flawed; it is based on if-then assumptions that are unsupported in his comments:

1) he never said that FOXNEWS is the only source that he refuses to use, nor did he suggest what he does use (if anything).

2) he never showed that FOXNEWS is the only source that I use, nor have I ever claimed such. Anyone who has read my postings for the last 10 years would see than FOXNEWS is but a tiny fraction of citations. In fact, I am more than happy to put my scope and number of citations against his seemingly anemic output, anytime.

I have used just about any news source (as I have already stated) that is recognized in the general culture as professional and/or I have found to be credible. That includes all the major papers, networks (broadcast and cable), press services, journals of opinion, and partisan news sites.

Can he (or you) claim as much?