• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

whichphilosophy said:
An ordinary employee would most likely get fired if they used their own server for state mails. This is what we mean by putting security and ultimately the nation at risk.
Click to expand...
Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. And the abstracts from the question of the validity of your premise.
 
laughing dog said:
whichphilosophy said:
An ordinary employee would most likely get fired if they used their own server for state mails. This is what we mean by putting security and ultimately the nation at risk.
Click to expand...
Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. And the abstracts from the question of the validity of your premise.
Click to expand...
Polite speak for "That is a load of shit!"
 
whichphilosophy said:
Elixir said:
Teh Pugs have already "found" that she's guilty of treason, murder and many more minor offenses. Unfortunately for them, they've been unable to get any reasoning people (like say, judges) to share in their paranoid hallucination.
Click to expand...

An ordinary employee would most likely get fired if they used their own server for state mails. This is what we mean by putting security and ultimately the nation at risk. If a company has not had any accidents but it does not follow legal guidelines on safety it can be fined or even shut down until it complies.
Click to expand...

Most likely?

I'm a veteran and have also worked as a civilian for the Air Force. I've gone through the security clearance process. "Most likely fired" doesn't cut it. If any normal person had done that, "definitely jail, fine, and permanent revocation of clearance" would be the result.

But that's just from someone who actually knows about security clearances and safeguarding of classified information. It's not actually relevant to any discussions on Talk Freethought,
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
whichphilosophy said:
An ordinary employee would most likely get fired if they used their own server for state mails. This is what we mean by putting security and ultimately the nation at risk. If a company has not had any accidents but it does not follow legal guidelines on safety it can be fined or even shut down until it complies.
Click to expand...

Most likely?

I'm a veteran and have also worked as a civilian for the Air Force. I've gone through the security clearance process. "Most likely fired" doesn't cut it. If any normal person had done that, "definitely jail, fine, and permanent revocation of clearance" would be the result.

But that's just from someone who actually knows about security clearances and safeguarding of classified information. It's not actually relevant to any discussions on Talk Freethought,
Click to expand...

So true. I have held security clearances from three different agencies (DOD, DOE, NATO) so security briefings from each agency. Mishandling classified information is taken very seriously. Minor infractions (mentioning anything classified to someone without the "need to know") brings immediate dismissal and permanent loss of clearance and possibly jail depending on the subject matter. More serious infractions means jail. And anyone holding a clearance is expected to recognize information that should be classified (even if not marked classified) and to treat it as classified.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
whichphilosophy said:
An ordinary employee would most likely get fired if they used their own server for state mails. This is what we mean by putting security and ultimately the nation at risk. If a company has not had any accidents but it does not follow legal guidelines on safety it can be fined or even shut down until it complies.
Click to expand...

Most likely?

I'm a veteran and have also worked as a civilian for the Air Force. I've gone through the security clearance process. "Most likely fired" doesn't cut it. If any normal person had done that, "definitely jail, fine, and permanent revocation of clearance" would be the result.

But that's just from someone who actually knows about security clearances and safeguarding of classified information. It's not actually relevant to any discussions on Talk Freethought,
Click to expand...

skepticalbip said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Most likely?

I'm a veteran and have also worked as a civilian for the Air Force. I've gone through the security clearance process. "Most likely fired" doesn't cut it. If any normal person had done that, "definitely jail, fine, and permanent revocation of clearance" would be the result.

But that's just from someone who actually knows about security clearances and safeguarding of classified information. It's not actually relevant to any discussions on Talk Freethought,
Click to expand...

So true. I have held security clearances from three different agencies (DOD, DOE, NATO) so security briefings from each agency. Mishandling classified information is taken very seriously. Minor infractions (mentioning anything classified to someone without the "need to know") brings immediate dismissal and permanent loss of clearance and possibly jail depending on the subject matter. More serious infractions means jail. And anyone holding a clearance is expected to recognize information that should be classified (even if not marked classified) and to treat it as classified.
Click to expand...

Nice Squirrel said:
But does that extend to cabinet members?
Click to expand...

Listen to episode 13 then come back and tell us what you think.
 
skepticalbip said:
Nice Squirrel said:
But does that extend to cabinet members?
Click to expand...

Legally it extends to everyone.
Click to expand...

But aren't cabinet members in charge of people who decide what is classified? Can the President be charged?

I'm not defending any actions and there are scenarios where it is clearly illegal and prosecutable, but it seems odd to think that a cabinet minister broke the law without any evidence.
 
Nice Squirrel said:
skepticalbip said:
Legally it extends to everyone.
Click to expand...

But aren't cabinet members in charge of people who decide what is classified? Can the President be charged?

I'm not defending any actions and there are scenarios where it is clearly illegal and prosecutable, but it seems odd to think that a cabinet minister broke the law without any evidence.
Click to expand...
Absolutely the President can be charged - the US is not a monarchy. The President is a citizen servant of the people subject to the same criminal laws any citizen is. However, with the President the procedure would be different. Mishandling classified material is a crime so grounds for impeachment. After a successful impeachment, the President can be tried just like any other citizen.
 
Last edited:
Then show where others with comparable set of facts were prosecuted.
 
Yes, I did listen. And they did describe Rudy Guliani talking about how he could prosecute under the section of the law that doesn't require intent.

Of course it is very doubtful that there wasn't intent, but that is harder to prove.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I am an engineer who actually has held a security clearance. I know what is in the briefings one gets when takes a job requiring a security clearance. I know the acknowledgement forms that I had to fill out that describe the penalty for even inadvertent or accidental release. Plus I had yearly refresher training.

This is all first hand knowledge. I know this personally because it has happened to me. I know about infosec, compusec, and opsec. This was a part of my job. Even the non-disclouser agreements that I had to sign leaving those jobs.

Everything I know about opsec, infosec, and compusec says that what Hillary did is inexcusable. Carelessness or accident is not a sufficient excuse if my training means anything.

I know this because of the clearance I have held and the job I have worked.

So because I actually know what the briefing forms say, you are going to ask an engineer to look up case law for you? Of course you will. Everything I write about my personal experience is bad news for your beloved messiah so therefore is wrong. As I said, actual law is irrelevant here on Talk Freethought if it is bad for Hillary. Turns out I was right.
 
So, other than appealing to your meaningless self-professed expertise, you got nothing.
 
blastula said:
So, other than appealing to your meaningless self-professed expertise, you got nothing.
Click to expand...
Would you settle for the General Petraeus trial for unauthorized retention of classified material (his personal journal) that could bring a year jail sentence? If you keep a personal daily journal then you need to be damned careful entering your thoughts and activity if you have anything to do with classified material.

As I understand, he has made a plea bargan for two years probation and a $40,000 fine.
 
No, because the facts aren't comparable. It doesn't appear you know what the facts are either one or both cases.
 
blastula said:
No, because the facts aren't comparable. It doesn't appear you know what the facts are either one or both cases.
Click to expand...

:hysterical:

You are a funny dude. Of course they aren't comparable. General Petraeus only kept a journal. He didn't mishandle anything that was classified by any government agencies.
 
skepticalbip said:
blastula said:
No, because the facts aren't comparable. It doesn't appear you know what the facts are either one or both cases.
Click to expand...

:hysterical:

You are a funny dude. Of course they aren't comparable. General Petraeus only kept a journal. He didn't mishandle anything that was classified by any government agencies.
Click to expand...

If you think they aren't comparable, then it makes no sense for you to cite it. And your answer also reveals you don't know what the law says that Petraeus was charged under.

Here's what Comey said in July:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is show why he's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom