F.B.I. Releases Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Files
51 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50993239]how do you even ban political parties?
wouldn't that conflict with the first and most important of the amendments in america? the one about free speech or something[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Besides, really nothing you can do about the political parties either, it's just kind of natural for like-minded politicians to band together into power blocs. You're better off operating under a system that doesn't allow any one or two parties to completely dominate the political landscape, like they have here in the US.
Sad thing is, the people with the clout to change things for the better are the same people who benefit most from keeping the status quo.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994209]
No, it woudnt... the individuals are free to say what they want, just not to organise politically, since that would fall under corruption according to some founding fathers.[/QUOTE]
1st amendment isn't just freedom of speech. It's freedom of assembly as well. Which protects political parties.
[QUOTE=sltungle;50994238]This statement is so broken it's not even funny. If the will of the people was to redo the election then it would be undemocratic to NOT do so.[/QUOTE]
No, democracy means the people rule through a regulated process, if the people vote X, even if everyone disagrees the moment the vote is tallied, X is done anyway... that, and the tyranny of the majority is what separates democracy from mob rule.
[editline]3rd September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cliff2;50994254]1st amendment isn't just freedom of speech. It's freedom of assembly as well. Which protects political parties.[/QUOTE]
Not according to some of the founding fathers, who made no secret of their deep hatred of political assemblies and blocs as they were called back then.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50993143]If you're working for the secretary of state, and she sends you an email and you have to reply back to her, and her server is on her fucking atari 2600 hidden in her basement, and you have no way to know about it, how are you accountable for sending classified information to this jalopy server, when it belongs to and you answer to one of the highest ranking US officials in the US goverment?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cructo;50993184]she clearly did nothing wrong because whoever sends classified emails should expect that she would access them through her personal email server and compromise security[/QUOTE]
Most people don't have any clue how sensitive material is treated by most governments so I'll cut you guys some slack, but what you are describing makes no sense. I did this stuff literally for years, at one point having a bank of four computers with different security levels.
You can't receive an email and not realize that replying to it will be going to an unclassified server unless you are a colossal idiot, in which case it is your fault for being a dumbass and you get a security reprimand. You'd be on an unclassified computer, logging into an unclassified email address, to handle your unclassified work. That computer, if it's operated in a secure environment, would have a big banner saying 'UNCLASSIFIED' at the top of the screen. So if you get an email from your cubemate or the President himself, it doesn't matter, you're on an [I]unclassified network[/I], you don't put anything classified in the response. You [I]can't[/I] put anything classified in the response, because the unclassified email client won't have the classification tools necessary to [URL="https://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/basic-marking-requirements-email.pdf"]properly mark them[/URL]. You don't know whether the server that will be storing your email is in the FBI headquarters or someone's basement, and you don't need to- it's an unclassified network, don't put classified shit on it.
So the only way to accidentally send classified information to Hillary's server would be to log in to an unclassified computer, log in to an unclassified email account, draft an unclassified email, put classified information in it, not even attempt to classify the email, and then send it. And that's a security violation no matter who it's going to.
All your classified business would be done on a classified computer on a classified network. This network is kept physically separate and prevented from connecting to the unclassified network. If information needs to move between the networks, there are established processes that either involve transport on physical media or a security stepdown program that handles the transfer and logs it. You cannot simply misclick and send data from a classified network to an unclassified one.
Her personal email server had the same level of classification as the State-provided one: none whatsoever. Anyone who sent classified information to her unclassified email would be committing a security violation, [I]even if she never set up her own server[/I]. All classified information should be sent through a classified network to her classified email address, which she certainly had because you can't do your job as Secretary of State without having access to classified networks.
Look through my post history. I am relentlessly, overwhelmingly critical of Clinton and I think she is unfit to serve as President. If you want to talk about an actual, legitimate criticism that the FBI document details, have a look at her violating basic SCIF security by bringing unclassified personal electronics and computers in- that's a security violation that shows a clear disregard for network security and demonstrates her cavalier attitude towards following established rules. But trying to blame Clinton for people sending classified emails to her is ridiculous; it shows an utter lack of understanding of how classified information is handled and as I said before it's practically a witch hunt at this point. The FBI investigation sought to demonstrate that Clinton herself deliberately subverted email security in a prosecutable way, instead they found that she was reckless with security and had incompetent staff, which isn't enough to go to prison over. By all means criticize her for that, but at least be sure that your criticism makes sense.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994312]
Not according to some of the founding fathers, who made no secret of their deep hatred of political assemblies and blocs as they were called back then.[/QUOTE]
Good thing they weren't involved in the making of the bill of rights then, because without it your right to petition or protest your gov is gone.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50993719]It's a pretty common thing for people who travel a lot to bring hot sauce with them in case the food tastes like shit, I do the same whenever I'm flying somewhere. Not sure why you think it's some grand conspiracy invented by Clinton.[/QUOTE]
nothing he said implied conspiracy. people are throwing that word around so much these days that it is practically meaningless. i'm sure she does legitimately carry hot sauce with her, but even if she didn't and it was entirely an act of pandering it still wouldn't be anything close to a "grand conspiracy".
[QUOTE=Cliff2;50994403]Good thing they weren't involved in the making of the bill of rights then, because without it your right to petition or protest your gov is gone.[/QUOTE]
Its so bizarre to me that a Belgian with admittedly a US nationality has a more intimate knowledge of your nations history then you.
or do you not consider James Madison a founding father? the founding fathers WROTE the constitution, and its first amendments.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994312]
Not according to some of the founding fathers, who made no secret of their deep hatred of political assemblies and blocs as they were called back then.[/QUOTE]
Which founding fathers? Political parties emerged years after the Constitution was ratified.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994433]Its so bizarre to me that a Belgian with admittedly a US nationality has a more intimate knowledge of your nations history then you.
or do you not consider James Madison a founding father? the founding fathers WROTE the constitution, and its first amendments.[/QUOTE]
Madison wrote the bill of rights, and by extension APPROVED of political parties. What the hell do you think groups of people that petition for changes in the government are?
[QUOTE=catbarf;50994343]Most people don't have any clue how sensitive material is treated by most governments so I'll cut you guys some slack, but what you are describing makes no sense. I did this stuff literally for years, at one point having a bank of four computers with different security levels.
You can't receive an email and not realize that replying to it will be going to an unclassified server unless you are a colossal idiot, in which case it is your fault for being a dumbass and you get a security reprimand. You'd be on an unclassified computer, logging into an unclassified email address, to handle your unclassified work. That computer, if it's operated in a secure environment, would have a big banner saying 'UNCLASSIFIED' at the top of the screen. So if you get an email from your cubemate or the President himself, it doesn't matter, you're on an [I]unclassified network[/I], you don't put anything classified in the response. You [I]can't[/I] put anything classified in the response, because the unclassified email client won't have the classification tools necessary to [URL="https://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/basic-marking-requirements-email.pdf"]properly mark them[/URL]. You don't know whether the server that will be storing your email is in the FBI headquarters or someone's basement, and you don't need to- it's an unclassified network, don't put classified shit on it.
So the only way to accidentally send classified information to Hillary's server would be to log in to an unclassified computer, log in to an unclassified email account, draft an unclassified email, put classified information in it, not even attempt to classify the email, and then send it. And that's a security violation no matter who it's going to.
All your classified business would be done on a classified computer on a classified network. This network is kept physically separate and prevented from connecting to the unclassified network. If information needs to move between the networks, there are established processes that either involve transport on physical media or a security stepdown program that handles the transfer and logs it. You cannot simply misclick and send data from a classified network to an unclassified one.
Her personal email server had the same level of classification as the State-provided one: none whatsoever. Anyone who sent classified information to her unclassified email would be committing a security violation, [I]even if she never set up her own server[/I]. All classified information should be sent through a classified network to her classified email address, which she certainly had because you can't do your job as Secretary of State without having access to classified networks.
Look through my post history. I am relentlessly, overwhelmingly critical of Clinton and I think she is unfit to serve as President. If you want to talk about an actual, legitimate criticism that the FBI document details, have a look at her violating basic SCIF security by bringing unclassified personal electronics and computers in- that's a security violation that shows a clear disregard for network security and demonstrates her cavalier attitude towards following established rules. But trying to blame Clinton for people sending classified emails to her is ridiculous; it shows an utter lack of understanding of how classified information is handled and as I said before it's practically a witch hunt at this point. The FBI investigation sought to demonstrate that Clinton herself deliberately subverted email security in a prosecutable way, instead they found that she was reckless with security and had incompetent staff, which isn't enough to go to prison over. By all means criticize her for that, but at least be sure that your criticism makes sense.[/QUOTE]
This is the jist of it for me. Yes, Hillary's emails were undoubtedly insecure and carried classified and secret information. But the State Department's email system was (and still sorta is) unbelievably behind the times. From what I've read, the [I]only[/I] way to transfer classified information through government email systems involved physically entering a secure room with PCs ordered by Colin Powell in ~2004, handing over handheld electronic devices to a security guard, and then sending and drafting those emails. Hillary was a very mobile Secretary of State - being unable to actually communicate using secured government emails while on board airplanes or on any other system is genuinely crippling to the job. Correct me if I'm wrong about the level of tech, though.
Hillary undeniably sent classified information on a private, unsecured email service. But the .gov email system was (and continues to be for the most part) wildly insecure and inefficient as well. Our cybersecurity when it comes to simple shit like emails is way behind the curve - the Secretary of State email system was put into place in 2006 iirc and the majority of government agents are the age of our grandparents.
Hillary's "I do not recall" is just legal protection in the court system. She knows she fucked up, but she's not idiotic enough to admit guilt and prove her own negligence in front of a court or a congressional panel or so on. The entire thing boils down to ignorance and negligence on behalf of the entire State Department, and I'm sure many other government departments had similar online security issues in the awkward adoption period between the early 2000s and the 2010s. I find it very hard to pin full blame on Hillary, even though it would've been much smarter for her to use SOS funding to revamp the computer system and security systems of the department. These are 60 and 70-year-old politicians, not 20-something IT workers - I get how email security can get caught up in bureaucracy and red tape, and we need a strong cybersecurity department in government to make sure this kind of shit doesn't happen anymore. But this wasn't just a Hillary issue at all, it was a State Department issue, and while I think Hillary is partly responsible, I think the witch-hunt over the emails is hugely overblown. We've needed stronger security for a loooooong time - everywhere, not just where Hillary is.
James Madison in particular was arguably the co founder of the first prototype for a party in the United States, the Federalists.
[QUOTE=Cliff2;50994510]Madison wrote the bill of rights, and by extension APPROVED of political parties. What the hell do you think groups of people that petition for changes in the government are?[/QUOTE]
political parties are groups of people petitioning for change in the government but not all groups of petitioning for change in the government are political parties.
Political parties are an inevitability in our law and preventing them from existing would breach constitutional and first amendment rights. The exact same goes for lobbying (but there's debate about the "money = political speech" portion from Citizens United). These are guaranteed parts of our government - the people, whether organized as a grassroots consumer rights movement, a labor union, a corporation, or any other special interest group, have the guaranteed right to assemble and petition/lobby the government. Money complicates it, and that's hotly debated, but people in the US have an [I]absolute right[/I] to assemble into political groups to pursue special interests for political gain.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50994467]Which founding fathers? Political parties emerged years after the Constitution was ratified.[/QUOTE]
The USA was not the first democracy, and while parties formed years after IN THE USA, far and deep in the jungles of obscurity there are other countries out there, basking in the light and glory of the US of A, the only country that really matters.
James madison, on political parties in his book/letter "the federalist nr10", a writing of him touching several times on the damage political parties and group think can do on the rights and representation of the individual.
[QUOTE]A pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person,[B] can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.[/B] A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and[B] there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party[/B], or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever [B]been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.[/B] Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994555]The USA was not the first democracy, and while parties formed years after IN THE USA, far and deep in the jungles of obscurity there are other countries out there, basking in the light and glory of the US of A, the only country that really matters.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here or why it makes my post wrong.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994555]James madison, on political parties in his book/letter "the federalist nr10", a writing of him touching several times on the damage political parties and group think can do on the rights and representation of the individual.[/QUOTE]
Madison saw the emergence of factions as inevitable; Federalist Papers 10 was arguing against parties that operated against the public good, not factions as a whole, which he saw as a "necessary evil" being one faction aligned against another at the time.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50994598]I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here or why it makes my post wrong. [/QUOTE]
The founding fathers did not pull the form of government they drafted out of their asses while blowing their thumbs, they had an intimate political knowledge of other democracies and what went wrong and right in their eyes with them.
My point is there did not need to have been a single political party in the USA while drafting the constitution for the constitution to have been drafted with hindering the formation of political parties in mind.
Heck the whole point you make is ludicrous since the USA was not yet a country then, and thus it is only natural political parties were not yet present in the USA before the USA was a country.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50994598]
Madison saw the emergence of factions as inevitable; Federalist Papers 10 was arguing against parties that operated against the public good, not factions as a whole, which he saw as a "necessary evil" being one faction aligned against another at the time.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, [B]so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented[/B], nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like he preferred no parties at all to me, and in other letters im quite willing to quote endlessly as far as the mods will allow me (not only have i read enough of his work to vaguely know passages, google makes it very easy for me to retrieve exact quotes)
he made it quite clear[B] everything should be done to reduce the power of political parties to a bare minimum if not just make their formation impractical to preserve the democratic strengths of the nation[/B] by the people and not by the political elite..
If he succeeded or not, or if he was right or not il leave up to each and every person to judge themselves.
He literally says political parties are unavoidable. He may have personally wished they wouldn't exist, but he's fully aware that like-minded people form groups.
Most of his points there are about [I]using legislation to combat the formation of a wealthy elite.[/I] The irony of a Trump supporter ignoring all those points and demonizing political parties is amazing.
You're advocating [I]banning political organization.[/I] You cannot say "only grassroots political organization nothing else," because then you just get astroturfing by the elite anyways. I agree that the political system should be in the hands of government and not private parties as much as possible, but "making their formation impractical" is impeding on constitutional rights, end of.
And the founding fathers also wanted states to have more power and here we are in 2016 with people wanting the feds to have the majority of power to force shit down states throats which are clearly state rights
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.