[QUOTE=bdd458;50634102][url]https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf[/url]
like, are you brain dead. how can you think to yourself that mishandling classified information ([B]that is classified at the highest level, Top Secret[/B]) is not illegal.
[/quote]
Did you read?
[quote] An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes[/quote]
[quote]
and infact, it is!
so even if it was unintentional she should be fucked. the other sections of that law cover if it was purposeful mishandling :)
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, no shit that mishandling classified materials is a crime. However, the argument is whether or not her private server was a "proper place of custody".
Just because you [I]feel[/I] like it is, doesn't mean it is. According to a state department spokesperson, private email accounts are allowable for government business. (See the wikipedia article I linked above)
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=srobins;50634127]Are you daft? Lying under oath is perjury regardless of who you are or who you work for. Welcome to the real world.[/QUOTE]
Can you please like, elaborate, other than just saying "LYING UNDER OATH"?
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50634119]State dept. regulations shouldn't override or put someone above the law.[/QUOTE]
No, what I'm saying is she violated state department regulations but not the law
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=cody8295;50634118]And the IG report makes clear that she broke both department regulations and federal law. What don't you understand?[/QUOTE]
No, the IG report make sit clear that she broke the regulations, not the law.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634137]Did you read?
Yeah, no shit that mishandling classified materials is a crime. However, the argument is whether or not her private server was a "proper place of custody".
Just because you [I]feel[/I] like it is, doesn't mean it is. According to a state department spokesperson, private email accounts are allowable for government business. (See the wikipedia article I linked above)
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
Can you please like, elaborate, other than just saying "LYING UNDER OATH"?[/QUOTE]
If her private server was encrypted or even had a proper firewall set up, maybe it would be an appropriate place, MAYBE.
But Hillary was negligent and didn't care about the security of the information being transmitted, which is a federal crime. People have gone to prison for years for trivial details pertaining to secret info, why should Clinton get more leeway?
[quote]According to a state department spokesperson, private email accounts are allowable for government business.[/quote]
Private e-mail accounts held on private servers that you control wholly and which have not been vetted [i]or cleared[/i] by either the State or any other governmental authority for security and so on? Show me the quote for that, specifically, rather than your broader supposition and I'll believe you.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50634145]If her private server was encrypted or even had a proper firewall set up, maybe it would be an appropriate place, MAYBE.[/quote]
According to whom? Your [I]feelings[/I]?
[quote]But Hillary was negligent and didn't care about the security of the information being transmitted, which is a federal crime.[/quote]
[Citation Needed]
Not caring about something isn't illegal
[quote]People have gone to prison for years for trivial details pertaining to secret info, why should Clinton get more leeway?[/QUOTE]
Gimme some examples similar to Clinton's case then
The point I was making with the inspector general there is that she had top secret information on that server WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE.
A privately run server, one not run by the government, is not a proper place of custody for top secret information. Like, are you for fucking real dude? How much bigger does this hammer need to be to get this through your skull.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;50634147]Private e-mail accounts held on private servers that you control wholly and which have not been vetted [i]or cleared[/i] by either the State or any other governmental authority for security and so on? Show me the quote for that, specifically, rather than your broader supposition and I'll believe you.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law[/url]
[quote]"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."[/quote]
[QUOTE=Cold;50633738]Any link, i had a look on their website and tried to google for it, but couldn't find it.
The only thing i found was 2 testimonies that claimed her using a private server 'din't ring any bells' on the Judicial Watch website itself.[/QUOTE]
Was mistaken, it was the OIG report for the staffers.
[url]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf[/url]
The other part was in one of the leaked emails, but I can't remember where to find it.
[quote] by relying solely on her personal [U]email account[/U][/quote]
Says nothing about the [U]server[/U]. Again, I'm asking for a specific quote rather than this broad generalization that you seem to be thinking means it's a "green light" for the server.
It's like 'we authorize you to purchase an economy-class vehicle so long as you clear it with us' and then you go buy a luxury-class vehicle without ever seeking or obtaining permission and then claim 'it was allowed' because other people have bought economy-class vehicles in the past.
Nobody gave your permission to do what you did; nothing justified what you did either other than your own ego.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634137]
No, the IG report make sit clear that she broke the regulations, not the law.[/QUOTE]
The report goes into detail about how she did break the law
[QUOTE]Guidance issued by both NARA and the Department emphasize that every
employee has records management responsibilities and must make and preserve records
according to the law and Department policy. 29[/QUOTE]
and federal records law
[QUOTE]As discussed earlier in this report, laws and regulations did not prohibit employees
from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business.
However, email messages regarding official business sent to or from a personal email account
fell within the scope of the Federal Records Act if their contents met the Act’s definition of a
record. OIG found that the Department took no action to notify NARA of a potential loss of
records at any point in time. 81[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bdd458;50634157]The point I was making with the inspector general there is that she had top secret information on that server WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE.
A privately run server, one not run by the government, is not a proper place of custody for top secret information. Like, are you for fucking real dude? How much bigger does this hammer need to be to get this through your skull.[/QUOTE]
A privately run server is not a proper place of custody according to [I]the State Department[/I], which has its own regulations on top of the law. However, the state department is not allowed to interpret law (part of the whole "3 branches of government" thing), and thus their regulations can't be considered statutory in court. What matters is the [I]legal[/I] definition of a proper place of custody, not the [I]regulatory[/I] definition according to the state department. And according to a state department spokesperson, Clinton was [I]legally[/I] allowed to have a private server according to the Federal Records Act, but according to the IG report, she wasn't allowed to have the server according to the state departments [I]regulations[/I], which aren't [I]laws[/I] and therefore cannot be used to convict someone.
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=cody8295;50634185]The report goes into detail about how she did break the law
and federal records law[/QUOTE]
Now you're [B]fucking[/B] getting it! This is about a violation of FRA so that Clinton could avoid FOIA requests and hide evidence that she was using the office of Sec. of State to [B]elicit bribes from (probably) [highlight]Saudi Arabia[/highlight][/B]
If they find evidence that she was breaking rules about classified documents, she [B]could[/B] get 1 year.
If they find evidence that she abused her power as secretary of state for her own gain, she could get life
[QUOTE=cody8295;50633937]The issue is that she sent Above Top Secret (Classified at birth) info unencrypted on a server that is easily hackable. Not only did she break the law by mishandling classified info, but she lied under oath which is perjury.
If what clinton did wasn't illegal, why have CIA officers and military members done years in prison for violations much less serious?[/QUOTE]
Because Hillary only served to lose by acting how she did, military personnel who have been convicted have, in the vast majority of cases, been in contact with foreign governments or had an ulterior motive for leaking documents. Then again she didn't [B]deliberately[/B] leak anything, if you think they will take down the 4th in line for the "throne" (and in the meantime scare anyone away from ever highlighting a leak or security flaw in the future) then you need to start thinking a few moves ahead.
BTW how many of you going after Hillary for being a dolt would line up to (figuratively) blow Chelsea Manning and Snowden? This whole thing has overtaken legitimate criticism of Hillary in order to pander to the lowest common denominator who are all to glad to run around like headless chickens whenever a whiff of a scandal appears. The fucking plane crash and vase throwing are going to be the next talking points aren't they?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634154]According to whom? Your [I]feelings[/I]?
[Citation Needed]
Not caring about something isn't illegal
Gimme some examples similar to Clinton's case then[/QUOTE]
Actually gross negligence is a crime, especially when we're talking about national security secrets.
People who are in or will go to jail for much less serious offenses:
Kristian Saucier
David Petraeus
John Deutch
Sandy Berger
Bryan Nishimura
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;50633238]You don't find it worrying at all that your next president might be a person who has no idea how to store confidental information safely?[/QUOTE]
I find it worrying that people in Clinton threads suddenly forget how to read.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50630672]Again, lax security and an apparently disregarding attitude about classified information. [B]I'm not defending these actions. They reflect badly on her judgement personally and professionally.[/B] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634188]
Now you're [B]fucking[/B] getting it! This is about a violation of FRA so that Clinton could avoid FOIA requests and hide evidence that she was using the office of Sec. of State to [B]elicit bribes from (probably) [highlight]Saudi Arabia[/highlight][/B]
If they find evidence that she was breaking rules about classified documents, she [B]could[/B] get 1 year.
If they find evidence that she abused her power as secretary of state for her own gain, she could get life[/QUOTE]
You mean, now you're getting it? You're the one who was confident they won't find anything. Also, those in positions of less power have gotten up to 10 years for mishandling info
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634188]A privately run server is not a proper place of custody according to [I]the State Department[/I], which has its own regulations on top of the law. However, the state department is not allowed to interpret law (part of the whole "3 branches of government" thing), and thus their regulations can't be considered statutory in court. What matters is the [I]legal[/I] definition of a proper place of custody, not the [I]regulatory[/I] definition according to the state department. And according to a state department spokesperson, Clinton was [I]legally[/I] allowed to have a private server according to the Federal Records Act, but according to the IG report, she wasn't allowed to have the server according to the state departments [I]regulations[/I], which aren't [I]laws[/I] and therefore cannot be used to convict someone.[/QUOTE]
[quote=wikipedia]There are restrictions on how classified documents can be shipped.Top Secret material must go by special courier. Secret material can be sent within the U.S. via registered mail, and Confidential material by certified mail. Electronic transmission of classified information largely requires the use of National Security Agency approved/certified "Type 1" cryptosystems utilizing NSA's unpublished and classified Suite A algorithms. The classification of the Suite A algorithms categorizes the hardware that store them as a Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI) under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. CCI equipment and keying material must be controlled and stored with heightened physical security, even when the device is not processing classified information or contain a cryptographic key. NSA is currently moving towards implementing what it's calling Suite B which is a group of commercial algorithms such as Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA), Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman (ECDH). Suite B provides protection for data up to Top Secret on non-CCI devices. This is especially useful in high risk environments or operations needed to prevent Suite A compromise. These less stringent hardware requirements stem from the device not having to "protect" classified Suite A algorithms.[36][/quote]
[QUOTE=benwaddi;50634217]BTW how many of you going after Hillary for being a dolt would line up to (figuratively) blow Chelsea Manning and Snowden?[/QUOTE]
Entirely different objectives, situations, levels of power, backgrounds, et cetera. It's confusing that you're even equating the two.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;50634217]Because Hillary only served to lose by acting how she did, military personnel who have been convicted have, in the vast majority of cases, been in contact with foreign governments or had an ulterior motive for leaking documents. Then again she didn't [B]deliberately[/B] leak anything, if you think they will take down the 4th in line for the "throne" (and in the meantime scare anyone away from ever highlighting a leak or security flaw in the future) then you need to start thinking a few moves ahead.
BTW how many of you going after Hillary for being a dolt would line up to (figuratively) blow Chelsea Manning and Snowden? This whole thing has overtaken legitimate criticism of Hillary in order to pander to the lowest common denominator who are all to glad to run around like headless chickens whenever a whiff of a scandal appears. The fucking plane crash and vase throwing are going to be the next talking points aren't they?[/QUOTE]
Ugh actually plenty of people were proven to have no intention of espionage have still been prosecuted under similar laws (Espionage Act and Federal Records Act), check out the list i just posted
Are you really going to tell me that the NSA had helped with setting up her server by letting her use their algorythms on her unapproved server?
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
Like no matter which way you slice it she broke the law and you're just attempting to play mental gymnastics around it
[QUOTE=cody8295;50634231]You mean, now you're getting it? You're the one who was confident they won't find anything. Also, those in positions of less power have gotten up to 10 years for mishandling info[/QUOTE]
Of course I'm confident they won't find anything because they won't [I]find[/I] anything. There's no evidence.
And you're going to pretend like you were thinking this all along? Like you're not like all the other Bernie Bros here harping on about this classified info thing, when the scope of the case is much [B]much[/B] larger than you thought?
Nah, I think I'm just done replying to you Cody
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting/Memeshit" - rilez))[/highlight]
[quote]There's no evidence. [/quote]
Alright, this is beyond the pale. Are you Guccifer2.0/Assange/Comey's Secret Facepunch Alt? How do you [i]know[/i] there's no evidence?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634258]Of course I'm confident they won't find anything because they won't [I]find[/I] anything. There's no evidence.
And you're going to pretend like you were thinking this all along? Like you're not like all the other Bernie Bros here harping on about this classified info thing, when the scope of the case is much [B]much[/B] larger than you thought?
Nah, I think I'm just done replying to you Cody[/QUOTE]
Typical child, quits the argument when he can't articulate his point because it lacks truth.
Theres already evidence and if you don't believe it, then you never will. The evidence is widespread and now public. You think I'm just bandwagoning this because I supported sanders?
Yeah I guess I don't care about justice or integrity, I just wanna feel part of something? What a wild imagination you have.
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634258]
And you're going to pretend like you were thinking this all along? Like you're not like all the other Bernie Bros here harping on about this classified info thing, when the scope of the case is much [B]much[/B] larger than you thought?
Nah, I think I'm just done replying to you Cody[/QUOTE]
I've been hitting clinton on her ties to foreign countries since before I supported bernie. Just because I didn't talk about it in this thread doesn't mean I'm disingenuous
Maybe proboardslol has information that shows that the evidence that's out right now is all falsified or actually clears her of charges? I don't know how he'd have access to that other info that we don't - but as you say, what we know is already out there in the public eye. For him to deny it at this point means he either refuses to accept its existence, as you say, or believes it doesn't mean anything which would require some info that I haven't come across.
If it is a vast right wing conspiracy, perhaps all we've seen is just the 'planted' evidence? I dunno, I'm also having trouble following his train of thought.
I was thinking he's actually for Trump and trying to make Hillary look worse by acting like one of her zealot supporters. But that would be a conspiracy theory and thus be totally invalid.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;50634376]
If it is a vast right wing conspiracy, perhaps all we've seen is just the 'planted' evidence? I dunno, I'm also having trouble following his train of thought.[/QUOTE]
This is projection. Neither proboards nor anyone on this forum (to my knowledge) has said or even implied that the FBI investigation is a right win conspiracy, but because he is butting heads with people who do think a conspiracy is at play, well that means he has to believe it as well, and because our evidence is so good (in the eyes of amateur lawyers who's studies involved 20 seconds of Google and who's citation of legal precedent are previous cases with [I]tenuous at best[/I] connections to the Clinton server case) that the [I]only [/I]way she isn't indicted is because of "the System", a shadowy cabal that impedes all my political and personal objectives.
Speaking personally, I don't really have a dog in this race, I'm just a firm believer in the simplest assumption, which tells me that if the FBI does not indict Clinton on federal charges than that means they were incapable of proving she broke the law. If they do indict her and present the evidence that shows what led to the indictment then I'd hope she is punished to the full extent of the law. I'm not going to assume that a vast right wing conspiracy, or "the System", or the Republicans, or Donald Trump, etc lead to her downfall. I'm not going to defend her actions. And if she is punished for crimes she committed then I would consider that a success for the American legal system. I'm just going to react the same way if it ends up going the other way.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;50634217]Because Hillary only served to lose by acting how she did, military personnel who have been convicted have, in the vast majority of cases, been in contact with foreign governments or had an ulterior motive for leaking documents. Then again she didn't [B]deliberately[/B] leak anything, if you think they will take down the 4th in line for the "throne" (and in the meantime scare anyone away from ever highlighting a leak or security flaw in the future) then you need to start thinking a few moves ahead.
BTW how many of you going after Hillary for being a dolt would line up to (figuratively) blow Chelsea Manning and Snowden? This whole thing has overtaken legitimate criticism of Hillary in order to pander to the lowest common denominator who are all to glad to run around like headless chickens whenever a whiff of a scandal appears. The fucking plane crash and vase throwing are going to be the next talking points aren't they?[/QUOTE]
You must be incredibly dense to compare two American whistleblowers who gave up their comfort, their security and their families to reveal important secrets to the American people.. and Hillary Clinton using a private email server to circumvent security protocol. Do you really believe this is a reasonable comparison or are you just ignoring what a stupid, stupid thing this is to say just because you think it sounds clever?
[quote]This is projection.[/quote]
No? It's speculation coming from my inability to imagine any other reasons why he might have the position he does. Note I gave what speculations I had in descending order of what I believed might logically fit. I don't think he believes it's a conspiracy - but he's not really giving me much to work with here unless his opinion overrides reality or he's got facts I haven't seen yet.
Edit: What I know is: If anyone else did this, they'd be in jail; if they did things far less than this they'd be in jail. So why does he have the position that she's immune to that is my question; what evidence does he have that the evidence that's out there isn't evidence at all?
[QUOTE=srobins;50634434]You must be incredibly dense to compare two American whistleblowers who gave up their comfort, their security and their families to reveal important secrets to the American people.. and Hillary Clinton using a private email server to circumvent security protocol. Do you really believe this is a reasonable comparison or are you just ignoring what a stupid, stupid thing this is to say just because you think it sounds clever?[/QUOTE]
Edward Snowden took state secrets and fled to Russia, met with Russian government officials, then leaked the documents via wikileaks.
You're right, it's not a fair comparison; what he did was far worse than what Clinton is being accused of.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50634463]Edward Snowden took state secrets and fled to Russia, met with Russian government officials, then leaked the documents via wikileaks.
You're right, it's not a fair comparison; what he did was far worse than what Clinton is being accused of.[/QUOTE]
Nitpicking, but he leaked documents to Glenn Greenwald because he disagrees with Wikileaks on [I]something[/I], and trusted Glenn Greenwald to leak the documents which he sees as important
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50634463]Edward Snowden took state secrets and fled to Russia, met with Russian government officials, then leaked the documents via wikileaks.
You're right, it's not a fair comparison; what he did was far worse than what Clinton is being accused of.[/QUOTE]
We're just gonna ignore that list of people who went to jail for MUCH LESS than what clinton did? Last page if you didn't see it.
[quote]You're right, it's not a fair comparison; what he did was far worse than what Clinton is being accused of.[/quote]
I'm not sure we're at the point where we can say how much Clinton's done without access to more facts about what, precisely, could've been leaked. Perhaps what she has done is even more damaging? Snowden did a big single-drop dump. Clinton could've potentially sabotaged opsec for years at the highest levels of our government. I can see that being far more damaging than what Snowden did; especially if nobody was aware the damage was being done, also unlike Snowden.
That said, I feel what he did was necessary for his survival and what prompted his survival was attempting to do a great deal of good to the american public by revealing a secret that at least allowed a discussion about the usage of the data rather than it being taken entirely out of the citizens' hands.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.