Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

9 (90%)

Yes.

1 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[Sheb]

You don't really see much slamming of his empty policy statements, like his flip-flopping on minimum wage.

[RedKing]

Fine, since you want substantive debate. My beef with this is that there is very much a double standard at work here regarding the mishandling of intelligence. I have held a DoJ security clearance, I've handled classified information. I've seen people fired for far less egregious breaches than putting 700+ classified emails on a goddamn non-government server.

I'd like to contrast the FBI's recommendation in this case, with its recommendation in the case of CIA Director David Petraeus to seek a two-year, $200,000 probationary sentence over a single misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified documents (mostly gossip and personal info about other generals, shared with Petraeus's biographer/mistress through an unsecured webmail account). And there were a fair number of people who felt that Petraeus got off light.

Let's look at former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger, who smuggled classified documents out of the National Archives, and totally got off the hook. And even he got a two-year probation, $50K fine and 100 hours of community service.


So, it's a given that people at the top are never going to get nailed to the wall the way low-tier bureaucrats and intel analysts do. But even when folks near the top have screwed up, they've gotten at least a slap on the wrist. Clinton didn't even get that.
(Or at least, hasn't so far...the final decision is with the AG and DoJ. But I'd shit myself if DoJ presses a case between now and November.)

[Sheb]

Regarding the comparison with Petraeus, it should be noted that AFAIK he shared the classified info with someone that had no business getting its hand on them. Clinton did no such thing, all the classified emails went to people wha had clearance.

I dunno about the Sandy Berger case though, I'll look into it.

[RedKing]

Regarding the comparison with Petraeus, it should be noted that AFAIK he shared the classified info with someone that had no business getting its hand on them. Clinton did no such thing, all the classified emails went to people wha had clearance.

I dunno about the Sandy Berger case though, I'll look into it.

Fair point about Petraeus. Although it should be noted that Pamela Broadwell was a Major in the Army Reserves. Not sure what kind of security clearances she held, but regardless, as you say she was likely not cleared for such information. TBH, I think Petraeus got strung up more for the affair than for the breach.

[mainiac]

Fine, since you want substantive debate. My beef with this is that there is very much a double standard at work here regarding the mishandling of intelligence. I have held a DoJ security clearance, I've handled classified information. I've seen people fired for far less egregious breaches than putting 700+ classified emails on a goddamn non-government server.

Double Standard?

We have had a previous senior state department official who did far, far worse and he wasn't endlessly dragged in front of the press for years.  And in his case there was clear intent and clear motive.

A whole string of previous secretaries of state were using private email servers.  How many of their lives have we spent years dragging through the mud?  Where is your burning quest for justice there?  Who knows what secrets they were talking about?  No one.  We haven't had the FBI go through every email Condoleezza Rice ever sent.

So sure, there's a double standard.

[RedKing]

Fine, since you want substantive debate. My beef with this is that there is very much a double standard at work here regarding the mishandling of intelligence. I have held a DoJ security clearance, I've handled classified information. I've seen people fired for far less egregious breaches than putting 700+ classified emails on a goddamn non-government server.

Double Standard?

We have had a previous senior state department official who did far, far worse and he wasn't endlessly dragged in front of the press for years.  And in his case there was clear intent and clear motive.

Dick Armitage should have been prosecuted. And it was a miscarriage of justice that he wasn't.

A whole string of previous secretaries of state were using private email servers.  How many of their lives have we spent years dragging through the mud?  Where is your burning quest for justice there?  Who knows what secrets they were talking about?  No one.  We haven't had the FBI go through every email Condoleezza Rice ever sent.

If by string, you mean none. There have only been four Secretaries of State since email became a thing, and Albright and Rice didn't really use email. And Powell didn't use a private server. So, no -- that's not a valid argument.

[mainiac]

From the article you cited:

We should note that the State Department has flagged a handful of emails containing information now deemed classified that were received by Powell and aides to Rice at private email addresses. In the more than 50,000 pages of Clinton emails the State Department has reviewed, just over 100 sent by Clinton have been deemed classified, according to a Washington Post analysis.

So I was guilty of the most egregious of crimes, sloppiness  However in order to blame Clinton you are inventing new standards.  If it wasn't a load of hypocritical bullshit you would be demanding that we lambast Rice and Powell on the news and go through their personal life.  Put things in the proper context.  Tell everyone that Powell said that nothing in his accounts was classified "secret" and that was not true.  What is Powell trying to hide with these immense lies?

[RedKing]

From the article you cited:

We should note that the State Department has flagged a handful of emails containing information now deemed classified that were received by Powell and aides to Rice at private email addresses. In the more than 50,000 pages of Clinton emails the State Department has reviewed, just over 100 sent by Clinton have been deemed classified, according to a Washington Post analysis.

So I was guilty of the most egregious of crimes, sloppiness  However in order to blame Clinton you are inventing new standards.  If it wasn't a load of hypocritical bullshit you would be demanding that we lambast Rice and Powell on the news and go through their personal life.  Put things in the proper context.  Tell everyone that Powell said that nothing in his accounts was classified "secret" and that was not true.  What is Powell trying to hide with these immense lies?

Fair enough. I'd be fine with the FBI investigating Powell and Rice's aides as well. If those emails violated security protocol, they should be censured and potentially face repercussions if warranted.

Clinton didn't even get A FINE. That's like the barest minimum of a slap on the wrist. Comey flat out states in his report that Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless", and may have compromised classified intelligence to foreign powers. The fact that those suppositions then lead to the conclusion that no case can be made for censure or prosecution is what is mind-boggling.

It's on par with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. "Well, we know you were armed and he wasn't, we know you initiated the altercation despite being told by a 911 dispatcher to stand down, we know you've made racist statements.....but we don't see any reason to find you guilty."

"Extremely careless but not indicted" isn't a great bumper sticker.

[mainiac]

Clinton didn't even get A FINE. That's like the barest minimum of a slap on the wrist.

It's almost as if she wasn't just convicted of a crime.

It's almost like the most thorough investigation imaginable decided that there was nothing to charge her with.

It's on par with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

I can think of a few differences.

Fair enough. I'd be fine with the FBI investigating Powell and Rice's aides as well. If those emails violated security protocol, they should be censured and potentially face repercussions if warranted.

I wouldn't.  That would be absurd.

[RedKing]

It's on par with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

I can think of a few differences.

You know what I'm driving at. Don't try to obfuscate.

Fair enough. I'd be fine with the FBI investigating Powell and Rice's aides as well. If those emails violated security protocol, they should be censured and potentially face repercussions if warranted.

I wouldn't.  That would be absurd.

Because? Classified information is SRS BSNS.

[mainiac]

You know what I'm driving at. Don't try to obfuscate.

You just compared someone who is guilty of no crime and hurt no one to a dude who beat a murder charge because of outdated laws.  I do not know what you are driving at.  All I can say is that to me you appear to be using emotionally charged statements to introduce a completely unnecessary bias into the consideration.

If Congress passed a law explicitly allowing what Clinton did, I very much doubt it would be a problem.  Knowing the problem, future secretaries of state wouldn't want to use private servers anyway or if they did they would want to keep them well secured.  There is a very serious problem if we allowed George Zimmerman behavior.

Fair enough. I'd be fine with the FBI investigating Powell and Rice's aides as well. If those emails violated security protocol, they should be censured and potentially face repercussions if warranted.

I wouldn't.  That would be absurd.

Because? Classified information is SRS BSNS.
[/quote]

Sure it's serious business.  But this is a problem that we have fixed now.  People are human, every security protocol has it's price.  I very much  doubt that whatever snippet of information that was classified secret in that Colin Powell email was of any importance.

[pisskop]

Please dont agrue with it.  Its not interested in integrity.  It willfully ignores the double standard applied.  Its genuinly stating that incompetence with classified information and general inability to perform their job is excusable and even commendable.

[mainiac]

Please dont agruwe with it.  Its not interested in integrity.

Redking frustrates me at times but I do not feel this is a proper way to treat people in public.

[RedKing]

Please dont agrue with it.  Its not interested in integrity.  It willfully ignores the double standard applied.  Its genuinly stating that incompetence with classified information and general inability to perform their job is excusable and even commendable.

Dude....he's not an "it". I strongly disagree with his opinion, but he's entitled to it.

You know what I'm driving at. Don't try to obfuscate.

You just compared someone who is guilty of no crime and hurt no one to a dude who beat a murder charge because of outdated laws.  I do not know what you are driving at.  All I can say is that to me you appear to be using emotionally charged statements to introduce a completely unnecessary bias into the consideration.

And that's what I mean by obfuscation. The crux of my point is that you have public outrage over someone beating charges that all publicly available evidence seems to indicate they should have been found guilty over. Clinton was convicted in the court of public opinion long before Comey's statement. In some ways, this just compounds her problem, because it makes it look like she's above the law. A wrist-slap with an administrative penalty would have been the best outcome.

Fair enough. I'd be fine with the FBI investigating Powell and Rice's aides as well. If those emails violated security protocol, they should be censured and potentially face repercussions if warranted.

I wouldn't.  That would be absurd.

Because? Classified information is SRS BSNS.

Sure it's serious business.  But this is a problem that we have fixed now.  People are human, every security protocol has it's price.  I very much  doubt that whatever snippet of information that was classified secret in that Colin Powell email was of any importance.

And that's why you do the investigation, to determine the importance. However, regardless of the importance there is also the matter of the policy. Try violating security policy where you work and then say "Oh, but it was only a minor infraction, no harm no foul, right?"

I've seen people summarily dismissed and investigated for storing data on a thumb drive. I've seen people fired for storing a sensitive spreadsheet on a personal web domain temporarily because the official server was down. And yes, I've seen higher-ups in Federal agencies fuck this shit up (running chunks of classified foreign intel through Google Translate, for instance) and get off scot-free. To say that there's not a double-standard at work is willfully blind. It's not just for Hillary, it's for anybody with power, with increasingly more protection the higher you go.

And that is wrong.

[pisskop]

Youre right.  Im feeling too dour and pa today.

I disagree that she did nothing wrong, and even if they have decided to not charge her with a federal crime I dont understand why her slipshod behavior as a professional is being overlooked and even held up.

Why are people going "See, she's not a criminal, only really bad at her job" like its a good thing?