Print

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

[Max™]

I was going to edit this into my other post but I accidentally hit the wrong button and ended up in Cincinnati somehow.

As if that wasn't absurd enough, you'll never guess who I bumped into there.


You can't make this shit up people.

[mainiac]

Decent article showing in a much calmer tone then I ever could why Clinton has her reputation:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-clinton-foundation

Which is lucky for him, because as Clinton could tell you, once you are the subject of a lengthy investigation, the press doesn’t like to report, “Well, we looked into it and we didn’t find anything interesting.”

Instead we get things like[...]

I get so angry about this because people dont seem to ever think rationally about the results of these investigations.  If there is a big investigation and it doesn't turn up any wrongdoing the logical thing to conclude is that the accused is more ethical then you thought previously.  After all before you didn't know if there was something serious but know you know for sure there isn't.  Plus if they have political enemies with a well funded opposition research you know that the opposition research couldn't come up with anything better then smoke and mirrors.  But people dont ever ask "where's the fucking fire you promised?" they just comment on the quantity of smoke...

And it seemed to be bad the last time a Clinton was running.  Who knew how good we had it back then?

There was a story in the NYTimes recently that was this whole problem taken to a truly ridiculous extent.  Congress provides ex-presidents with a budget to hire staff for whatever they want.  The idea is to maintain the dignity of the office of president.  Bill Clinton used his budget to hire people for the Clinton Foundation.  And the NYTimes, that "liberal" rag was talking about how this raises serious concerns.  It doesn't.  It's just the press has gone off the deep end and thinks fucking anything with the Clinton foundation raises concerns.  So you end up with a story about how Clinton used his personal ego budget to help poor people being treated as a scandal.  If a story like that can exist it says a lot about how far down the rabbit hole things have gone.

[Folly]

If there is a big investigation and it doesn't turn up any wrongdoing the logical thing to conclude is that the accused is more ethical then you thought previously.

In general I would agree with you...but when the head of the FBI is questioned and says that he believes that Hillary knowingly committed illegal actions, but is unable to see how she could have had criminal intentions while doing so, and therefore does not believe that she deserves to be charged, I can only conclude that the FBI is in far worse shape than anyone really expected, or else this guy is being paid by Hillary to look the other way. Honestly, the results of the investigation were utterly absurd, and warrant another investigation into the integrity and competence of the FBI.

I'd still vote for her over Trump though.

[mainiac]

In general I would agree with you...but when the head of the FBI is questioned and says that he believes that Hillary knowingly committed illegal actions,

Here is the thing.  You are saying somethign very clear, very unambigious and with a very literal meaning.  And it is literally incorrect.  Here is the statement for your perusal: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Now you "know" that Clinton is corrupt and so you believed something that is literally false.  There is a transcript of his statement and the view you believe he express is not in there.  Rather he argues against that view.  And then you used your false impression to reinforce the belief that Clinton is corrupt.

[mainiac]

and any administrator worth their salt would've enforced proper procedures for handling classified discussions and information.

Which is why the state department under Clinton and Powell and Kerry and Rice handled somewhere between 99.9% and 100% (inclusive) of classified conversations over the proper server...

This is what I am saying about smoke and fire.  People talk a lot about classified information.  They talk so much about it that everyone knows it exists.  But which emails had the classified information?  Oh y'know... the ones they were talking about.

[mainiac]

Then how'd stuff slip into improper channels?

Could you please provide to me the specific email you are talking about so I know what the heck you mean?  And while you are doing that may I direct your attention back to these...?

the press doesn’t like to report, “Well, we looked into it and we didn’t find anything interesting.”

But people dont ever ask "where's the fucking fire you promised?" they just comment on the quantity of smoke...

[mainiac]

There were eight email chains with "Top Secret" information.  Seven of them were top secret because they contained the information that the US was doing drone strikes in Pakistan.  One of them was top secret because it discussed a phone call Hillary Clinton had planned a couple hours later with the president of Malawi about the press briefing that Kofi Annan would release later that day. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/07/hillary_s_email_scandal_was_overhyped.html)

The reason why that stuff slipped into the inappropriate channels was because it was information that is discussed at depth in front page newspaper stories isn't what comes to mind when you think about what you aren't supposed to share.  And that is the Top Secret stuff...

[RedKing]

For me, the only question worth considering now is -- did she commit perjury?

IIRC, she testified under oath to Congress that she did not send any classified information through her private server. The FBI's findings would seem to contradict that.

Even if the act committed was or wasn't a big deal, the lying about it is. Just as Martha Stewart's "insider trading" ultimately turned out to be a minor thing, but it was the perjury about it that landed her in prison.

Ultimately though, even if she did, nothing is going to happen. That's just a given. Republicans will rant and fume and screech, and ultimately it will be a host of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Because one, they don't want Trump to get in. And two, Clinton is almost more useful to them in power, as it gives them a convenient boogey(wo)man for corralling votes and fundraising.

@mainiac: That's a poor excuse. Just because something has been compromised into the press doesn't declassify it. Anyone worth their salt with a security clearance is aware of that.

[mainiac]

For me, the only question worth considering now is -- did she commit perjury?

Nah that's bullshit.  If she didn't you wouldn't consider her innocent.

@mainiac: That's a poor excuse. Just because something has been compromised into the press doesn't declassify it. Anyone worth their salt with a security clearance is aware of that.

Lel.  We aren't talking "compromised in the press".  We are talking basic common knowledge.  They weren't discussing operational details.  You are acting like it's something it remotely isn't.  Anyone with a security clearance is aware of that.  See?  I can claim consensus for my position too.  Which is all you have done because you have never cared about the facts.  Now I I dont give a shit about your ignorance anymore today.

[RedKing]

I'm trying to keep this a low-sodium discussion. 

On the first point, no it's a legit question. If you convincingly illustrate that she didn't commit perjury, then it's a fair cop and there's nothing else to discuss. If she did....well, as I said nothing is going to come of it anyways.

On the second point, content is irrelevant as is the degree of public knowledge. If Obama's favorite snack food is deemed classified information, then it's classified information. Even if Vanity Fair does a piece on him and mentions it explicitly. Until the responsible agency for that information moves to declassify it (which is admittedly often slow to catch up to public knowledge), it remains classified. They probably wouldn't go after anyone outside the government for discussing it, but they damn sure will go after people internally who do.

When they first big Wikileaks dump happened several years back, we were all told in no uncertain terms that even viewing the Wikileaks dump on government computers would be grounds for clearance revocation, reprimand, and even dismissal. Uncle Sam don't play.


EDIT: @Ispil -- That's a fair point, and ultimately that'll probably be the defense used. Still leaves a grey area, because you can never prove "intent" but it's as good an answer as I've heard so far. As you say though, the implications still aren't great.

[Wolfhunter107]

@mainiac: That's a poor excuse. Just because something has been compromised into the press doesn't declassify it. Anyone worth their salt with a security clearance is aware of that.

Lel.  We aren't talking "compromised in the press".  We are talking basic common knowledge.  They weren't discussing operational details.  You are acting like it's something it remotely isn't.  Anyone with a security clearance is aware of that.  See?  I can claim consensus for my position too.  Which is all you have done because you have never cared about the facts.  Now I I dont give a shit about your ignorance anymore today.

Oh no.Oh no no no. You are the one who doesn't care about the facts. It doesn't matter that it's common knowledge--the fact (and I mean actual fact, set in stone.") is is that the drone war is classified information, and until the government decides to declassify it, than it will remain that way, and no amount of public knowledge will change that. So please do the rest of us a favor, and actually do some research before you try telling a professional that he's wrong.

[mainiac]

It could just as easily be argued that she wasn't aware that the email chains contained classified information (not a particularly nice implication)

No it's honestly not something we should have a problem about if you actually get down to the specifics.  Dont say "classified information".  Ask yourself.

Do I have a problem that Hillary Clinton was unaware that her staff mentioned the existence of a drone program in Pakistan?

Because that is the "classified information".  See this is the thing.  We start at the superficial level and there is smoke so we should investigate.  But what do we see when we investigate?  When you say "classified information" you are staying at that superficial level.  You are keeping the investigation completely superficial.

Some people I think realize that going beyond the superficial says something they dont want to be true so they dont do it.  Right wing media outlets for instance.  But some media outlets just do it for reasons I genuinely find perplexing.  The NYTimes will give you an interactive graphic for the gun shops mass shooters got their guns at or the top five douchey walking paths through manhattan (my words, not theirs).  Just in case you wanted to know the specifics on those things.  But they wont give you a specific breakdown on the exact information that is causing this big stink.  Why?  They seem to care an awful lot seeing as it has shaped the entire tone of their political coverage for a year.  Why the fuck haven't they gotten down to the specifics?

I'm not being sarcastic here when I say I honestly can't figure this mystery out.  I am not so cynical that I would pass it off as stupidity or laziness or malice...

@mainiac: That's a poor excuse. Just because something has been compromised into the press doesn't declassify it. Anyone worth their salt with a security clearance is aware of that.

Lel.  We aren't talking "compromised in the press".  We are talking basic common knowledge.  They weren't discussing operational details.  You are acting like it's something it remotely isn't.  Anyone with a security clearance is aware of that.  See?  I can claim consensus for my position too.  Which is all you have done because you have never cared about the facts.  Now I I dont give a shit about your ignorance anymore today.

Oh no.Oh no no no. You are the one who doesn't care about the facts. It doesn't matter that it's common knowledge--the fact (and I mean actual fact, set in stone.") is is that the drone war is classified information, and until the government decides to declassify it, than it will remain that way, and no amount of public knowledge will change that. So please do the rest of us a favor, and actually do some research before you try telling a professional that he's wrong.

Except I never said it wasn't classified, I was providing an answer to a question that someone asked and that question was not "was this classified".  The question is why this stuff would slip through?

Now please do me a favor, be polite and stop breaking forum rules about personal insults and bickering.

Oh and by the way everybody agrees with me that you need to be more polite.  I know this because I have the magical power to assert consensus for my position.

[mainiac]

Yes one could go through all those mental gymnastics.  But there is a much more straightforward explanation.  That stuff isn't going to get declassified all by itself.  Someone actually has to go out and say "hey, let's go through a bureaucratic shitshow and get this declassified."

And it would need to be a surgical declassification.  "Hey, let's declassify statements about the existence of a drone program but not any of the operational details."

[Wolfhunter107]

Yes one could go through all those mental gymnastics.  But there is a much more straightforward explanation.  That stuff isn't going to get declassified all by itself.  Someone actually has to go out and say "hey, let's go through a bureaucratic shitshow and get this declassified."

And it would need to be a surgical declassification.  "Hey, let's declassify statements about the existence of a drone program but not any of the operational details."

But Clinton didn't do that. She instead decided to just talk about it anyway, which is why we're talking about this in the first place.

[mainiac]

Yes one could go through all those mental gymnastics.  But there is a much more straightforward explanation.  That stuff isn't going to get declassified all by itself.  Someone actually has to go out and say "hey, let's go through a bureaucratic shitshow and get this declassified."

And it would need to be a surgical declassification.  "Hey, let's declassify statements about the existence of a drone program but not any of the operational details."

But Clinton didn't do that. She instead decided to just talk about it anyway, which is why we're talking about this in the first place.

You seem to be mixing up Secretary of State (head of US diplomacy) with Office Secretary (the person everyone dumps thankless administrative work on).  I can think of no other possible reason why you think Hillary Clinton was supposed to be trying to declassify the existence of a drone program in pakistan on the off chance that government employees were emailing each other about it.