Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

BTW: Snowden can take his salt and shove it up his self righteous ass.  Because he clearly violates this standard in all regards.  He clearly had intention, it was vast quantities, he showed disloyalty and he made no effort whatsoever to comply.  A citizen can in good conscience decide that justice demands civic disobedience but he doesn't have a leg to stand on in pretending it's a double standard.

He showed disloyalty? Made no effort to comply with people calling him a treasonous traitor? How can you be assured of a fair trial when the people who want you done in for being a traitor are doing things that would've got your job cut and you put in prison? He's got some pretty quality salt right there

[mainiac]

Besides, criminality is not necessary to be censurable conduct.

Which is what I was talking about before you got immensely butthurt and accused me of changing the subject.  So how about you answer the question I already asked.

You have 94% of the emails available including all but one of the "confidential" emails.  There is no particular reason to think the other 6% are any different (they probably just mention the existence of a "secret" drone program in Pakistan).  So which of these emails is censurable.  You have cared about this subject for years.  The emails have been out there a long time.  You have the whole internet at your disposal.

Which line of which email do you have a problem with?  Give an exact quote.  Put up or shut up.

[Loud Whispers]

Which is what I was talking about before you got immensely butthurt and accused me of changing the subject.  So how about you answer the question I already asked.

You have 94% of the emails available including all but one of the "confidential" emails.  There is no particular reason to think the other 6% are any different (they probably just mention the existence of a "secret" drone program in Pakistan).  So which of these emails is censurable.  You have cared about this subject for years.  The emails have been out there a long time.  You have the whole internet at your disposal.

Which line of which email do you have a problem with?  Give an exact quote.  Put up or shut up.

You're asking RedKing to sift through 50,000 pages of stuff to find the 110 Comey is talking about or some other crap
RedKing does not have access to the latter, so cannot even begin to search through the former, if the former were something worth doing
Not even including emails deleted that the FBI couldn't recover

It’s hard to read Comey’s statement as anything other than a wholesale rebuke of the story Clinton and her campaign team have been telling ever since the existence of her private email server came to light in spring 2015. She did send and receive classified emails. The setup did leave her — and the classified information on the server — subject to a possible foreign hack. She and her team did delete emails as personal that contained professional information.

Those are facts, facts delivered by the Justice Department of a Democratic administration. And those facts run absolutely counter to the narrative put forth by the Clinton operation: that this whole thing was a Republican witch-hunt pushed by a bored and adversarial media.

Pretty clear right there, earlier you called it in the now locked Murrican thread, bullshit spun up by a hatchet man IIRC

[mainiac]

LW, have you ever, even once in your life, taken the time to consider if your objections might be solvable?  Like on any subject that you have ever had a thought on in your life?

RedKing has all the resources of the internet available.  There's no rush.

[RedKing]

True, but I no longer hold a Federal security clearance, nor would I have had a clearance in the right area in any case.

Are you saying then, that the WikiLeaks dump comprises the entirely of Clinton's server contents? That would seem highly unlikely given the statistics issued by the FBI investigation, and their own admission that Clinton's staff and/or lawyers deleted thousands of emails without reviewing their contents.

Moreover, as I have stated prior, content is irrelevant. Whether the 110 classified emails were regarding critical clandestine operations, or just a surprise birthday party, they are classified and there are strict policies in place regarding the handling of classified material, irregardless of content. You seem to be implying (and if I'm wrong, please explain why) that because the classified emails that have since been declassified and which are available to the public seem to have no strategic import, that no wrongdoing was committed. This is what I was referring to as the "no harm, no foul" defense.

It doesn't work like that. Policies are in place for a reason, and context and intent don't come into play when we're talking about administrative penalties. I'm not even sure they should be considered in criminal cases -- they certainly weren't in Snowden's case. Or in the case of Marine Maj. Jason Brezler, who was discharged from the Marines for using an unsecured Yahoo account to warn units in Afghanistan that the local police chief was corrupt (and was later proven correct when one of that's chief's lieutenants opened fire on a Marine squad). Brezler even self-reported the breach, and fully cooperated with investigation to determine its extent. Context and intent would certainly seem to clear Maj. Brezler, but that wasn't taken into account.

[mainiac]

I told you to put up or shut up and you dont want to put up.

It doesn't work like that. Policies are in place for a reason, and context and intent don't come into play when we're talking about administrative penalties.

Okay then find me someone who doesn't satisfy one of Comey's standards who received even a fraction of the grief Clinton has.

And really this is just the same evasion.  Which email deserves the sanctions.  Put up or shut up.

[Flying Dice]

Your meaning being...?  Is it that they could get these emails?  Yeah the Chinese can probably get emails that have been publicly declassified and published by the government.

Mocking him for stating the blatantly obvious and his inability to into English.

[Loud Whispers]

True, but I no longer hold a Federal security clearance, nor would I have had a clearance in the right area in any case.

Are you saying then, that the WikiLeaks dump comprises the entirely of Clinton's server contents? That would seem highly unlikely given the statistics issued by the FBI investigation, and their own admission that Clinton's staff and/or lawyers deleted thousands of emails without reviewing their contents.

Moreover, as I have stated prior, content is irrelevant. Whether the 110 classified emails were regarding critical clandestine operations, or just a surprise birthday party, they are classified and there are strict policies in place regarding the handling of classified material, irregardless of content. You seem to be implying (and if I'm wrong, please explain why) that because the classified emails that have since been declassified and which are available to the public seem to have no strategic import, that no wrongdoing was committed. This is what I was referring to as the "no harm, no foul" defense.

It doesn't work like that. Policies are in place for a reason, and context and intent don't come into play when we're talking about administrative penalties. I'm not even sure they should be considered in criminal cases -- they certainly weren't in Snowden's case. Or in the case of Marine Maj. Jason Brezler, who was discharged from the Marines for using an unsecured Yahoo account to warn units in Afghanistan that the local police chief was corrupt (and was later proven correct when one of that's chief's lieutenants opened fire on a Marine squad). Brezler even self-reported the breach, and fully cooperated with investigation to determine its extent. Context and intent would certainly seem to clear Maj. Brezler, but that wasn't taken into account.

A Marine Corps officer who has been locked in a legal battle with his service after self-reporting that he improperly disseminated classified information will use Hillary Clinton’s email case to fight his involuntary separation from the service, his lawyer said.

Ahahha, the madman! The madman!

An attorney for Brezler, Michael J. Bowe, said that he intends to cite the treatment of Clinton “as one of the many, and most egregious examples” of how severely Brezler was punished. FBI Director James B. Comey announced Tuesday that he would not recommend the U.S. government pursue federal charges against Clinton, but he rebuked her “extremely careless” use of a private, unclassified email server while serving as secretary of state. The FBI found that 110 of her emails contained classified information.

That right there is how you demoralize everyone who works under you, it's a bit of a liberty when you can get away with thousands of counts worse than your rank and file

Supporters of Brezler have renewed the debate about his case since Comey’s announcement about Clinton. They argue that the case shows the discrepancy in how rank-and-file service members and their potential commander-in-chief are treated.

That's depressing

[mainiac]

Far more sensitive information, actively disseminating the information.

Wow, it's almost like you didn't even bother to compare this to the standard Comey laid out.  How completely out of character for the rigorously fact driven LW who is always so careful in what he says.

[RedKing]

I told you to put up or shut up and you dont want to put up.

It doesn't work like that. Policies are in place for a reason, and context and intent don't come into play when we're talking about administrative penalties.

Okay then find me someone who doesn't satisfy one of Comey's standards who received even a fraction of the grief Clinton has.

And really this is just the same evasion.  Which email deserves the sanctions.  Put up or shut up.

Any and all of them. I'm not sure why you find this incomprehensible. CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT.

If, as is reported by the FBI, ~110 classified emails were found on this private server, then all 110 are a violation of Federal policies for the handling of classified material.
I would say Brezler satisfied the three requirements Comey put forth, in that the Marines he sent the email to were authorized recipients, he made no attempts to hide or cover up what he had done, and there was no evidence of disloyalty to the United States. The caveat being that the military has its own policies and procedures with regards to the handling of classified material.
And Brezler was not charged with criminal cnduct, however he did receive an administrative penalty (involuntary separation from the Marine Corps).

If you want to argue that Clinton doesn't deserve criminal charges, I'll buy that (we'd have to agree to disagree on whether there was intent and/or whether there was a coverup). But then she should face administrative penalty, which while it does not disqualify her from running for office, it's certainly not the kind of thing you want on your resume. Especially for a job where you're being briefed at very high levels on a daily basis.

The potential perjury charge is the far bigger worry for her now though.

[mainiac]

Any and all of them. I'm not sure why you find this incomprehensible. CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT.

If, as is reported by the FBI, ~110 classified emails were found on this private server, then all 110 are a violation of Federal policies for the handling of classified material.

And I asked you to give me a single example of why we should treat these breaches of these policies like a big deal.

We learn about things through examining the most pertinent details, not falling back on generalities and gut feeling.  GET SPECIFIC.

If everything is objectionable then just give me one example.  You say that people have been fired for less.  Give me one example of a person fired without any of these
-Active effort disseminate information to unauthorized persons
-Huge amounts of information
-extraordinarily sensitive information
-clear evidence of disloyalty to the US

You ask me to prove that all 30,000 are fine but you wont prove that even a single one of the 30,000 is a problem.  Instead you just fall back on the same thing over and over and over again.

But then she should face administrative penalty

Again this is VAGUE.  Be specific.  Find me another example of someone you think is comparable.  At any point in history going back to the XYZ affair.  Or fuck even before the XYZ affair.  If these administrative penalties are so freaking ubiquitous then why can't you name anyone comparable?

IMHO the administrative penalty that anyone else would get in this situation would be a harshly worded email from their boss and getting angrily told "dont get caught again".

[RedKing]

Any and all of them. I'm not sure why you find this incomprehensible. CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT.

If, as is reported by the FBI, ~110 classified emails were found on this private server, then all 110 are a violation of Federal policies for the handling of classified material.

And I asked you to give me a single example of why we should treat these breaches of these policies like a big deal.

Spoken like a true Clintonista. "Who cares about the rules? Why should they apply to me?"

We learn about things through examining the most pertinent details, not falling back on generalities and gut feeling.  GET SPECIFIC.

If everything is objectionable then just give me one example.  You say that people have been fired for less.  Give me one example of a person fired without any of these
-Active effort disseminate information to unauthorized persons
-Huge amounts of information
-extraordinarily sensitive information
-clear evidence of disloyalty to the US

1. Peter Van Buren, State Department. Forced into retirement and had his security clearance revoked for linking to a single classified Wikileaks document from his blog, which recounted a visit that John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman had with Gaddhafi in 2009. Not exactly critical or super secret. I specifically remember when the initial Wikileaks dump hit the Web. We were all advised in no uncertain terms that the release of these documents in no way constituted declassification, and that accessing, storing or even VIEWING the Wikileaks documents from a government computer could result in administrative action.

2. James Hitselberger, USN. Navy linguist and Arabic translator for the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Printed a couple of classified documents to take to his personal quarters on-base at NSA Bahrain, ostensibly to continue work on them. Was intercepted a short time later, the documents removed, and placed into detention and later charged by the Obama administration with violating the 1917 Espionage Act, despite the fact that he made no attempt to print the documents surreptitiously, leave the base with the documents, or pass the documents to any other individuals. Pled guilty to misdemeanor charges to avoid prison time.

3. Bryan Nishimura, USN Reserve. Engineer, copied classified material to personal electronic devices while in Afghanistan. FBI investigated and specifically stated that they found "no intent to distribute" these materials or any evidence of distribution. Nonetheless, he was stripped of his clearance, barred from seeking a future clearance, and sentenced to two years probation and $7500 fine.


There, that's three times what you asked for, and doesn't include the thousands of administrative sanctions that happen across a swath of agencies on a regular basis and don't become public record because these are internal agency matters. I personally know of several special agents, administrative assistants and even one intelligence analyst at BATF who received administrative action for mishandling of classified material, but guess what -- I'm not at liberty to divulge that information.

One of my co-workers and our manager at the time were dismissed for mishandling of sensitive (not even fully classified) information, even though the manager in question wasn't our manager at the time the initial breach occurred and had no knowledge of it. I was rather pissed at that one, but whaddya gonna do? Security gets compromised, heads gotta roll. At least as long as your head is below a certain pay grade.

You ask me to prove that all 30,000 are fine but you wont prove that even a single one of the 30,000 is a problem.  Instead you just fall back on the same thing over and over and over again.

But then she should face administrative penalty

Again this is VAGUE.  Be specific.  Find me another example of someone you think is comparable.  At any point in history going back to the XYZ affair.  Or fuck even before the XYZ affair.  If these administrative penalties are so freaking ubiquitous then why can't you name anyone comparable?

IMHO the administrative penalty that anyone else would get in this situation would be a harshly worded email from their boss and getting angrily told "dont get caught again".

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but -- please don't act like you have experience with how this actually works. You have not, to the best of my knowledge, held a Federal security clearance. I have. My half-brother has. My father has and still does.

This is not "don't get caught again", this is "you are in deep shit, son".

[mainiac]

Oh, so you will second guess James Comey but god forbid I imagine what it's like to have a security clearance...

How could a lowly economist in Washington DC know what that is like to have a security clearance?  All I have to go on is the experiences of my mother, my brother, my cousin, my younger brother who nearly got a security clearance as a part time electrician in a bus depot (but quit instead like a dumbass), half a dozen former coworkers and that I have interviewed for half a dozen security clearance positions in the past month.  Oh and I have known for twenty years a woman who is now a senior state department official (former consulate general of Quebec, I used to crash in her house when she was out of the country).  Ironically she was once even lauded for going down to Belize and sorting through the shit show that was their communications.  Plus I handle sensitive information every week or two as a mediator for the local courts.

The issue here isn't that I dont know what sensitive information is.  The issue is that we disagree on the severity of this.  Which is why it sure would be great to be specific about the complaint.

Let me put it this way.  I think that the two pieces of text in the original post are the worst breaches of data.  The timing of a phone call and the information of a UN diplomats retirement plans later that day were the most sensitive information involved.  The drone stuff has been public knowledge for years and the government just doesn't want to openly admit it because that would cause a headache in Pakistan.  Do you disagree?  Would you like to suggest an email with more sensitive information?  Do you currently have several different items under consideration and you aren't sure which is worst yet?

1. Peter Van Buren

After several months of legal battles, the State Department withdrew its intent to fire Van Buren and he instead retired with the pension and benefits State sought to take away from him.
Great example.  They should treat Hillary Clinton exactly this way.  Now that the investigation has run it's course and it turns out that there was nothing to it they should let her move on without any more trouble.  Of course I wish that neither Peter van Buren nor Hillary Clinton had been judged prematurely but at least now that the investigation has run it's course we can agree that they should be allowed to get on with their book deals and presidencies.

Of course it would also be nice if Hillary Clinton didn't get publicly admonished.  Peter van Buren didn't get publicly scolded, they simply withdrew the charges.

James Hitselberger

The information was clearly marked Secret, it was a great deal more information and it was very apparent that it was a violation.  The nature of the information (gaps in US intelligence in the exact community it was in) made the consequences of the information getting lost a clear and present danger.  Unlike for instance if the Russians learned the timing of Clinton's phone conversation with the president of Malawi.

Bryan Nishimura

Confessed to holding and then destroying large amounts of classified information.  Said that he felt he had great representation so the confession presumably was merited.  Thus when we compare it to the standards laid out by James Comey it is not equivalent.  He both held a great deal more information and actively obstructed an investigation.  You could argue that he tried to disseminate information but because it never went to a verdict AFAIK there is no legal precedent or standard to evaluate that by.  And after all that, a fine and probation.


I will say that there is a troubling precedent running through these cases.  There is a great deal of prosecutorial discretion involved and we desperately need to update a law that is nearly 100 years old.  However the findings of everyone actually assigned to investigate the case is that there is nothing to charge Hillary Clinton with.  These two men were charged with crimes and pled guilty.

One of my co-workers and our manager at the time were dismissed for mishandling of sensitive (not even fully classified) information, even though the manager in question wasn't our manager at the time the initial breach occurred and had no knowledge of it. I was rather pissed at that one, but whaddya gonna do? Security gets compromised, heads gotta roll. At least as long as your head is below a certain pay grade.

Dont say "not even classified".  Classified includes Hillary Clinton saying that she will move lunch from 12:35 to 12:45.  If you want my heart to bleed for your coworker then please show me an email from Hillary Clinton that contains more sensitive information then what your coworker used.  And you'll have to provide some details about your coworkers case beyond "not even classified".  Unless you can be specific it's just hot air.

[RedKing]

You agree that it's troubling that the laws are not being applied consistently, but you're totes okay with that in this case because it means senpai is off the hook.

And no matter how many other examples I can find (most of which, as I said, are not a matter of public record) you're gonna nitpick and argue till you're Democrat Blue in the face that it's not the same thing and therefore no comparison can be made. And the ones I know from personal experience, I can't share specific details of because (wait for it....) they're classified.

Yeah, we're done. Enjoy being undisputed king of your echo chamber.
Imma just leave this here.

[mainiac]

You agree that it's troubling that the laws are not being applied consistently, but you're totes okay with that in this case because it means senpai is off the hook.

No I did not say that.  If you stopped this halfway through it would be the statement I made.

you're gonna nitpick

It's a very transparent standard, I specified it ahead of time and I got it by directly quoting James Comey.  This isn't nitpicking.  This is reading the freaking press release.  It hinges around a little technicality called guilt or innocence.  The innocent should not be punished.

Yeah, we're done. Enjoy being undisputed king of your echo chamber.
Imma just leave this here.

Very well, I asked you to put up or shut up.  Shut up works for me!