Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 06-23-2016, 09:53 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Considering how lax or over-confident most people, even many participating in this thread, are about their own computer security, is it not surprising that this issue has little traction?
It does have traction, just not much on this board. I linked above and quoted that even among Dems a quarter think this is a "major problem", only 20% of the total population think this was ethical behaviour. It's easy to imagine it at least in part explains Hillary's poor positive/negative polling. But, luckily she's running against Trump and his craziness has more traction.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-23-2016 at 09:56 AM.
  #452  
Old 06-23-2016, 11:40 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,379
Its a matter of quantity over quality, Hillary deals in minor quantities, Trump delivers in carloads.

Also, its Hillary. I blame both her and Horndog Bill for leading the Dems to be Republican Lite. Most likely, its more him than her. But I kinda like Bill, and I don't like her. Its not fair, but there it is.
  #453  
Old 06-23-2016, 12:22 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
A simple "no" would have sufficed. Which of those positions do you not hold?
I hold the positions I've written about in this thread. You can read them at your leisure.
  #454  
Old 06-23-2016, 12:44 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It does have traction, just not much on this board. I linked above and quoted that even among Dems a quarter think this is a "major problem", only 20% of the total population think this was ethical behaviour. It's easy to imagine it at least in part explains Hillary's poor positive/negative polling. But, luckily she's running against Trump and his craziness has more traction.
I worked in financial services with its own host of security provisions and protocols, and many, many people took shortcuts that they were just told not to do. Lazy and duplicated and written-down passwords, reviewing client files while logged into the Starbucks wi-fi, not sending secure emails as SECURE EMAILS, stuff like that.

And with this issue, people are measuring what they are hearing about Hillary, comparing it to what they're doing in their lives, and saying "meh." So, yeah, most might see it as unethical, but many of those see it as the sort of unethical thing that they themselves are (or can be) guilty of doing.
  #455  
Old 06-23-2016, 12:56 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I hold the positions I've written about in this thread. You can read them at your leisure.
So you want me to go through and quote the exact posts where you said things that caused me to believe you held those positions before you explain to me how your actual positions differ? I'll pass. Not sure why you're being so hostile.
  #456  
Old 06-23-2016, 01:20 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
So you want me to go through and quote the exact posts where you said things that caused me to believe you held those positions before you explain to me how your actual positions differ? I'll pass. Not sure why you're being so hostile.
Since you attributed my position as being that we should not discuss Clinton's judgment unless a certain condition is satisfied, I take your three summaries of "my" opinions to be silly strawmen that I feel no need to spend much time correcting. I've been discussing this matter for nine pages; surely you see the contraction of attributing that view to me.

Last edited by Ravenman; 06-23-2016 at 01:20 PM.
  #457  
Old 06-23-2016, 01:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
. And with this issue, people are measuring what they are hearing about Hillary, comparing it to what they're doing in their lives, and saying "meh." So, yeah, most might see it as unethical, but many of those see it as the sort of unethical thing that they themselves are (or can be) guilty of doing.
That isn't true. Most would not describe using "password" for your password then leaving the reminder sticky note on your monitor as illegal or unethical, just stupid or lazy. And she did a lot more than that by using her own poorly secured server. If you are going to fool yourself into thinking the poll results I posted indicate a collective "meh" then I will just leave you to your hyperpartisan bubble.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-23-2016 at 01:23 PM.
  #458  
Old 06-23-2016, 01:26 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman
Since you attributed my position as being that we should not discuss Clinton's judgment unless a certain condition is satisfied, I take your three summaries of "my" opinions to be silly strawmen that I feel no need to spend much time correcting. I've been discussing this matter for nine pages; surely you see the contraction of attributing that view to me.
The view I attributed to you was "And there's no point in discussing whether Hillary Clinton has shown good judgment about the security of emails unless it would cause you to vote for someone else."

Here's what you've said in this thread about the relevance of the issue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Hillary Clinton made poor decisions about her email... and so she can't be trusted to be president? Is that where this is going?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Normally the election hinges on things like foreign policy, economic policy, civil rights, budget reform.... not "can the President design her own IT policies correctly?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I would hope for the sake of our country that you occupy more time wondering whether she did the right thing on resetting relations with Russia, fighting AIDS in Africa, or dealing with the Israel/Palestine situation than you spend worrying about her email server.

At least for those issues you can say that there are actual consequences to her decisions on those issues, as opposed to "If she can't be trusted with IT, I can't trust her to run the country."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I've asked the "so what?" question several times. And the most anyone can muster is, "B-b-b-but she didn't listen to her IT people!"
So, it strikes me as a fair summary of your position. Spending nine pages arguing that the issue isn't worth talking about doesn't really contradict you holding the view that the issue doesn't merit discussion.
  #459  
Old 06-23-2016, 01:43 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
If someone says that X is a big deal, I think it's perfectly legitimate to inquire if X is a bigger deal than Y. And if we find out that X is less of a big deal than, say, five, ten, 15, or 20 other letters of the alphabet, then it means that X isn't as big a deal as is being portrayed.

That doesn't mean that discussion of X must end. Ergo, strawman.
  #460  
Old 06-23-2016, 02:15 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If someone says that X is a big deal, I think it's perfectly legitimate to inquire if X is a bigger deal than Y. And if we find out that X is less of a big deal than, say, five, ten, 15, or 20 other letters of the alphabet, then it means that X isn't as big a deal as is being portrayed.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. All you've demonstrated is that Hillary Clinton's judgment over the security of her information is less important than her judgment about any number of other possible areas of bad judgment. That doesn't prove that it is less important than it was portrayed to be. I have not claimed that this is the political equivalent of her thinking we should start a trade war with China. I have claimed that it reflects quite poorly on her judgment in a way that matters more than you admit in your characterization of it as merely "B-b-b-but she didn't listen to her IT people!"

And it strikes me as telling that in the same series of posts in which you deny that her judgment about information security issues matters, you ask us to rely on her judgment about information security issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That doesn't mean that discussion of X must end. Ergo, strawman.
Ergo, strawman, indeed.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 06-23-2016 at 02:16 PM.
  #461  
Old 06-23-2016, 03:33 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
And it strikes me as telling that in the same series of posts in which you deny that her judgment about information security issues matters, you ask us to rely on her judgment about information security issues.
I've been saying for months on this message board that Clinton exercised poor judgment in setting up a private email server, regardless of whether her emails dealt with classified information.

I've also said that it is possible that she broke the law, but that the known facts seem to indicate that her actions would have had to be far more negligent than what has been made public so far to meet the "gross negligence" or "knowingly" mishandled standards established under a couple different sections of title 18.

If you'd like me to cite my posts on these issues, going back several months, I can do that. But the charge that I said "we should trust Clinton on information security issues" can only be something told to you by the Great Gazoo, not me.
  #462  
Old 06-23-2016, 03:51 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That isn't true. Most would not describe using "password" for your password then leaving the reminder sticky note on your monitor as illegal or unethical, just stupid or lazy. And she did a lot more than that by using her own poorly secured server. If you are going to fool yourself into thinking the poll results I posted indicate a collective "meh" then I will just leave you to your hyperpartisan bubble.
One of the questions repeatedly asked in this thread is "why isn't this getting more attention" and my recent responses were merely to address that issue. The fact that these reasons do not rise to the level needed to dismiss them in your POV, makes them neither "(un)true" or "hyperpartisan".

I'm sorry that people neither care about this issue or care more about other issues, but that's the way it is appearing. Even a simple review of some news web pages such as politico or cnn.com shows no traction for the email issue even after Trump's "blistering" speech on this very topic just 2 days ago.

Last edited by JohnT; 06-23-2016 at 03:52 PM.
  #463  
Old 06-23-2016, 04:08 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
But the charge that I said "we should trust Clinton on information security issues" can only be something told to you by the Great Gazoo, not me.
In post #445, you noted that the proof that her insecure server contained information marked as classified was just an email that she received and did not delete, and that the anodyne nature of her response and the unredacted subject matter suggested that nothing really sensitive was involved.

I thought your implied inference was that the only classified emails she would have similarly retained and replied to would have been ones that were similarly over-classified. And that is an appeal to her judgment about such things.

If, instead, you did not mean to imply that, then I think your rebuttal comes across as quite weak. If you don't think Hillary had good judgment about what information needed to be secure and which didn't, then it is pretty damning that she did in fact receive and store messages that other people marked classified. I ascribed to you the stronger and more well-reasoned, albeit implied, position.
  #464  
Old 06-23-2016, 04:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
So your cite that it has no traction is that it's not currently front page of CNN? You are seriously saying this didn't get much attention? And you handwave away that large chunks of the population think her behaviour was unethical or illegal? Don't be sorry for me. I'm fine.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-23-2016 at 04:11 PM.
  #465  
Old 06-23-2016, 05:06 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
In post #445, you noted that the proof that her insecure server contained information marked as classified was just an email that she received and did not delete, and that the anodyne nature of her response and the unredacted subject matter suggested that nothing really sensitive was involved.

I thought your implied inference was that the only classified emails she would have similarly retained and replied to would have been ones that were similarly over-classified. And that is an appeal to her judgment about such things.

If, instead, you did not mean to imply that, then I think your rebuttal comes across as quite weak. If you don't think Hillary had good judgment about what information needed to be secure and which didn't, then it is pretty damning that she did in fact receive and store messages that other people marked classified. I ascribed to you the stronger and more well-reasoned, albeit implied, position.
Let's recap this thread of exchanges.

In 431, sleestak linked to a version of that email as concrete proof that Clinton lied when she said that she never emailed anything that was marked classified. In 433, I pointed out that the classified marking that sleestak pointed to was, in fact, marked two years after the email was sent, so that this smoking gun evidence was being thoroughly misread.

In 441, EvilEconomist linked to a different version of the email without that post-dated marking, noting that there was information not present in sleestak's link that was marked Confidential. In 445, I pointed out that Clinton didn't write the part with the classified bits, that someone else typed it up and sent it to her and she responded.

In 445, to put my response in slightly different terms (but the same spirit as I intended my post), if the smoking gun evidence that Clinton lied about never sending an email that was marked with classified information is that she replied to someone who did break the rules, then this isn't really compelling evidence that Clinton was lying in her statement. In this case, it's pretty clear that the email's original author broke the rules, and to assign Clinton blame for replying to the email, as though this is the best evidence of her wrongdoing, is... meh.

There may be other examples where Clinton did something really bad. But between sleestak totally not understanding what he was linking to, and EvilEconomist commendably adding better information to the mix... this is supposed to be the damning evidence against Clinton? Like, that's it?

In my mind, the poor judgment of setting up a private email server for official government use is self evident, and the two links to that email are pretty weak sauce for the charge of mishandling classified information.
  #466  
Old 06-23-2016, 11:34 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Latest news:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nt_130993.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
If anyone is shocked that Clinton would delete emails that might be embarrassing, please don't vote. Ever again.
  #467  
Old 06-23-2016, 11:39 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
And the spin is just so adorable. See, now, rather than claiming she turned over all work-related emails, she's turned over all work related emails "still in her possession". Boy, she really thinks you're stupid. Honest mistake, that's all. Except that's why the private account was problematic, among other reasons: records retention. She can't claim "honest mistake" on this one. As if anyone actually believed that.
  #468  
Old 06-24-2016, 12:46 AM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
So now they're making up new categories of "secured" and "work-related" which aren't actually secured or work-related, and trying to pin that to the cork-board.

Not impressed.

Come back when you have some actual wrong-doing. Until now, you only have the Secretary of State going against the rules that the Secretary of State decides.

You have this weird fantasy that this has some kind of meaning in the real world, and it just plain doesn't. It's Swift-Boating all over again. Keep repeating lies (not adaher, but the right-wing talk-show hosts) until it starts to attain some kind of cultural reality.

What's sad is that some people (adaher) are falling for this trash.
  #469  
Old 06-24-2016, 01:30 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
She didn't turn over all her work emails. This is once again her having to change her spin as new facts came out. When we started, she had supposedly turned over all work emails and had not had any classified information pass through her server.

She's had to walk back an awful lot since this started. Now your standard might be actual, proven wrongdoing. That's fine. Most voters expect better from their Presidential candidates. Thank your lucky stars her competition is Donald Trump and third parties. She might still blow it anyway.
  #470  
Old 06-24-2016, 06:41 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
It's infuriating not to have any evidence of what you know to be true, isn't it?

It's over. You lost. You're wrong. Now move on.
  #471  
Old 06-24-2016, 06:51 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
This word "evidence", I don't think it means what you think it means. The State Department and State Dept IG said she didn't turn over all her work emails. Her own spokesman admits as much by again moving the goalposts.
  #472  
Old 06-24-2016, 06:56 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Straw-grasping. And it's a mighty small straw.

It's over.
  #473  
Old 06-24-2016, 07:17 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Perhaps, but only because she got lucky with her opponent. She won't have any coattails if she only wins 40% of the vote.
  #474  
Old 06-24-2016, 07:32 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Perhaps, but only because she got lucky with her opponent. She won't have any coattails if she only wins 40% of the vote.
You think Johnson is going to get 20% of the vote?
  #475  
Old 06-24-2016, 07:37 AM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
You think Johnson is going to get 20% of the vote?
<libertarian>THIS is the year for the Libertarian Party!...Okay, THIS is the year for the Libertarian Party!...all right, then THIS year will be the year for the LP!....etc.</libertarian>
  #476  
Old 06-24-2016, 07:44 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
You think Johnson is going to get 20% of the vote?
Could happen. CNN gave him and Weld prime media coverage yesterday. Anything's possible if the media will give you a platform. Trump proved that.
  #477  
Old 06-24-2016, 07:47 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,156
If Trump had run for the Libertarian nomination he would have recieved, at best, 2% of the coverage.
  #478  
Old 06-24-2016, 09:54 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Could happen. CNN gave him and Weld prime media coverage yesterday. Anything's possible if the media will give you a platform. Trump proved that.
"Possible" is not the same as "likely".
  #479  
Old 06-24-2016, 02:19 PM
sleestak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sin City
Posts: 3,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Let's recap this thread of exchanges.

In 431, sleestak linked to a version of that email as concrete proof that Clinton lied when she said that she never emailed anything that was marked classified. In 433, I pointed out that the classified marking that sleestak pointed to was, in fact, marked two years after the email was sent, so that this smoking gun evidence was being thoroughly misread.

In 441, EvilEconomist linked to a different version of the email without that post-dated marking, noting that there was information not present in sleestak's link that was marked Confidential. In 445, I pointed out that Clinton didn't write the part with the classified bits, that someone else typed it up and sent it to her and she responded.

In 445, to put my response in slightly different terms (but the same spirit as I intended my post), if the smoking gun evidence that Clinton lied about never sending an email that was marked with classified information is that she replied to someone who did break the rules, then this isn't really compelling evidence that Clinton was lying in her statement. In this case, it's pretty clear that the email's original author broke the rules, and to assign Clinton blame for replying to the email, as though this is the best evidence of her wrongdoing, is... meh.

There may be other examples where Clinton did something really bad. But between sleestak totally not understanding what he was linking to, and EvilEconomist commendably adding better information to the mix... this is supposed to be the damning evidence against Clinton? Like, that's it?

In my mind, the poor judgment of setting up a private email server for official government use is self evident, and the two links to that email are pretty weak sauce for the charge of mishandling classified information.
You are correct I linked to the incorrect version of the document (too many windows open, linked to the wrong one). However, you are wrong yet again on what Clinton claimed.

Clinton claimed that she never sent or *received* classified emails.

Quote:
I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time
Link.

So, we know that is a lie.

Now we also know that the State Department had to disable security software for weeks because of Clintons email server. That is even worse. Her little, half-assed email server caused the entire State Department to decrease their network security and that is fucking major.

Link.

Quote:
State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government's own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.
Another link.

How ya gonna handwave this one away? That State doesn't really need all that security?

Slee
  #480  
Old 06-24-2016, 02:23 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Why should I handwave that away? It was obviously a dumb thing to do.
  #481  
Old 06-24-2016, 03:59 PM
sleestak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sin City
Posts: 3,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Why should I handwave that away? It was obviously a dumb thing to do.
So, would you agree that Clinton causing the State department to lower security standard goes a bit beyond dumb? That causing an entire government agency to weaken security is a serious problem? If not, is there a point at which her email practices might be a serious problem?

Also, I note that you ignored the fact that Clinton claimed she never received classified emails even though she did.

Slee
  #482  
Old 06-24-2016, 04:09 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleestak View Post
So, would you agree that Clinton causing the State department to lower security standard goes a bit beyond dumb? That causing an entire government agency to weaken security is a serious problem? If not, is there a point at which her email practices might be a serious problem?
Dumb, serious problem... are there any other adjectives you'd like to use that I will also agree with? Disabling government cyber defenses to accommodate a private server doing official business is bad, not good, irresponsible, and should not be done.

Happy?

Quote:
Also, I note that you ignored the fact that Clinton claimed she never received classified emails even though she did.
These are the sort of comments I expect when one has finished arguing for their position and embraced arguing against someone else. Are you mad at me?

First of all, thank you for clarifying her statement. For whatever reason, I either recalled it (or perhaps read it) as saying that she did not send emails with marked classified information. But since you accurately point out that she said that she didn't receive marked classified information, her statement is not correct.

However, I disagree that this counts as a lie. Being factually wrong and intending to deceive are not the same. If there is a small number of emails that she received that contain portion-marked confidential information, I would tend to think that she is probably mistaken, as opposed to fabricating, her claim that she didn't receive classified information.

If she received substantial numbers of these types of emails among the 50,000 emails being scrutinized, then I'd be more inclined to conclude that her statement was deceptive. Also, if she sent emails with portion-marked confidential information, I would think that would be a bigger deal than receiving emails.

I eagerly await your reply to tell me how unreasonable I am.
  #483  
Old 06-24-2016, 04:29 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
I notice a pattern here. When the accused, a Clinton, cannot be shown to have actually broken any law, the desperation grows to the point of trying to find an error in their testimony, with a goal of prosecuting them on that.

Didn't work the last time, and won't work this time.
  #484  
Old 06-24-2016, 05:35 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
She didn't turn over all her work emails.
You must be furious with Colin Powell then.
  #485  
Old 06-24-2016, 05:37 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Could happen. CNN gave him and Weld prime media coverage yesterday. Anything's possible if the media will give you a platform. Trump proved that.
Jeb Bush, who received the bulk of the early media coverage (and also bought more coverage than anyone else) is wondering why he wasn't possible.
  #486  
Old 06-24-2016, 05:46 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
First of all, thank you for clarifying her statement. For whatever reason, I either recalled it (or perhaps read it) as saying that she did not send emails with marked classified information. But since you accurately point out that she said that she didn't receive marked classified information, her statement is not correct.

However, I disagree that this counts as a lie. Being factually wrong and intending to deceive are not the same. If there is a small number of emails that she received that contain portion-marked confidential information, I would tend to think that she is probably mistaken, as opposed to fabricating, her claim that she didn't receive classified information.

If she received substantial numbers of these types of emails among the 50,000 emails being scrutinized, then I'd be more inclined to conclude that her statement was deceptive. Also, if she sent emails with portion-marked confidential information, I would think that would be a bigger deal than receiving emails.
Senior people have some responsibility to recognize sensitive information themselves. There isn't some authority above all of them saying what it is or isn't, and it's particularly silly to claim that the only thing which matters is if they'd applied a stamp *yet*. By that standard it would be fine for the President and DCI to converse about US humint assets high up in the Iranian govt on regular cell phones. Nobody would have stamped that conversation classified as or before it occurred, would they?

The ironic thing about the 'not classified yet' argument is that it implicitly assumes the argument of Hillary detractors that she was a just a politician in search of the WH punching her ticket with a tour as Secy of State, rather than actually the chief diplomat. The actually responsible senior people have to control how they communicate and in what form based on their knowledge of what is highly sensitive. They can't anticipate every subsequent classification, but it would be nonsensical to have security classification if only subsequent review mattered and the original creators or receivers of material had no responsibility to recognize it as such and treat it accordingly.

I deduce from the actions and body language of the Obama admin that they are confident they can avoid indicting her, or any other revelation, leak, resignation, etc. much more deeply damaging to her campaign that what's know now. And that's the bottom line politically. But a lawyer 'can make an argument' it's a lot less bad than stuff lots career people have been sacked or indicted for (without proven intent to expose classified material), is the about strongest plausible defense of her actions.

Last edited by Corry El; 06-24-2016 at 05:48 PM.
  #487  
Old 06-24-2016, 07:08 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,379
So, how much authority does SecState have when it comes to classification? If someone passes around a piece of info on the presumption that it is not particularly sensitive, can she step in and say "Whoa! That's some touchy shit there, classified!". I would think so, she is already invested with a considerable degree of authority.

And follow up, if she says something does not require secrecy, but somebody else says it does...is it "classified"?
  #488  
Old 06-24-2016, 10:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Senior people have some responsibility to recognize sensitive information themselves.
No they don't.

Quote:
There isn't some authority above all of them saying what it is or isn't
Yes there is.
  #489  
Old 06-24-2016, 10:25 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleestak View Post
That causing an entire government agency to weaken security is a serious problem?
Of course it's a problem. But it happens every day. Just today, I saw an entire government agency weaken it's security just so a user doesn't have to click an "okay" box when opening a PDF. Have you ever worked in government?
  #490  
Old 06-25-2016, 12:41 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
...Yes there is.
In her case, that would be the President of the United States. Has he time to read all those documents? Busy fellow, you know, plus has to stop and pray five times a day.
  #491  
Old 06-25-2016, 01:19 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
I notice a pattern here. When the accused, a Clinton, cannot be shown to have actually broken any law, the desperation grows to the point of trying to find an error in their testimony, with a goal of prosecuting them on that.

Didn't work the last time, and won't work this time.
Lack of transparency in a politician is proof of wrongdoing to the majority of the electorate. This isn't a trial. It's an election. We expect more than merely technical compliance with the law.
  #492  
Old 06-25-2016, 01:24 AM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Keep that in mind when you talk about indictment. There has been no demonstration of wrong-doing. Only "Swift-boating."
  #493  
Old 06-25-2016, 01:45 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
I don't know, nor do I care, if there is an indictment. An indictment is just a technical legal matter. If she's indicted, you should continue to support her. It changes nothing about what she did, and you think that what she did is just fine. And I think it's near disqualifying. So an indictment changes nothing for either of us.
  #494  
Old 06-25-2016, 01:45 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
...We expect more than merely technical compliance with the law.
This "we" of which you speak....
  #495  
Old 06-25-2016, 02:17 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Clinton's approval is 42-55. I think it's pretty safe to say that voters have had some issues with her conduct.
  #496  
Old 06-25-2016, 05:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I don't know, nor do I care, if there is an indictment. An indictment is just a technical legal matter. If she's indicted, you should continue to support her. It changes nothing about what she did, and you think that what she did is just fine. And I think it's near disqualifying. So an indictment changes nothing for either of us.
You keep harping on this and it's utter bullshit. We want to win - if, before the convention, or candidate now looks like a loser because of an indictment , then it's entirely reasonable and consistent to want to change candidates.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #497  
Old 06-25-2016, 05:58 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Oh, I know they just want to win. And sure, at the convention they can change the candidate, and I think they should.

But a criminal charge doesn't change what she did, and don't think we won't take advantage of the Democratic Party's powers that be almost unanimous unconcern with her actions should she get indicted after the convention. If I steal a pack of gum from a store, I stole it whether or not they decide to charge me. I'm a petty thief either way.
  #498  
Old 06-25-2016, 07:06 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Oh, I know they just want to win. And sure, at the convention they can change the candidate, and I think they should.

But a criminal charge doesn't change what she did, and don't think we won't take advantage of the Democratic Party's powers that be almost unanimous unconcern with her actions should she get indicted after the convention. If I steal a pack of gum from a store, I stole it whether or not they decide to charge me. I'm a petty thief either way.
This is different than what you said -- you said that it's somehow inconsistent or dishonest to want to drop her if she's indicted, and that's total bullshit.

Of course an indictment would be a huge political blow, and of course her enemies would try to take advantage of it. In light of this, it's consistent, honest, and reasonable both to think that she's a better option than Trump and nonetheless decide that if she is indicted she won't be the best option to challenge Trump.
  #499  
Old 06-25-2016, 08:06 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is different than what you said -- you said that it's somehow inconsistent or dishonest to want to drop her if she's indicted, and that's total bullshit.
It's dishonest in that it doesn't change anything about the morality of what she did. If you don't have a problem with it now, you should stand by her if she's indicted.


Quote:
Of course an indictment would be a huge political blow, and of course her enemies would try to take advantage of it. In light of this, it's consistent, honest, and reasonable both to think that she's a better option than Trump and nonetheless decide that if she is indicted she won't be the best option to challenge Trump.
She's not the best option now, and unlike my convention, you don't need a rule change to stop her. All the superdelegates have to do is abstain for a ballot or two and the convention is thrown open.
  #500  
Old 06-25-2016, 08:59 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It's dishonest in that it doesn't change anything about the morality of what she did. If you don't have a problem with it now, you should stand by her if she's indicted.
You've said this many times but it's not reality. What has been made public doesn't really merit an indictment so if she's indicted something much more serious will have to be revealed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017