Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 06-10-2016, 05:39 AM
Bridget Burke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,349

Just Checking In


How many Dopers have changed their minds per the OP's admonition?

Let's have a show of hand. (Mine ain't up.)
  #202  
Old 06-10-2016, 05:55 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Good. So if she does get indicted, you're sure she did nothing wrong and she will remain the candidate of the Democratic Party.
  #203  
Old 06-10-2016, 06:59 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Good. So if she does get indicted, you're sure she did nothing wrong and she will remain the candidate of the Democratic Party.
Only until she gets hit by the asteroid. Got to think of all the eventualities.
  #204  
Old 06-10-2016, 07:36 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Indictment is just a bit more likely. If it was a slam dunk that there would be no indictment, there wouldn't be an investigation in the first place. Betting markets place the odds at 23%
  #205  
Old 06-10-2016, 07:41 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Oh? What's the betting markets' odds on the asteroid strike?
  #206  
Old 06-10-2016, 07:42 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,130
Quote:
Good. So if she does get indicted, you're sure she did nothing wrong and she will remain the candidate of the Democratic Party.
You set a daunting standard, addy. But I gotta admit, she is most likely not a virgin.

Last edited by elucidator; 06-10-2016 at 07:43 AM.
  #207  
Old 06-10-2016, 08:14 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh? What's the betting markets' odds on the asteroid strike?
Don't worry, if she does die, you can replace her on the ticket.
  #208  
Old 06-10-2016, 08:20 AM
Bridget Burke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Don't worry, if she does die, you can replace her on the ticket.
Sorry, it appears she will remain on the ticket. And win. Probably twice.

Now, tell us about Your Guy's good points.
  #209  
Old 06-10-2016, 08:24 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Don't worry, if she does die, you can replace her on the ticket.
I'm not worried. I don't get a vote anyways. But really, there is no reason to value the betting markets opinion on this matter.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-10-2016 at 08:27 AM.
  #210  
Old 06-10-2016, 08:31 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm not worried. I don't get a vote anyways. But really, there is no reason to value the betting markets opinion on this matter.
Should be easy money for you, then.
  #211  
Old 06-10-2016, 08:39 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Yeah, a 22% gain on a sure thing. The stock market certainly won't give you that.
  #212  
Old 06-10-2016, 08:47 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Good. So if she does get indicted, you're sure she did nothing wrong and she will remain the candidate of the Democratic Party.
This doesn't logically connect to the post you're responding to.
  #213  
Old 06-10-2016, 08:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Yeah, a 22% gain on a sure thing. The stock market certainly won't give you that.
It does sound like a safe bet to me but I never said there's a zero percent chance of an indictment. I said a random bunch of people have little to no insight on what the FBI has found or what it will do.
  #214  
Old 06-10-2016, 10:04 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
New reporting on the focus of the investigation today: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-...kes-1465509863

It seems that our nation's diplomats don't have access to secure email at home or while traveling--which is fucking nuts. Even if operational details weren't given, talking about imminent military strikes over insecure networks is stupid. Before this, has there been any reporting on that problem? Does anyone know if Congress has been asked to fund better communications systems?

One pet peeve about all this report (among many), is the implicit suggestion that if someone intercepted or read these emails that there would be evidence of this. That's not how it works, especially on an amateur server. It is entirely possible that one or more entities intercepted these emails without leaving any evidence that can now be discovered.
  #215  
Old 06-10-2016, 10:56 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,088
So, IOW, blaming Clinton for non-secure emails is like blaming her for air pollution because she drives a car.

Okay.
  #216  
Old 06-10-2016, 11:00 AM
Randolph is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NxnyC
Posts: 1,234
Say, is this a scandal yet?
  #217  
Old 06-10-2016, 11:15 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
So, IOW, blaming Clinton for non-secure emails is like blaming her for air pollution because she drives a car.

Okay.
You think the Secretary of State is to the State Department as a car owner is to the design of automobiles.

Okay.
  #218  
Old 06-10-2016, 11:43 AM
Dob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 1,456
haven't changed my mind at all. it was a non "scandal" to start and has remained so. she has released tens of thousands of the emails.. hundreds of people and news outlets have poured over everything and found no wrong doing.

Based on the last report she didn't do anything different than the previous Sec of States.. hell Colin Powell just flat out refused to turn over paper copies of his emails... its a witch hunt, nothing more.

The only good thing that should come out of this is a revamp of how our govt. communicates internally and how data is stored. That wont happen.. but it would be nice to think it might.

Last edited by Dob; 06-10-2016 at 11:43 AM. Reason: typo
  #219  
Old 06-10-2016, 11:43 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,088
Well, as you said...

Quote:
It seems that our nation's diplomats don't have access to secure email at home or while traveling
I just don't see how Hillary is to blame for that, all by her lonesome.
  #220  
Old 06-10-2016, 11:51 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I just don't see how Hillary is to blame for that, all by her lonesome.
She shares some of the blame because she was in charge, she was specifically informed about the problem of senior diplomats including herself communicating on insecure networks, and what she did to attempt to solve it was equal parts inadequate and inappropriate. I'm not sure what other required elements there are for "blame."

Naturally, people want to argue about all kinds of other issues, like whether this means Trump is better, whether the GOP actually cares about the security issues or is just playing politics, whether any of the vulnerable data actually led to security compromises, whether this rises to the level of "scandal," blah blah blah. But that's mostly side-show. Not every criticism of a politician has to be handled as some kind of zero-sum partisan slugfest. It is possible to think a criticism raises a serious and important issue without changing your party registration.
  #221  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:06 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,130
The position of SecState seems to me to entail a great deal of power, responsibility, and some degree of discretion. If she sends an e-mail concerning the floral arrangements for the formal meeting with the President of BongoBongo, and fails to send it on a secure network, I will try not to get too worked up about it. Of course, if she were to send out our troop deployments, ammo supplies and locations, then maybe. But SecState is not SecDef.

As well, who's to say? If she says the floral arrangements are not sensitive info but the NSA says they are, who decides? Apparently, POTUS had some faith in her intelligence and discretion, because she parked her butt in the chair. She is neither stupid nor an ISIS mole.

Can anyone point out any consequences, dire or otherwise, from her alleged sloppiness?
  #222  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:26 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Hmm, after much thought, I've decided that I'll have chicken for dinner.

And no, I still don't give one shit about her emails
  #223  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Why be deliberately obtuse? You really think there is no secret info on negotiations, intelligence or policy that crosses the SecState's desk? Flower arrangements is all you figure?

The fact seems to be that State's handling of electronic info is pretty shitty. Instead of addressing that problem, Hillary became an example of it. You should be able to accept someone saying that without assuming they want her arrested or think Trump would be a better President.
  #224  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:55 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Can anyone point out any consequences, dire or otherwise, from her alleged sloppiness?
She sent and received emails about things like imminent drone strikes on a server that was easily vulnerable to hacking. That's the epitome of being sloppy as to security. I fail to see how you could continue to call it "alleged" sloppiness. Surely, sloppiness is the most exculpatory possibility here.

And there's no particular reason to think we would know of the consequences of someone breaching her server. Take the example from the WSJ article. If monitoring of the server communications gave advance notice that there would be an imminent drone strike in Pakistan, and some targets were tipped off to lay low for a few weeks, how would we ever know that? More to the point, there need not have been any "dire or otherwise" consequences for this to have been an example of poor judgment that has revealed a significant problem in our nation's security apparatus.
  #225  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:05 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
I'm back to asking something I tried earlier but didn't state very clearly, Richard. So you've changed your mind -- does this impact anything you do in the real world? Is it serious enough for you to change your vote? Did you formerly believe no investigation was really necessary, but now you do? The facts as you know them changed, but what changed about you in response to that new knowledge?
  #226  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:17 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Any amount of security can be breached, what matters is the likelihood of the breech, and the likelihood that the person doing the breaching can both understand the context of whatever information he's accessing, and utilize it in time to do anything.

The systems in use were good enough for previous SoSs, saying Clinton should have done better is a slightly reasonable criticism. But suggesting it's a scandal is goofy.

Bush trumps up a war, tortures people, and it's all, "hey cool" and Clinton does't revamp security at the State Department, and it's, "SHE MUST GO TO PRISON!"

The level of banality that these attacks drop to is a real drag. And like Obama, if this is genuinely the worst thing that can be found to attack her, awesome.
  #227  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:17 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
I'm back to asking something I tried earlier but didn't state very clearly, Richard. So you've changed your mind -- does this impact anything you do in the real world? Is it serious enough for you to change your vote? Did you formerly believe no investigation was really necessary, but now you do? The facts as you know them changed, but what changed about you in response to that new knowledge?
How is that not almost entirely addressed in the OP? He said he believes this is a true national security scandal, so clearly he thinks the investigation was warranted. He said it "... it has caused me to downgrade my estimation of Clinton's judgment by a good notch. I'm not sure she has worse judgment than her competitors, but it's now a closer call in my book." I can't imagine Richard is going switch to Trump over this.
  #228  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:34 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
So you've changed your mind -- does this impact anything you do in the real world? Is it serious enough for you to change your vote? Did you formerly believe no investigation was really necessary, but now you do? The facts as you know them changed, but what changed about you in response to that new knowledge?
As CarnalK notes, I think I covered most of that in my OP. This line of questioning reads to me like you agree with posters like Lobohan who appear to believe that unless criticism is enough to change your vote then it's not worth bothering to sort out which parts of it are legitimate and illegitimate.

I think that's just a totally wrongheaded way to approach stuff like this, and contributes to our poisonous tribal culture. We should pay attention to the details of criticisms of Democratic candidates, and form opinions for ourselves, even when the issue does not rise to the level of changing our votes. Do I really have to defend that position?
  #229  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:43 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
News flash: Old people are bad at internets.
  #230  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:47 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Then maybe old people shouldn't run servers in their basement.
  #231  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:53 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
As CarnalK notes, I think I covered most of that in my OP. This line of questioning reads to me like you agree with posters like Lobohan who appear to believe that unless criticism is enough to change your vote then it's not worth bothering to sort out which parts of it are legitimate and illegitimate.

I think that's just a totally wrongheaded way to approach stuff like this, and contributes to our poisonous tribal culture. We should pay attention to the details of criticisms of Democratic candidates, and form opinions for ourselves, even when the issue does not rise to the level of changing our votes. Do I really have to defend that position?
Apparently, yes, as you've been doing for multiple pages now. So your opinion is that your trust and/or faith in Hilary has been slightly reduced, though not enough to change anything about your opinion of her versus rival candidates. And you feel that trusting Hilary's judgment slightly less is something important we should all share in.

My trust in her judgment hit bottom when she didn't dump Bill after it became clear what a personal sleaze he was. Perhaps she displayed good political judgment in carpetbagging her way into a NY senatorial seat, but I thought it was a perfect example of naked political opportunism and it offended me.

So this email thing is incredibly small potatoes in my mind compared to other issues.

And yes, disliking her as I do (and have for years), I will STILL vote for her to be president as a far better choice than any of the Republicans in the race.

To me, it's just another of many episodes of voting for the lesser evil.
  #232  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:54 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
As CarnalK notes, I think I covered most of that in my OP. This line of questioning reads to me like you agree with posters like Lobohan who appear to believe that unless criticism is enough to change your vote then it's not worth bothering to sort out which parts of it are legitimate and illegitimate.

I think that's just a totally wrongheaded way to approach stuff like this, and contributes to our poisonous tribal culture. We should pay attention to the details of criticisms of Democratic candidates, and form opinions for ourselves, even when the issue does not rise to the level of changing our votes. Do I really have to defend that position?
I think it's worth sorting out which parts are legitimate or illegitimate. It's just after following this for years now, it seems like the critics are pointing at trivialities and making astonished faces, and gasping about how awful it all is.
  #233  
Old 06-10-2016, 03:54 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Bush trumps up a war, tortures people, and it's all, "hey cool" and Clinton does't revamp security at the State Department, and it's, "SHE MUST GO TO PRISON!"
Welcome to RepublicanWorld. This is an 'E' ticket ride.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 06-10-2016 at 03:57 PM.
  #234  
Old 06-10-2016, 04:05 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Welcome to RepublicanWorld. This is an 'E' ticket ride.
Yes, Richard Parker is well known as a Republican shill on this message board.
  #235  
Old 06-10-2016, 04:17 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, Richard Parker is well known as a Republican shill on this message board.
Maybe if I were responding to Richard Parker...
  #236  
Old 06-10-2016, 04:23 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
She sent and received emails about things like imminent drone strikes on a server that was easily vulnerable to hacking...
Hold up there, hoss. From whence and whom this information? That little nugget right there, that isn't sensitive information? Who was authorized to disclose it, and by whom were they authorized?

Things "like" imminent drone strikes? What do you mean, they bear some resemblance? So, then, it would not be actual drone strikes, but something someone has decided is very, very similar? Who decided that?

Quote:
...More to the point, there need not have been any "dire or otherwise" consequences for this to have been an example of poor judgment that has revealed a significant problem in our nation's security apparatus.
If the problem is systemic, why should I believe that her actions did not, in fact, enhance security? You rightly point out that we may very well not know of any dire consequences, but seem willing to the leave the ghost of that absence as a talking point. Who knows? Could have been anything!

"..revealed a significant problem..." Well, OK. Should Hillary have broken out her mad programming skills and whipped it into shape? Wait, I hear the State Dept runs on DOS....

And as much as I appreciate a dispassionate and objective approach, this is a political shitstorm. Might as well shout "Theater!" in a crowded fire.
  #237  
Old 06-10-2016, 04:30 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
... You really think there is no secret info on negotiations, intelligence or policy that crosses the SecState's desk? Flower arrangements is all you figure?....
Your underlying assumption--that she conducted all, or even merely a substantial portion, of State's business through her BlackBerry--is incorrect, invalidating your point.
  #238  
Old 06-10-2016, 04:32 PM
Finagle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Somewhere near Boston
Posts: 9,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
She shares some of the blame because she was in charge, she was specifically informed about the problem of senior diplomats including herself communicating on insecure networks, and what she did to attempt to solve it was equal parts inadequate and inappropriate. I'm not sure what other required elements there are for "blame."

See, I'm confused here. Clinton asked for a secure Blackberry and the NSA told her to pound sand. Even ignoring the question of why one of the top 10 or so government officials doesn't merit all the infrastructure they asked for, how can we then get upset that subsequent emails had to be sent in the clear?
  #239  
Old 06-10-2016, 04:40 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Then maybe old people shouldn't run servers in their basement.
It's Chelsea's fault.

Everyone knows old folks rely on grandkids to keep their electronics and computers humming.

Chelsea didn't get going and produce grandkids early enough, who would be old enough to help SecState Clinton.

QED.
  #240  
Old 06-10-2016, 06:55 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Nm

Last edited by Richard Parker; 06-10-2016 at 06:56 PM.
  #241  
Old 06-11-2016, 08:16 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,075
The odds of a Hillary Clinton indictment are slim to none. However, that doesn't mean that this won't continue to be a source of ongoing controversy going forward. I have suspected for a while that while the chances of an actual indictment are slim, the chances of the appearance of impropriety is high, and with years of emails to dig through and release to the public, I suspect that some of the most embarrassing information is being withheld until October -- something like ties between the Clinton Foundation and Al Qaida supporters or the Chinese Communist Party. I doubt that actual ties exist but perhaps something like a fifth or sixth degree of separation.
  #242  
Old 06-11-2016, 09:22 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
It will be a source of controversy as long as she remains politically relevant regardless of what the facts are, Asahi.

When you're talking about '5th and 6th degrees of separation', aren't you essentially including everybody in the world?

And I love "October surprise" theories, always feared but never materializing. I really think that "October Surprise" theories can be classified as a conspiracy theory. Here's mine: The reason the judge waited to start the civil trial in November is because of the slight possibility that Trump will win: the trial will give President-elect Trump ample opportunity to break laws regarding judicial tampering, giving Congress immediate grounds for Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Judge Curiel will be the savior of America!

Last edited by JohnT; 06-11-2016 at 09:23 AM.
  #243  
Old 06-11-2016, 09:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Your underlying assumption--that she conducted all, or even merely a substantial portion, of State's business through her BlackBerry--is incorrect, invalidating your point.
I really don't see how it invalidates my point.
  #244  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:56 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Your underlying assumption--that she conducted all, or even merely a substantial portion, of State's business through her BlackBerry--is incorrect, invalidating your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I really don't see how it invalidates my point.
Your invalid argument was that since important, sensitive matters crossed her desk,* they must necessarily have been dealt with through her BlackBerry.

In actual fact, Clinton did not conduct all the business of the State Department through her BlackBerry. She conducted business using conversations in person, conversations by telephone, State Department computers and cables, and even physical documents, among other alternatives to using a BlackBerry and nothing else.

Your construction:

Quote:
You really think there is no secret info on negotiations, intelligence or policy that crosses the SecState's desk? Flower arrangements is all you figure?
---contains the tacit implication that the reason Clinton is Bad and Wrong is that she used her BlackBerry for all that "secret info on negotiations, intelligence [and] policy"--for all that crossed her desk. But for that to be true, we would have to assume that she did her entire job through the BlackBerry. We would have to assume that she did no part of the job through in-person and telephone conversations, through State Department cables, etc.

And that's plainly ridiculous.


*(see the quoted posts below for the beginning of the discussion)




Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
The position of SecState seems to me to entail a great deal of power, responsibility, and some degree of discretion. If she sends an e-mail concerning the floral arrangements for the formal meeting with the President of BongoBongo, and fails to send it on a secure network, I will try not to get too worked up about it. Of course, if she were to send out our troop deployments, ammo supplies and locations, then maybe. But SecState is not SecDef.

As well, who's to say? If she says the floral arrangements are not sensitive info but the NSA says they are, who decides? Apparently, POTUS had some faith in her intelligence and discretion, because she parked her butt in the chair. She is neither stupid nor an ISIS mole.
Can anyone point out any consequences, dire or otherwise, from her alleged sloppiness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Why be deliberately obtuse? You really think there is no secret info on negotiations, intelligence or policy that crosses the SecState's desk? Flower arrangements is all you figure? ...
  #245  
Old 06-12-2016, 06:29 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Hold up there, hoss. From whence and whom this information? That little nugget right there, that isn't sensitive information? Who was authorized to disclose it, and by whom were they authorized?

Things "like" imminent drone strikes? What do you mean, they bear some resemblance? So, then, it would not be actual drone strikes, but something someone has decided is very, very similar? Who decided that?
Your suggestion that I'm trying to use weasel words here is misguided. The imminent drone strikes are mentioned in the article I posted upthread and expressly mentioned in my post citing that article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
If the problem is systemic, why should I believe that her actions did not, in fact, enhance security? You rightly point out that we may very well not know of any dire consequences, but seem willing to the leave the ghost of that absence as a talking point. Who knows? Could have been anything!

"..revealed a significant problem..." Well, OK. Should Hillary have broken out her mad programming skills and whipped it into shape? Wait, I hear the State Dept runs on DOS.....
You cannot see some room for her to address this issue between ignoring it and programming software to solve it?
  #246  
Old 06-12-2016, 06:43 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,130
Quote:
...Flower arrangements is all you figure? ...
My point was not that nothing of importance "crosses her desk", she was SecState, so, of course, yes, duh! My point was that not everything is important, hence my jocular reference to flower arrangements. I'm sure that she maked decisions about things that require no classification or security at all. Whether that business is conducted by Blackberry or by secret couriers is of no importance.

Protocols were evaded, rules were broken. That should not have happened. But if that is all, then it ain't much.

Last edited by elucidator; 06-12-2016 at 06:44 PM.
  #247  
Old 06-12-2016, 06:49 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Protocols were evaded, rules were broken. That should not have happened. But if that is all, then it ain't much.
I don't think you appreciate just how likely it is that multiple foreign governments have all of her emails, or the level of sensitivity of the things discussed in them.

It is more likely than not that countries like Russia have all of them, given the vulnerabilities known to exist on her server, Russia's capabilities, and the likelihood of targeting her. And we know that lots of the emails did contain sensitive matters. Perhaps not things like nuclear launch codes, but quite a bit more sensitive than floral arrangements.
  #248  
Old 06-12-2016, 07:08 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Your suggestion that I'm trying to use weasel words here is misguided. The imminent drone strikes are mentioned in the article I posted upthread and expressly mentioned in my post citing that article...
You posted at the very beginning. Am I being offered a homework assignment, to read the article entire and search out your reference and source? Sounds like work. I hate work.

Further, you misunderstand the thrust of my question. Not any suggestion of weasel-think, but wondering why it didn't occur to you, as it occurred to me, to wonder about the source of such a radioactive factoid. Of course, such drone strikes would necessarily be secret, I imagine past as well as future or current. But who divulged that factoid, which we agree should have been secret? To what end, who authorized such a release of info?

Seems to me that you have a healthy streak of skeptical suspicion, has it failed you?



Quote:
....You cannot see some room for her to address this issue between ignoring it and programming software to solve it?
I can see some room between what she would want to do and what is actually possible. She has no background in such technology. Therefore, she must trust others for the straight truth.

Be that as it may, she is invested with discretion. If in her view, a communication does not merit extra scrutiny for security concerns, it most likely does not. If that breached some protocol, then perhaps a letter or reprimand might be placed in her file, though her career at State might suffer....

And if she were not running for Prez, that's probably all that would happen.
  #249  
Old 06-12-2016, 07:09 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,130
Damn, a double successive ninja? How you do that?
  #250  
Old 06-12-2016, 07:15 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Sounds like work. I hate work.
It was the post the re-bumped this thread, immediately preceding your comments. But here you go, no need to scroll up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I can see some room between what she would want to do and what is actually possible. She has no background in such technology. Therefore, she must trust others for the straight truth.
But, instead of trusting the people who knew more, she told them she'd do what they wanted and then ignored them. Among the many better things she could have done would be to raise holy hell about the problem. It is unacceptable that our diplomats communicate using clear channels about sensitive information. The responsible thing to do about that, at a minimum, is complain! And, I suspect, that's the least she could have done.
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 04:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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