Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 89
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    The context----
    If you have seen the FBI investigators press conference, then it should be accepted that the scandal is in fact a real thing. So one piece of bad news leads to others, namely the revealing of the close working of the Clinton foundation to her official job in the Gov. These facts don't surprise me in and of themselves because I think if all politicians were given the anal exam of their E-mails and relations, pay for play would be seen as common practice. It doesn't surprise me because of the anecdotal evidence in my personal life. Specifically, I am acquaintances(I have done work for him, and attend the same church) with a local ship builder(Think large company). He regularly places bids for Gov work. His testimony was that once Obama was elected the facade of legality was dropped. That is, kick backs were common to win a bid for the gov, but there was a change where the gov officials would come strait out with no sugar coating.. "I need 10 million if you want this bid".. . Where am I to get this 10 million? ... "Add it to your bid, I don't care.. you wan't the contract, give me 10 million".
    So, I'm not personally surprised by the fact this stuff is coming out. What is funny to me, is that no one asked these questions when Trump came out and said strait up, that he had taken part in pay for play, that is why Hillary was at his wedding. He made a big donation.. and he made her attend. http://gawker.com/donald-trump-i-pai...ddi-1722622546. I didn't even stop to think about what he was saying at the time.. but come to think of it, isn't that illegal? Why didn't anyone investigate? I'm not talking about just investigate him, I mean the foundation because that is the definition of pay to play.

    ---What really surprises me.
    What really surprises me, is that non of these facts move the polling. Hillary under investigation to be found "extremely careless" and now she will be investigated or is, about pay for play shenanigans.

    Some will cry that this stuff is all made up, but it really isn't. Hillary says there is a lot of smoke but no fire. But the seriousness of pay for play is a bar that enough smoke should get you in jail. Certainly many politicians would be in jail.. but that is the point! Trump was correct when he said (in link provided) that the system is broken, and this is very sad, because people don't care and it is a YUGE deal.


    What should happen? What should we think if the polls are not moved at all by such a serious exposure of corruption?



    --Bonus question
    Also, how in the world are we still tolerating all these calls of racism? As a society we can never get past racism if it gets so much attention and is so commonly falsely accused. It is crying wolf that hurts the actual cause when it does occur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixk01QlUPqw
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    So the press conference (a month ago) where the FBI decided not to press charges is the one that tells us the scandal is real. And you know a guy who is a ship builder and claims he pays bribes to government officials for contracts but apparently hasn't done anything about it and magically Obama had a hand in the change in policy for some military (presumably) contract? And Trump claims he forced the Clintons to attend his wedding and we beliieve the braggard because he's so well known for his honesty?

    When they have real evidence and actually nail her, let me know. Until then I see the same kind of desperate politicing and ******** I've seen for years and years against anyone and everyone in the white house or getting close to it.

    And no, smoke doesn't put people in jail just like looking suspicious doesn't put you in jail. You need evidence, proof of wrong doing beyond a reasonable doubt. We call that Justice in America. Hell if your friend the ship builder was interested in justice more than making money he could help fix what he apparently knows to be a crooked system. But he'd rather make the money than fix the system apparently, unless there is more than you told me.

    The polls aren't moved because its not credable enough to disuade supporters. I don't even like Clinton much and I'm not impressed with the evidence. Does money speak in politics and buy access. Of course it does. That is true of every politician everywhere. And it's not entirely wrong. Should presidents listen to bankers and industrialists. Yes, those people do matter. THey should also listen to the voting public as well because they also matter a great deal. Does money give you greater influence. Yes, and it always willl. Should we make some pains to limit that? Yes. By setting up laws.

    But until you have proof a law is broken, then you can't prosicute. You can judge for yourself of course, but I have pretty high standards for condeming people. I like people and generally trust them until proven otherwise.

    Racism
    Spurious accusations or racism can be a problem and are worth calling out. Not sure what we mean by tolerating them. Are you suggesting we outlaw questionable calls of racism?

    Look, its a social battlefield. There are still some very racist people out there and they stir up a lot of trouble and America has a long history of racism, and racism is pretty much always going to be with us to some extent. Tribalism is pretty natural for most human beings and it often falls on racial lines. I think it can be a great evil along with many other types of bigotry and has led to some of the worlds most tragic conflicts and injustices so I oppose it absolutely.

    What that clip you showed me has to do with racism I've no idea. Its a misunderstanding about the name of a fast food chain. No one there says anything about race. I don't see anything about race in the comments there (at least not the first page).
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. Thanks cippy thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    So the press conference (a month ago) where the FBI decided not to press charges is the one that tells us the scandal is real.
    Yes, because she set up servers that she shouldn't have.. and that is what the FBI said. She shouldn't have because her use of them was extremely careless. With the added gymnastics of not investigating intent and then pointing to lack of intent as the key (though not in the law) to not "recommending" charges. (Which would just be a recommendation and no one would have to follow through). But the point is, that there was something there, and there still is. To be clear, here I'm not advocating that she should have been tried for a crime, but a politician being extremely careless with highly classified information is a big deal. Here i'm not in referring to the marked not marked BS, but the stuff that had the FBI director saying that anyone should have known had no business on private servers, accounts etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    And you know a guy who is a ship builder and claims he pays bribes to government officials for contracts but apparently hasn't done anything about it and magically Obama had a hand in the change in policy for some military (presumably) contract?
    The testimony, is that there has always been corruption, but it became markedly more blatant after Obama was in office.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    And Trump claims he forced the Clintons to attend his wedding and we beliieve the braggard because he's so well known for his honesty?
    Well, first of all She did attend his wedding, and he did give her and others money. So..do you think he is lying about those things?
    Second, he basically admitted to his INTENT to giving the money. Do you think he is lying about that? His expressed intent was pay for play. This intent is what was so important with the Hillary not getting put to trial for her evidenced shoddy use of Classified information.
    So, you don't think the justice department should be interested in such a case? where a person gives money to politicians and then proclaims his intent for pay to play? Or do you have such a high opinion of business men in general that such a thing should be dismissed as bragging, and if so, then what more "evidence" do you need before you should start to think..."Hey, maybe there is some pay to play going on". Or is it, you just think so highly of trump personally you would rather think he is lying then bragging?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When they have real evidence and actually nail her, let me know. Until then I see the same kind of desperate politicing and ******** I've seen for years and years against anyone and everyone in the white house or getting close to it.
    Well, again here I'm not arguing for jail time for anyone. I agree that in a lot of ways it is the same old stuff. Every cycle Democrats attack the Republican nominee for being a racist, because playing on the racism of the minorities is their go to play.
    However, there is a lot more legal smoke then I have seen in past elections.
    Like... Bush being accused of skipping some military thing. The smoke ended up being a forged document that got Dan Rather fired. I have a poor memory so I can't really recall anything in regards to potential legal issues with Gore. The closest thing for obama was the birth certificate, but again... all moot by the fact that he is a citizen regardless. This Clinton stuff is on a different level, and has far more "evidence" then anything I've seen ... in a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    smoke doesn't put people in jail just like looking suspicious doesn't put you in jail. You need evidence, proof of wrong doing beyond a reasonable doubt. We call that Justice in America. Hell if your friend the ship builder was interested in justice more than making money he could help fix what he apparently knows to be a crooked system. But he'd rather make the money than fix the system apparently, unless there is more than you told me.
    Well, I think you misunderstood the point of the example. While you are generally certain that money buys access. What kind of "evidence" do you personally have? I have a businessman who has had gov officials out right ask for money (or Pay for play).
    I hate to say, but for all your claims to love 'evidence" as far as I know you have expressed a general belief in something you have zero evidence for. On the other hand, I don't personally have evidence sufficient to put someone in jail, but I have at least received credible eye witness to this specific kind of corruption in the gov.

    As to this strange attack on my source... Why? Apparently you are willing to judge him with the little info I gave you.. but Hillary is innocent until proven guilty?
    50% of all of Hillaries appointments and the numerous close ties between her state department, and donors for her foundation isn't enough to make you think pay for play is involved. (Ie the illegal version of money in politics) .. but you seem pretty sure that my source is only interested in making money and not fixing the system?

    I think you have undermined your own credibility when you speak of your high value of "evidence" before judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The polls aren't moved because its not credable enough to disuade supporters
    Well, hold on a second there. Attack adds are notorious for being loads of crap, case in point the racism charge with trump. The public is commonly swayed by flimsy accusations with absolutely nothing to back them up.
    But for some reason, it appears not with Clinton, and not with charges that actually have real evidence and legit conclusions. Like she is **** when dealing with classified information.
    Which is an actual job of a president.
    It's like finding out I'm running for Dean of the English department, and finding out I'm really careless with my grammar. Only difference, is in her applied position people can get killed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Does money speak in politics and buy access. Of course it does. That is true of every politician everywhere. And it's not entirely wrong. Should presidents listen to bankers and industrialists. Yes, those people do matter. THey should also listen to the voting public as well because they also matter a great deal. Does money give you greater influence. Yes, and it always willl. Should we make some pains to limit that? Yes. By setting up laws.
    Well, there is a legal way that money speaks in politics .. yes?
    That is if I have a billion dollars I can buy lots of air time and possibly effect public opinion. .. totally legal and should be, because that is free speach.

    There is also an illegal way money speaks in politics.
    Namely, If I have a billion dollars and I give it to the president so that he will veto a bill, or issue a pardon or... basically any official act as president. Then we should both go to jail. Such as that guy that auctioned off Obama's vacant senate seat.

    Then there is that grey area in the middle.
    Where I give a billion dollars over the course of my life, and I work in your campaign, and I get official meetings all the time and easily.. and well, because we are meeting we are friends, and well you just so happen to know my kid needs a job and so he gets one.
    Here no one is out right saying Here is money, I want X. It's all the buddy buddy back scratching.

    Am I right so far?

    --------So back on point---
    So this is the point, how much of the latter should we tolerate? 50%+ of Clinton's state work was like that. Trump out right claimed to have engaged in pay for play.
    Am I to understand that neither is worthy of investigation? If so, then what is?
    What about personal opinion.. neither is worthy of concluding that Hillary engaged in pay for play to an extent that really isn't worthy of elected office, and the system is CLEARLY rigged to not investigate this serious crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Spurious accusations or racism can be a problem and are worth calling out. Not sure what we mean by tolerating them. Are you suggesting we outlaw questionable calls of racism?
    I'm a small gov guy, so no. I'm really speaking more to the culture. Why isn't this laughed out of the public square? Shouldn't such adds get negative reaction nearly across the board?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Look, its a social battlefield. There are still some very racist people out there and they stir up a lot of trouble and America has a long history of racism, and racism is pretty much always going to be with us to some extent. Tribalism is pretty natural for most human beings and it often falls on racial lines. I think it can be a great evil along with many other types of bigotry and has led to some of the worlds most tragic conflicts and injustices so I oppose it absolutely.
    I disagree, we need more racism and political correctness. Otherwise there is no way to make those rich white bastards pay.
    -joking of course, it's real hard to argue for racism because we are not a racist nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What that clip you showed me has to do with racism I've no idea. Its a misunderstanding about the name of a fast food chain. No one there says anything about race. I don't see anything about race in the comments there (at least not the first page).
    It was ninja levity.
    I thought it was hilarious because these two guys had no idea what a 5 guys restaurant was.. so they had this obvious "aaaha" moment, realizing this chick wasn't a raging slut.. and then this aqward "but that's o.k... not judging" moment when she realized what they were thinking.
    Aahh comedy gold.

    Anyway.. ignore that portion, it was just to get a smile... I guess it didn't work.


    So .. again back to point.
    I'm noting the apparent lack of reaction of the people to serious evidence. Not making a case for criminal charges, but geez people just don't seem to care and that is scary.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    I'm not surprised that this didn't have much of an effect.

    Hillary already has a high disapproval ratings so people generally think that she's a bit sleazy. So confirming what people already suspect shouldn't make much difference in people's general opinion of her and therefore shouldn't effect whether they will or will not vote for her.

    From many discussions with people, I'd say the primary reason people are voting for Hillary is because she's not Donald Trump. So basically her scandals have to get much worse before they are going to change minds because no matter what, she's still not Donald Trump.

  6. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028 liked this post
  7. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    I'm not at all surprised that it didn't have an impact on the poles. They have to support their candidate.

    I'm more surprised, or at least outraged, that people with access to such important information aren't forced into using certain pieces of hardware or software, at least for official purposes. The fact that an American offical with access to sensitive information was allowed to continue using these insecure services is outrageous.

    Overall it doesn't surprise me that political figures have almost no understanding of security. But it surprises me that the people charged with enforcing security aren't doing so, or perhaps don't have the authority. The fact that people who know nothing of security practices and systems, are allowed to meander about like children with no supervision is outrageous.
    Witty puns...

  8. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  9. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    Overall it doesn't surprise me that political figures have almost no understanding of security. But it surprises me that the people charged with enforcing security aren't doing so, or perhaps don't have the authority. The fact that people who know nothing of security practices and systems, are allowed to meander about like children with no supervision is outrageous.
    Keep in mind, we are talking about public officials that are more or less tantamount to C levels. If they want to break ITs rules, who exactly tells them they can't? For the most part these are the people that set the rules or are the boss of those that set the rules. It's not exactly like that, but it is at least a fair bit like that. Tellilng the secritary of state how she has to use her email is not an easy proposition. You don't have a lot of leverage and you could easily loose your job.

    In theory Clinton was using her server for non-secret information, aka if anyone found out about it, it shouldn't matter. Of course we now know she screwed up and at least a handfull of emails had information that elsewhere was contained in classified documents.

    I agree there is a mistake in relying upon a politicians discresion and knowledge as to what is secret and what isn't if you have no tolerance for any secret info getting out.

    ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 AM ----------

    Clintons Email
    She used a personal email server to send emails.
    -It was mostly against the rules but it was also done by prior secretaries of state and other top officials around that time frame.
    -No one came out and told her she couldn't do it when she did it.
    -No one came out and stopped her from doing it while she was doing it.
    -There is no law against it, only an internal IT policy for the state department.
    -There is no evidence anyone ever hacked it.
    -Only a very tiny percentage of the emails contained anything classified and it was not so marked in the email, she would have had to know it was in some other classified document so for the most part she was following the rules and has a lot of plausible deniability she didn't realize that information was classified when she sent those emails.
    -The fact there is so little classified info there, and that it wasn't actually marked classified or contained actual classified documents means it dosn't rise to the level of gross negligence.
    -There is no proof at all she intentionally or knowingly released classified information.
    -No demonstrable harm came from any of the classified email being on her server that was never hacked.

    Am I really supposed to be angered and outraged that she broke an internal State department and accidently sent some classified info to other government officials via email? I don't give a **** frankly.

    Political corruption

    Here is my take on political corruption. If an official is caught taking money and then using their office to benefit that person or their business directly then I care. If that action also hurt other innocent people then I care a lot. If someone gives them money and they vote on things more or less how they would anyway, I don't care much, especially if its policy I support anyhow. If someone gives them money and gets to hang out at their house and play with their kids or some such I don't really care. I care about what the politician actually does. If they use their office for dirty deeds or to unfairly help an individual in return for favors, then I care.

    I know there is corruption because there are many cases where it has been proven in court that someone used their office to do favors for people. Using it to gain a politicaians ear or support on a bill or the like, you can't really stop that because you can't really prove why it happened. And unless you make all campaigns publicly financed, you can't really control anyone spending their money in a way that helps a politician and thus garners favor. And unless you lock them in sealed rooms with no internet, you can't stop them from hearing the voices of the pople that helped them. All you can do is stop dirty deals where someone drops off cash and gets a sweet contract or obvious political favor.

    I've seen zilch in convincing evidence that Clinton did anything specific in office for anyone who dropped cash on her that is out of keeping with her normal political views. If you have it, if you have some dirty deed she did that was for someone who paid her off, let me know. I'm interested. I generally think she is absolutely the sort that does pats on the back for folks, and I think anyone who gets to be president has done a fair bit of that. You have to, its called networking and building relationships. You do things for people, they do things for you. But for it to be a scandal she has to be abusing her power, not just using it in the normal ways to help allies and friends. When you know a senator or a secretary of state and you want a favor you ask, and if it's in the bounds of reasonable favors you give. Its only when it is against the law that you should not.

    Lets say you are a senator and someone who worked on your campaign tirelessly for you wants a favor. They want you to write a letter or reccomendation to the FBI for their son. You say sure, I'll write one and you tell the FBI director or whomever about how great their son is and how he performed admirably on the campaign. The FBI hires the son. Did you break the law or ethics in doing this? It's what nearly any friend or ally would do for another but because you are a senator your words have great influence. Is it wrong to use that influence if you are not actually ordering anyone to do anything? I'd say no, its just one of the perks of being a senator. Now if you tried to force the hire or threaten the FBI director if he didn't hire the kid, then your crossing a line and abusing your power rather than exercising your influence.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  10. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Keep in mind, we are talking about public officials that are more or less tantamount to C levels. If they want to break ITs rules, who exactly tells them they can't? For the most part these are the people that set the rules or are the boss of those that set the rules. It's not exactly like that, but it is at least a fair bit like that. Tellilng the secritary of state how she has to use her email is not an easy proposition. You don't have a lot of leverage and you could easily loose your job.

    In theory Clinton was using her server for non-secret information, aka if anyone found out about it, it shouldn't matter. Of course we now know she screwed up and at least a handfull of emails had information that elsewhere was contained in classified documents.
    I agree there is a mistake in relying upon a politicians discresion and knowledge as to what is secret and what isn't if you have no tolerance for any secret info getting out.[COLOR="Silver"]
    I agree 100%, I've run into it numerous times in analytics. But there are a few universals I don't think I've seen anyone, even C Level Exec's break from.

    1. Work documents, files, emails, and data are all confidential. Not even C Level Execs are using their personal email services for work email. They may contact business partners casually through their own accounts; but when discussing actual business or projects it's done through the companies email.

    2. I've only seen one executive tell IT "I'm using my own hardware" and he was the CIO. But, he still used works email services. Other than that, the hardware you're assigned is it. Perhaps IT can give you options; but at the end of the day it's limited to what they see fit.

    3. Any executives, directors, or VP's that have I've known to violate these policies are repremanded in some way.

    I understand your point; to some degree these people are "above" us, right? I'd also understand why an IT guy, or security specialist wouldn't push the issue to far. I've defintely been in similar situations where I've given my professional opnion and recommendations; only to have them ignored. I've stepped back and said "I did my part". But National Security issues are different from "we're tracking our data incorrectly".

    I have very little respect for the average user, I do my best to sandbox them in because I've seen how they operate with no controls. I have even less respect for politicians; who in most cases don't understand system security at all.

    I don't think that we should be attempting to put Clinton in prison, I think it's been glossed over a bit too much; and I hope we've learned some lessons. I suppose I'm more disappointed at the failure in the system.

    There are a few points I'd like to cover specifically in your post.
    -It was mostly against the rules but it was also done by prior secretaries of state and other top officials around that time frame.
    --And while other senior officials had used personal email accounts for official business, including Colin Powell when he was secretary, the rules made clear by the time she became the nation’s top diplomat that using a private server for official business was neither allowed nor encouraged because of “significant security risks.”

    --http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html

    Yes, but it was very clearly stated it wasn't allowed or encouraged. I'm willing to grant, and accept, no one had the courage, and probably didn't even have the authority, to stop her. But it doesn't excuse the action.
    -No one came out and stopped her from doing it while she was doing it.
    --When two officials in the record-keeping division raised concerns in 2010, their superior “instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again,” the report said.

    --http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html

    No, but concerns were raised, and silenced. This should be changed for the future.

    -There is no evidence anyone ever hacked it.
    You are correct; from what I've read there has been no evidence it was hacked. However, what does that mean? Why is that relevant? There were numerous attempts; that we only know about because she eventually installed software to detect and prevent these attacks. However, she didn't have it installed previously.

    Target something enough; and you can get in. My concern isn't "hang the traitor!". It's that this sort of attitude of "well nothing bad happened" is outragoues. Just because someone hasn't broken into your bank account, or installed key log software on your PC; doesn't mean they can't, and it doesn't mean they wont. This is why we take precautions.

    My concern isn't that this will politically blow over; it's that it will operationally blow over. We'll run into more issues of people not taking security seriously and it'll only be a matter of time before information is obtained. It's entirely possible nothing serious got stolen. But that's more luck than anything, and possibly hackers not knowing exactly who they were targeting.

    I agree with the rest. My concern isn't political; it's strictly security. It should be handled seriously; and the lesson we should take away here is that security needs to be better, and people need to have the authority to enforce this on anyone. I don't care who they are; chances are computers and electronics are essentially magic to them.
    Witty puns...

  11. Likes Sigfried, MindTrap028 liked this post
  12. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    [QUOTE=SIG] -It was mostly against the rules but it was also done by prior secretaries of state and other top officials around that time frame. [/QUOT]
    ... What he said.. Basically your incorrect.
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    -No one came out and told her she couldn't do it when she did it.
    It is my understanding that there was push-back of some kind, and she herself corrected others on similar activity. IE there was some memo she sent out.
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Only a very tiny percentage of the emails contained anything classified and it was not so marked in the email, she would have had to know it was in some other classified document so for the most part she was following the rules and has a lot of plausible deniability she didn't realize that information was classified when she sent those emails.
    Not correct. The conclusion of the FBI was that ANY reasonable person should have known that certain discussion had no business on unsecured servers.
    Any attempt to appeal to her ignorance, is defacto attempt at appealing to her personal incompetence with classified Info.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    -The fact there is so little classified info there, and that it wasn't actually marked classified or contained actual classified documents means it dosn't rise to the level of gross negligence.
    I am unaware of the distinction between "gross negligence" and "Extremely careless". (here extreme carelessness is clarified by the FBI as leaving anyone else who did something similar as being subject to legal action).
    So.. a bit of semantics here saying it didn't rise to gross negligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    -No demonstrable harm came from any of the classified email being on her server that was never hacked.
    This is a fine personal value to have. Though I don't think it can be held unless we know the seriousness of the classified E-mails.
    For example, would you agree that you would personally be outraged if it were nuclear codes?
    But we can both agree that if it were something frivolous we should not?
    The fact is, we don't know, but we know that viewing the information for congress has been under special circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Am I really supposed to be angered and outraged that she broke an internal State department and accidently sent some classified info to other government officials via email? I don't give a **** frankly.
    I would say that if each of your points were true, you have no reason to be mad. But several of your points simply are not the case, and evidenced so.
    Given that, I think you should give a few more *****.

    If we were going purely by outward appearance, it has all the appearances that she was attempting to hide her personal pay for pay activity, and got caught up in some classified information problems. Both have their own merits in ***** given.

    If we don't care about this stuff, then it will only get worse. ... Not only your post, but the polls show that no body cares, and that ... is sad.


    ------

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm not surprised that this didn't have much of an effect.

    Hillary already has a high disapproval ratings so people generally think that she's a bit sleazy. So confirming what people already suspect shouldn't make much difference in people's general opinion of her and therefore shouldn't effect whether they will or will not vote for her.

    From many discussions with people, I'd say the primary reason people are voting for Hillary is because she's not Donald Trump. So basically her scandals have to get much worse before they are going to change minds because no matter what, she's still not Donald Trump.
    Those are some good points.
    I think that our nation is pretty much 40/20/40 .. where 40% will vote their party no matter what, and only 20% can really change their minds at all.

    IMO, It reflects both the unthinking nature of the country, and the horrible choices the parties put up. ... but mostly unthinking electorate.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    I agree with the rest. My concern isn't political; it's strictly security. It should be handled seriously; and the lesson we should take away here is that security needs to be better, and people need to have the authority to enforce this on anyone. I don't care who they are; chances are computers and electronics are essentially magic to them.
    I think we are of about the same mind on this. I think they should make sure they shut down any personal email use and fine anyone breaking that rule such that they make sure they stop. And they should have told Clinton to stop it and backed that up. And she shouldn't have been using it. But I say that on a level of "this is the good and right way to run an office" not on the "This is an important matter of morals and character and national security."

    What other people seem to be geting at is her improper use of email rules her out as a reasonable presidential candidate and somehow makes here a dangerous corrupt criminal politician. That's a bunch of crap as far as I'm concerned. She broke a rule at her office essentially and she's done her best not to admit any serious fault. And it could well be she was just oblivious or decided not to persue any doubts she did have. We don't really know if she meant to or not. They call it a "Scandal" and I find nothing scandalous about it.

    ---------- Post added at 09:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

    [QUOTE][QUOTE=MindTrap028;552605]
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    -It was mostly against the rules but it was also done by prior secretaries of state and other top officials around that time frame. [/QUOT]
    ... What he said.. Basically your incorrect.
    No, I'm not. There was concern but it was quashed before it got to Clinton. It happens all the time in business. Some person in IT discovers some C level is breaking the rules, they bring it to their boss and the boss says "drop it kid, its none of your business." Been there myself plenty of times. "Oh, you found out about that? Who else knows?" Judging by the article posted by Devil Pup that's exactly what happened.

    Not correct. The conclusion of the FBI was that ANY reasonable person should have known that certain discussion had no business on unsecured servers.
    Any attempt to appeal to her ignorance, is defacto attempt at appealing to her personal incompetence with classified Info.
    Well the FBI is pretty darned clued in to what is secret and what isn't. Clinton probably is too, but I don't know what the data was or just how reasonablly sure it a secret I would be. I'm often amazed at what the government calssifies. That is a judgement call, a guess. I don't know what the data is, we may not know for decades. I can't know what Clinton was thinking or knows. Can people make mistakes? Yes. Can you do something correctly 500 times and then get it wrong once? Yes, I do that myself. I can spell a word correctly again and again and yet once in a while I still get it wrong.

    As I said, and you have not refuted, only a very tiny percentage of these emails contained any classified information. I think its pretty hard for the Secritary of State to send many thousands of emails and not make any errors. This is why its just a bad idea to have your own private email server. It was a bad decision on her part, but not a very important one.

    I'll say agian, I think far more things are considered secrets than should be. I am for transparency in government, as much as possible. Unless it is war time strategy or nuclear codes, or the like, I'm not a fan of it being secret. Nor do I think we should be spying on allies and the like. I think a lot of that is childish and ultimately unproductive. I get that some folks think any secret is a sacred cow, I don't. I like it when government information is exposed and made public.

    I would say that if each of your points were true, you have no reason to be mad. But several of your points simply are not the case, and evidenced so.
    Given that, I think you should give a few more *****.
    I don't see you contradicting anything I've said. You quibble about wheather gross nelgagence is the same as extreem carelessness, I'm just using them as synonyms. She let slip a few bits of data amidst thousands of emails, I just don't care. You say it could be something I care about, ya well it could not be. That does't get me anywhere when I think most things that are classified shouldn't be. And you say you think she might have been told it was wrong but you don't have any evidence. But we do have evidence of at least one case where they decided specifically not to tell her. We both agree it was against the policy but we don't know that she knew that and we have reason (the fact others did it before her) to think she might have thought it was OK. We know she didn't ask for permission, but if you saw someone else do a thing at work and no one complained, would you ask if it was OK for you to do it? I probably wouldn't.

    If we were going purely by outward appearance, it has all the appearances that she was attempting to hide her personal pay for pay activity, and got caught up in some classified information problems. Both have their own merits in ***** given.
    Only because that is what you want to be true or think is true. I don't suspect her of that so I don't think that is the reason. If she wanted to do that why use any email tied to her at all? Why not arranage a back channel with a code name on an untrasable incrypted email server. There are lots of those you can use and almost no one short of the NSA would be able to track you. It just doesn't make sense you would do secret deals on your not at all secret email server. It's just you and others trying to make the facts fit as best you can with what you want to be true so you can discredit a political opponent.

    If we don't care about this stuff, then it will only get worse. ... Not only your post, but the polls show that no body cares, and that ... is sad.
    I don't care with respect to Clinton as president. Being sloppy with your IT is not a big issue for me. What I sort of do care about is that the state department makes its rules clearer and has the balls to tell elected officials how they need to do their email in the future.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think we are of about the same mind on this. I think they should make sure they shut down any personal email use and fine anyone breaking that rule such that they make sure they stop. And they should have told Clinton to stop it and backed that up. And she shouldn't have been using it. But I say that on a level of "this is the good and right way to run an office" not on the "This is an important matter of morals and character and national security."

    What other people seem to be geting at is her improper use of email rules her out as a reasonable presidential candidate and somehow makes here a dangerous corrupt criminal politician. That's a bunch of crap as far as I'm concerned. She broke a rule at her office essentially and she's done her best not to admit any serious fault. And it could well be she was just oblivious or decided not to persue any doubts she did have. We don't really know if she meant to or not. They call it a "Scandal" and I find nothing scandalous about it.[COLOR="Silver"]
    I agree, I don't think we're far off in our opinions of the matter.

    I actually had a discussion with one of my colleagues regarding this same point: Does it make her unfit for office?

    I think there's an argument that can be made either way. Technology has gotten much easier to use, and it's also become a normal daily part of most of our lives. Most of us have smartphones, computers, and internet connections. And we use these things daily. And most of us have very little understanding of how it all works.

    But there's a real problem in our society where the people in charge don't understand technology. Clinton... is old enough to be a grandmother, Trump, same. Now, this isn't to say they have no relevant experience. Just because I can write code, and understand technology doesn't mean I'm a suitable President, right?

    However, I don't like that the people in charge have less of an understanding than most 3rd graders. And even worse, have no incentive to change.

    I think it's a reasonable question to ask, what understanding of technology does this person have? Malicious attacks are becoming more common; to the point where it could even be considered warfare. Do I think it disqualifies her from office? No, not at all, but I want to bring it to everyone's attention that we have a real problem with our elected officials that we as voters, in both parties, need to change.

    I want people to realize that the people in office, are to some degree very unaware of how the world works. And that's unacceptable; something we as voters have an obligation to change.

    I'll say this about our current election, on a side note. I've never seen America pulled so far to the fringes on both sides. I'm voting 3rd party this year.
    Witty puns...

  15. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  16. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    No, I'm not. There was concern but it was quashed before it got to Clinton. It happens all the time in business. Some person in IT discovers some C level is breaking the rules, they bring it to their boss and the boss says "drop it kid, its none of your business." Been there myself plenty of times. "Oh, you found out about that? Who else knows?" Judging by the article posted by Devil Pup that's exactly what happened.
    No, you are incorrect that others did the same thing in the same context. The rules were changed and she was aware of those new rules.
    You may be correct that the concerns never reached her directly, and that is fine, because she still knew better and was well aware of the rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Well the FBI is pretty darned clued in to what is secret and what isn't. Clinton probably is too, but I don't know what the data was or just how reasonablly sure it a secret I would be. I'm often amazed at what the government calssifies. That is a judgement call, a guess. I don't know what the data is, we may not know for decades. I can't know what Clinton was thinking or knows. Can people make mistakes? Yes. Can you do something correctly 500 times and then get it wrong once? Yes, I do that myself. I can spell a word correctly again and again and yet once in a while I still get it wrong.

    As I said, and you have not refuted, only a very tiny percentage of these emails contained any classified information. I think its pretty hard for the Secritary of State to send many thousands of emails and not make any errors. This is why its just a bad idea to have your own private email server. It was a bad decision on her part, but not a very important one.

    I'll say agian, I think far more things are considered secrets than should be. I am for transparency in government, as much as possible. Unless it is war time strategy or nuclear codes, or the like, I'm not a fan of it being secret. Nor do I think we should be spying on allies and the like. I think a lot of that is childish and ultimately unproductive. I get that some folks think any secret is a sacred cow, I don't. I like it when government information is exposed a
    So, in the face of the FBI saying that certain conversations.... not ones that were marked classified mind you, but conversations that anyone who is reasonable with sercurity clearance should have known.
    and your going to go with the minimulasits "lots of stuff is classified" angle?
    Even when this stuff is being viewed in a sercrue room situation?

    I don't know, hardly sounds like it is being treated by the investigation as over classification.

    As to the "small number" part.. Well, i addressed that. I don't see you addressing it, or providing any information that supports your position on this point. (IE the over classification line)
    By the way, i agree that occurs, but I see no reason to think this is one of those instances.
    Maybe you are forgetting that she is not simply responsible for stuff that is marked classified, but that her position also creates actually classified information that she is responsible for knowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    As I said, and you have not refuted, only a very tiny percentage of these emails contained any classified information.
    I'm not challenging this point at all. Small amount is not relevant IMO. Severity of that small amount is what matters. I gave an example, and everything.
    Re-above.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't see you contradicting anything I've said
    Thanks for playing, I appreciate your time. Perhapse you should re-read my post, and ask for clarification if you don't see how my point applies to your or is not otherwise supported.
    I can only help you see so much, the rest is on you.
    Quibble away as you see fit.

    Bottom line, you are incorrect on about 5 of your assertions and I have supported without refutation by you why it is the case.
    If you require clarification, or have any questions I will be glad to answer them.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    I want people to realize that the people in office, are to some degree very unaware of how the world works. And that's unacceptable; something we as voters have an obligation to change.

    I'll say this about our current election, on a side note. I've never seen America pulled so far to the fringes on both sides. I'm voting 3rd party this year.
    There is a difficult challenge in that there is so much technology it's hard to expect anyone dedicating their life to leadership and politics to know a lot of it. Computer tech is pretty commonplace, but so is engineering and we don't expet elected officials to have much understanding of that. It's hard as a tech person to imagine folks without those skills opperating in the modern world but they manage on a user only basis pretty well. Interesting point though.

    On reflection, I will say that I understand where people are coming from when they are especially sensitive about "secret information". If you worked with it or if you are military or a military contractor I think you have a different appreciation for it than someone like me who is something of an "information wants to be free" kind of person. I compleately agree that Clinton did not act in a way that would show great respect for sensitive information and as head of the State department you would expect them to be pretty darn sensitive about sensitive information. Thing is, I think there are a lot of folks like me, especially on the left who don't care so much about state secrets as they do just governance and transparency. While on the right you are much more likely to have people passionate about protecting our information from our enemies and even our allies.

    ---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, you are incorrect that others did the same thing in the same context. The rules were changed and she was aware of those new rules.
    You may be correct that the concerns never reached her directly, and that is fine, because she still knew better and was well aware of the rules.
    Can you prove that she was aware of those rules prior to setting up her server? I Challenge to support a claim. you on this point of fact.

    So, in the face of the FBI saying that certain conversations.... not ones that were marked classified mind you, but conversations that anyone who is reasonable with sercurity clearance should have known.
    and your going to go with the minimulasits "lots of stuff is classified" angle?
    Even when this stuff is being viewed in a sercrue room situation?
    Yes. Lots of stuff is classified. In 2009 54,651,765 new documents were marked classified by the US government. That is a **** ton of information. No doubt the numbers are higher today. For starters, that's a rediculous quantitiy. Secondly, to expect anyone to actually know the content of all those is absurd. Were I to ask you after 4 years of sending emails if any of your emaisl had any information that could be found in the hundreds of millions of documents classified during your tenrure, would you be able to say with absolute certainty that they did not?

    Of course its in a secure room etc... its classified information, they are going to make sure no one but those authorized see it. If you let the press in it wouldn't bloody well be a secret any more. That doesn't mean I can't still find it absurd. But we shall never know what it is unless there is a leak. Not even Clinton sending it on her unsecured server has given us any access to it because that server wasn't ever exposed to the public so far as we know. Thus it is still effectively confidential and secret.
    I don't know, hardly sounds like it is being treated by the investigation as over classification.
    Of course not. I'm not saying the govenrment doesn't know what is or is not classified. I'm saying I think a lot of what they think should be secret should not be secret in my opinion because I much favor transparency over secrecy.

    As to the "small number" part.. Well, i addressed that. I don't see you addressing it, or providing any information that supports your position on this point. (IE the over classification line)
    By the way, i agree that occurs, but I see no reason to think this is one of those instances.
    Maybe you are forgetting that she is not simply responsible for stuff that is marked classified, but that her position also creates actually classified information that she is responsible for knowing.
    I understand her job. And I agree that she is not treating it the way she probably should (though again Colin Powel did the same thing in the same possition, the only difference was the policy at the time, not the seciruty of the information). So he too was not treating it as he probably should. I still don't especially care. I'd care a lot more about how effective they are at negotiating and keeping the peace than if they made sure all their conversations were kept totally secret.

    I'm not challenging this point at all. Small amount is not relevant IMO. Severity of that small amount is what matters. I gave an example, and everything.
    Re-above.
    An example of what? The classified information? Nuclear codes? I'm 100% confident she didn't send any nuclear launch codes in her emails. We just don't know what was in them, and that's all we will ever know about it most likely.

    You probably should challenge the number. I went and did some more research and it was more than I was led to believe. 2K aproximately of the 30K they looked at. I had heard something like 4, that turned out to be the ones that had some indication in the email that it was classified. I also had not seen that. It wasn't stamped CLASSIFIED but had a small C marker somewhere in the email apparently. (Your should have dug up and hauled out those numbers and hit me with them, I feel like I'm conceeding to myself. )

    Given that, I have to admit it looks a lot more sloppy than I thought before. I still don't especially care, but I have to acknowledge that if you do care about secrets that she looks at best sloppy about the keeping of them.

    Bottom line, you are incorrect on about 5 of your assertions and I have supported without refutation by you why it is the case.
    If you require clarification, or have any questions I will be glad to answer them.
    Can you give me a bullet list of the 5 so I can evaluate?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  19. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Can you prove that she was aware of those rules prior to setting up her server? I Challenge to support a claim. you on this point of fact.
    Sure, and thanks for the opportunity.

    The proof is that she was briefed on how to handle top secret information.
    Is there some reason you think we should not assume or that it is not safe to say that this particular rule was covered in those briefings?

    What are those reasons?

    See, I'm coming from the position of "she has a license to handle and create classified information, thus she is inherenltyu liable for all that goes wrong and has the burden to educate herself on it".
    That is the burden I have when I am licensed with something. Like in my field, I can be licensed to deal with lead paint. You can go scrape and peal and wash that crap on the ground all you like. and when you say " I didn't know.. O, they changed a rule.. oopsy". Your good. Me, I get fined because I'm liable due to my education and license to handle that, and if a rule changes in the middle.. i'm still liable for it. So, she doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in regards to what the rules are. That is not how it should work, that isn't how it works for me and you, and that isn't the standard we are going to use here in this thread. It is by all accounts and measures not reasonable to hold the position that she is plausibly ignorant or not liable for current rules.

    If you think otherwise, then please explain and support why it should be the case or why anyone should think that way.
    Because I see burden shifting, and the above is my support for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes. Lots of stuff is classified. In 2009 54,651,765 new documents were marked classified by the US government. That is a **** ton of information. No doubt the numbers are higher today. For starters, that's a rediculous quantitiy. Secondly, to expect anyone to actually know the content of all those is absurd. Were I to ask you after 4 years of sending emails if any of your emaisl had any information that could be found in the hundreds of millions of documents classified during your tenrure, would you be able to say with absolute certainty that they did not?

    Of course its in a secure room etc... its classified information, they are goinig to make sure no one but those authorized see it. If you let the press in it wouldn't bloody well be a secret any more. That doesn't mean I can't still find it absurd. But we shall never know what it is unless there is a leak. Not even Clinton sending it on her unsecured server has given us any access to it because that server wasn't ever exposed to the public so far as we know. Thus it is still effectively confidential and secret.
    So a few things.
    -- I agree that the gov is commonly guilty of over classification.
    -- There is no reason to think that this was one of those instances. Fo example, the FBI director (who has seen the information) says that it is OBVIOUS, and ANYONE should have known that it had no buisness on her unsecred servers or in a non secure setting.
    So your defense here simply doesn't fly, because your appealing to the idea that she may not have known, or should not be expected to know.
    That is direclty OPPOSITE to what was found and expressed.

    So, SUPPORT your proposition over what the FBI said about it. Otherwise it is a plain established fact that she should have known and is responsible for knowing it was classified information (not necissarily marked, as it doesn't need to be marked).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Of course not. I'm not saying the govenrment doesn't know what is or is not classified. I'm saying I think a lot of what they think should be secret should not be secret in my opinion because I much favor transparency over secrecy.
    Again, I agree that there are over classification issues. I disagree that they are at play here because that doesn't appear to be the case per the findings of the FBI.
    Also, it is noted that some of the information was of the HIGHEST classification. So hardly the grey line of lower level classified information.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I understand her job. And I agree that she is not treating it the way she probably should (though again Colin Powel did the same thing in the same possition, the only difference was the policy at the time, not the seciruty of the information). So he too was not treating it as he probably should. I still don't especially care. I'd care a lot more about how effective they are at negotiating and keeping the peace than if they made sure all their conversations were kept totally secret.
    False, colen powel did not do the same thing not in the least.
    First, he didn't use his exclusivly and used the state e-mail for classified info.
    Second, he didn't delete any work related e-mails (or there is no evidence of it)
    Third, as I understand it, most of his correspondence wasn't even through the net.

    So it really is nothing like what powel did.

    Finally, the fact that the rules changed.. is extremly relevant. First because the world changed a lot tec wise. It wasn't really an issue when powel was in office, and now it is so much so THEY MADE A NEW RULE!.
    That is relevant and your sweeping it under the rug for no good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    An example of what? The classified information? Nuclear codes? I'm 100% confident she didn't send any nuclear launch codes in her emails. We just don't know what was in them, and that's all we will ever know about it most likely.
    Well, you can't be 100% confidient if you really don't know.. right?
    Still, I do agree I don't think it was that bad.. but I was pointing out that it is relevant information to any evaluation.
    So far, all we have is the gov word to go on, and that word is that some of them where highest level. Which is basically equal to nuke codes in classification right?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You probably should challenge the number. I went and did some more research and it was more than I was led to believe. 2K aproximately of the 30K they looked at. I had heard something like 4, that turned out to be the ones that had some indication in the email that it was classified. I also had not seen that. It wasn't stamped CLASSIFIED but had a small C marker somewhere in the email apparently. (Your should have dug up and hauled out those numbers and hit me with them, I feel like I'm conceeding to myself. )

    Given that, I have to admit it looks a lot more sloppy than I thought before. I still don't especially care, but I have to acknowledge that if you do care about secrets that she looks at best sloppy about the keeping of them.
    Yea, I was going the route of quality matters. Because your point about over classification is relevant. So if there are 3.5k low level post classified e-mails.
    I'm with you, I don't really care. It is the ones that had the FBI saying
    "O.k. you should have known this had no buisness here". That I was focusing on. Because in the end, that is how you go to jail, and that is the area we should be judging her most harshly on.

    I am wwith you, I simply don't care so much about low level classified info. HIgh level stuff, I care about, and you should care as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Can you give me a bullet list of the 5 so I can evaluate?
    Will do.. got to go fix some plubming, but will get right on that
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Can you give me a bullet list of the 5 so I can evaluate?
    5 points in review....

    1-
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    -No one came out and told her she couldn't do it when she did it.
    Incorrect, there was pushback of some kind and to different degrees.
    ... Now we may quibble about "telling her" specifically, but she didn't peronally connect wires.
    Still, there was pushback, and the idea that no one told her that she couldn't is thus incorrect.
    (point expanded from original).

    2-
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Only a very tiny percentage of the emails contained anything classified and it was not so marked in the email, she would have had to know it was in some other classified document so for the most part she was following the rules and has a lot of plausible deniability she didn't realize that information was classified when she sent those emails.
    The idea that she didn't know, or couldn't have known, or shouldn't be expected to know is false, per the FBI findings and reasons already expounded upon.
    2B- I also challenge the idea that tiny percent is the relevant factor, hence nuke code example.

    3-
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    -The fact there is so little classified info there, and that it wasn't actually marked classified or contained actual classified documents means it dosn't rise to the level of gross negligence.
    Here I originally challenged the meaning of "gross negligence", in light of the verbage used by the FBI which "extremely careless".
    I belive you said you were equivocating terms, in which case it is a fact that she did exercise "gross negligence" in fact, though not in name as the FBI decided to play semantics.
    There stands no real distinction between what the FBI called "extremly careless" and the legal term of "gross negligance".

    4-
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    -It was mostly against the rules but it was also done by prior secretaries of state and other top officials around that time frame.
    Dealt with directly in last post.




    ..O.k. you got me.. It's 4 not 5 points. But I did say "about" soo.. I feel vindicated in my use of numbers.
    Still the issue is validity.. which of course we are discussing. So thanks for your thoughts, I look forward to your review.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  21. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    There seems to be some conflation of issues here I want to distinguish.

    A. One question is whether Hillary Clinton was aware there were rules agaisnt using a private email server for non-classified government emails.

    B. Another separate question is whether Hillary Clinton knew that she transmitted classified information using that private email server.

    The two questions are distinct. The first is really an issue of department policy, the second is a matter of government law regarding confidential information and thus is the more serious of the two. Clinton claimed she sent no classified information on her private server. The intent of which was to be used for non-classified information. We know that this is false, she did send classified information, the question that remains is if she did so knowingly or was grossly negligent (either would be criminal).

    My point 1: (No one came out and told her she couldn't do it when she did it.) is referring to question A: if she can use a private email server. It is indipendent of any issue reguardiing classified data because Clinton's stated intent was to use it for non-classified information. You have provided no evidence anyone told her she could not have such a server. You responded to my challenge by mentioning what the FBI said about whether she knew some informatilon was classified. That is irrelivent to this point. It is only about whether she knew the department policy was to send all email, both classified and non-classified only on government servers. So did she know what the rules were? She claims that the rules allowed her server. Research has shown this is not the case. But could she not know the rules? I think that is plausible, a shame perhaps, but I've known plenty of exectutives that don't know the rules in their own companies because they don't pay attention to those kinds of details. While I think her ignorance is plausable, that doesn't compleately let her off the hook. She is still culpable for not knowing the proper rules for emails in the department she was the head of. None the less I think my point still stands and we have testimoney on at least one occasion where concerns were specifically blocked from being sent to her on the subject. Politifact found 90 other staff members at the Department of State also using private email servers for work email. (They still think she's wrong about the rules, it just shows that she was not alone in not following them.)

    Point 2: (She didn't know the stuff was classified.) Again, this is an FBI agent saying that he thinks anyone who knows classified data would know that data was classified. Does Hillary understnad classified data as well as he does? I don't know. You don't know. We can only presume and guess. I can say that one would hope the head of the State Department understands classified data pretty well, not as well perhaps as the CIA or FBI but they should be in the ballpark. And having found out how many emails had classified data, I can see their point. 2,000 emails is a lot of emails to "oops" on. We don't really know whether she just didn't care, was scating the line for the sake of being lazy, or is really bad at understanding the standards for classified data. None of those make her look good, that's for certain.

    Point 3: (Not a lot of data thus not a big deal) I think this is really just a sub point or relatied part of #2. I don't think it merrits it's own category and besides I already refuted this point myself when I did more reading and discovered near 2,000 emails had classified data, some 5-10%. That's quite a lot so I am wrong here.

    Point 4: (Collin Powell did it too.) The only important distinction is that Colin Powell did it when the rules were less clear. We do know some of his emails contained classified data but we don't know what because like Clinton the were not released. We know he wasn't even using a private server but was using a public email service (AOL if you can imagine that). We also don't know if he deleted any of his emails because no one really investigated that. We do know he didn't make coppies of them for federal records like he was supposed to. It really is not that different except that we don't have as much detailed information and at the time the practice was within the bounds of the rules. (even if he did make mistakes about putting classified data in these emails).

    So for my count....
    #1: You have not proven me wrong, you only have conjecture for your claim. (Mind you I only have Clintons own claims.) Neither of us has any hard evidence here.

    #2: It's just conjecture on what she knew. You can't prove it, neither could the FBI. It still looks bad for her reguardless because the fact is, she let a lot of classified data exist in a non secure envirnoment.

    #3: I was wrong.

    #4: You have not really made the case here there was a significant difference in what she did and what he did. The facts show it was pretty similar (private server, contained classified information, not secured, not backed up properly to the government archives) The one significant difference is Collin Powel was doing it under rules allowing it and Clinton wasn't (whether she knew it or not).

    Side note on the significance of the classified data


    You try to make the point that since the FBI said any reasonable person familiar wiht classification would know its classified means it was something that you or I would not think is "over-classification". That doesn't really follow. THe FBI director knows what is or is not classified. They are partly responsible for what is or is not classified. They know the rules and the policy and they are exactly the sort of folks that make so much data classified you and I both seem to think is overkill by a wide margine. What he knows hould be classified will often be things I think are silly to classify. None the less, they get classified because those are the rules they follow. The fact he think's it is clearly classsified information is no indicator whether you or I would reasonably think it should be classified in our own sence of what should be. According to the government a lot of what we think is silly to classified is none the less classified data.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  23. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    NOte.. this response will take into account some new information (At least to me).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    A. One question is whether Hillary Clinton was aware there were rules agaisnt using a private email server for non-classified government emails.
    I would make the correction or at least the contention, that the question is not if she was "aware" but if she was "told".

    For example, she claims she doesn't recall any of her classified training. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-most...191229840.html

    I think I have established that if she was "aware" or not is not relevant to if she is responsible to be aware. (I don't see an argument against that point).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    My point 1: (No one came out and told her she couldn't do it when she did it.) is referring to question A: if she can use a private email server. It is indipendent of any issue reguardiing classified data because Clinton's stated intent was to use it for non-classified information. You have provided no evidence anyone told her she could not have such a server. You responded to my challenge by mentioning what the FBI said about whether she knew some informatilon was classified. That is irrelivent to this point. It is only about whether she knew the department policy was to send all email, both classified and non-classified only on government servers.
    I think you misunderstand my point, or I conveyed it poorly. So I will try to clarify here.

    So, in reference to her claim that "no one told me", I give two reasons we should belive this is false.
    1) She received briefings on security matters.
    2) There are actual rules against such usage.
    3) #2 would be included in #1.
    4) She claims to no remember ANY security rules briefings.
    "
    Conclusion. Unless a reason is given that some rules regarding classified is specifically not part of any briefing, then we should assume, and are reasonable to assert that they are part of those briefings.
    Further, we should discount any claim from Hillary as to what she was or was not told, because her own testimony precludes her from being a good source for what is or is not in those briefings.

    So, if all you have is Hillary's claim that she was not told, even though she doesn't remember anything she was told. Then you also must hold that the Gov does not fully explain provide easy access to all the rules regarding secret information.
    --I feel that is a well established support for my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Point 2: (She didn't know the stuff was classified.) Again, this is an FBI agent saying that he thinks anyone who knows classified data would know that data was classified. Does Hillary understnad classified data as well as he does? I don't know. You don't know. We can only presume and guess. I can say that one would hope the head of the State Department understands classified data pretty well, not as well perhaps as the CIA or FBI but they should be in the ballpark. And having found out how many emails had classified data, I can see their point. 2,000 emails is a lot of emails to "oops" on. We don't really know whether she just didn't care, was scating the line for the sake of being lazy, or is really bad at understanding the standards for classified data. None of those make her look good, that's for certain.
    I think this shifts the point you originally made. You originally appeared to be appealing to her plausible deniability of knowing what was or wasn't classified because of the bureaucratic mess that is sometimes involved with when something is classified.

    I dispute this, and call it false because the FBI ruled that there was no excuse for her She by all accounts should have known.

    ---
    You now seem to be shifting to the idea that she didn't actually know and you or I can't tell her various states of mind.
    Well, that is not really what I'm arguing against. My point is that she is still responsible, regardless of her states of mind.
    She got briefed, she should have known. Her failure to know is your appeal to her incompetence. Apparently she is claiming incompetence as a defense as she claims to not recall ANY training on the matter.

    So my point is not conjecture. These are established facts. She is liable for the information She has no "Plausible deniability" for her responsibility.
    She was told, she should have known, and she was incompetent with state secrets.

    .. established.. fact..

    At best, your point is not "false" but "irrelevant", which I still count as supporting my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Point 3: (Not a lot of data thus not a big deal) I think this is really just a sub point or relatied part of #2. I don't think it merrits it's own category and besides I already refuted this point myself when I did more reading and discovered near 2,000 emails had classified data, some 5-10%. That's quite a lot so I am wrong here.
    Good form, doubly good form. I did not intend to harp the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Point 4: (Collin Powell did it too.) The only important distinction is that Colin Powell did it when the rules were less clear. We do know some of his emails contained classified data but we don't know what because like Clinton the were not released. We know he wasn't even using a private server but was using a public email service (AOL if you can imagine that). We also don't know if he deleted any of his emails because no one really investigated that. We do know he didn't make coppies of them for federal records like he was supposed to. It really is not that different except that we don't have as much detailed information and at the time the practice was within the bounds of the rules. (even if he did make mistakes about putting classified data in these emails).
    1) There is no evidence that Powell had secret(at the time) info on his private e-mail.
    2) The rules were different regardless (private e-mail may have been considered "secure" at the time.
    3) No evidence he deleted
    http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/c...ton-424187.htm
    (The link points out that powel did not have classified info on his account at the time of his service. Only after the fact made classified. On the other hand, clintons info was deemed to be classified at the time, and she should have known)
    Basically, lose are all different from hillary and they are all significant because to say

    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So for my count....
    #1: You have not proven me wrong, you only have conjecture for your claim. (Mind you I only have Clintons own claims.) Neither of us has any hard evidence here.

    #2: It's just conjecture on what she knew. You can't prove it, neither could the FBI. It still looks bad for her reguardless because the fact is, she let a lot of classified data exist in a non secure environment.

    #3: I was wrong.
    #4: You have not really made the case here there was a significant difference in what she did and what he did. The facts show it was pretty similar (private server, contained classified information, not secured, not backed up properly to the government archives) The one significant difference is Collin Powel was doing it under rules allowing it and Clinton wasn't (whether she knew it or not).
    whoot! I got one... well, you sort of got it..I am taking half a point at least



    my count
    1- My hard evidence is that she received briefings. Establishing her responsibility.
    2- I agree it does look bad regardless, but her actually remembering is not relevant to her responsibility.
    3- Good form
    4- I have reiterated my case, and supported with a link. Classified at the time is established fact for Hillary and not the case at all for powel.
    So.. pretty relevant distinction for those who claim he did the exact same thing. (Please do not make me explain how they create classified information)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Side note on the significance of the classified data

    You try to make the point that since the FBI said any reasonable person familiar wiht classification would know its classified means it was something that you or I would not think is "over-classification". That doesn't really follow. THe FBI director knows what is or is not classified. They are partly responsible for what is or is not classified. They know the rules and the policy and they are exactly the sort of folks that make so much data classified you and I both seem to think is overkill by a wide margine. What he knows hould be classified will often be things I think are silly to classify. None the less, they get classified because those are the rules they follow. The fact he think's it is clearly classsified information is no indicator whether you or I would reasonably think it should be classified in our own sence of what should be. According to the government a lot of what we think is silly to classified is none the less classified data.
    So apparently, per the source I first sighted. The hubbub is over e-mails regarding a future drone strike, at least in part.
    So the first question is (if it is true) do you consider that obvious enough? Or do you think that military operations are some grey area where one could be sort of foggy on the rules?

    Second, assuming we have no idea and the report is false (which we shouldn't know anyway).
    There is simply no support for your idea that it may have fallen into some grey area of plausible deniability, because the FBI ruled it not to be the case. They basically disallow your explanation with their ruling on the facts.
    Do we think it should be classified? Doesn't matter, because it was classified and anyone who has received a security briefing should be aware of that fact clearly, at the time of the exchange she was having.. .. not after the fact, not by some other department ruling, but by the authority and responsibility of her office.
    ... it's a fact.

    Finally, I may have taken our shared opinion for granted. We both agree that the gov tends to over classify stuff. But I think that falls in after the fact. If it is something trivial to us, but important to the gov.. like the pres travel plans(I don't know a good example), then if she is responsible.. it's important. Maybe I was confused by your appeal in other parts of your response to other offices. Where some where, some peon may have marked something classified.. and thus she is technically liable.
    I took the FBI's statement of fact, that it was no mere technicality. Again some of the stuff was the HIghest level. Not low level.
    Am I wrong to think that this grey area would fall mostly or exclusively in the lower rankings? Do you feel that the highest level of secret classifications are subject to, or highly subject to "over classification", and thus your likely to think it shouldn't be classified at all? I don't, I"m taking the gov word on it and that is evidence in my favor as far as I can tell.



    ... Thanks for your last reply, couldn't give you rep but good form always needs to be pointed out.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  24. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Will have some responses later. I just wanted to say I went and read the papers released by the FBI.
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...3814-0-LHM.pdf
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...HRC-302-V2.pdf
    in their entirety... well except for all the secret stuff they blocked out of them.

    It's fairly dull reading but interesting for the debate. I learned a lot about the actual email servers she used (there were at least 3 different ones) and her general tack on her ignorance of what was classified and what was not. (which boils down to, "I thought it was fine because I have my staff do that for me and I trust their judgement.") It really does remind me of other exectutives I've worked with in an IT capacity.

    If you don't want to trust my parsing of its contents I suggest you give it a read if you can stand it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  25. Thanks MindTrap028, DevilPup John thanked for this post
  26. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Preface: This has been an interesting topic because my outlook on it has wiggled around significantly while arguing and doing research. At times I find the consternation about it rediculous, especailly when I consider what's onthe other side of the electoral offerings. At other times I can very much sympathize with the concerns about whether Hillary is worthy of being trusted with any kind of classified information considering how she treated it in office as Secretary of State. I can see how anyone who routinely handles classified data would be aghast, and I can also understand how a career politician would simply not be very aware or concerned with that kind of detail of the trade craft compared to issues of policy direction. Every article I read gives me some new dimensions on the thing.

    Clarrification #1:
    There is still a clear misunderstanding here between us or about the issues at hand. THere are two DISTINCT questions at play here.
    1. Is Hillary Clinton allowed to use a private email server for non-classified work communications.
    2. Is Did Hillary Clinton use her private email server to send classified emails.

    These are two separate things in many respects. Clinton herself said she fully understood that she cannot send classified information on her private email server. She originally claimed she hadn't done so with full knowledge that doing so would be mishandling classified information. Thus, you can't lear in a security briefing that you can't have a private email server. There only relevant fact from such training would be that you can't use that server to transmit classified information. (Does that make sense?)

    Hillary never claimed she thought it was permissible to use her private server for classified information. She thought it was permissible to use her private server only for non-classified information. She was confident that no one would send her classified information on that email account because she trusted that the peopel she was emailing with would have known it was not a secure server and would have known not to send her anything classified on it. She thought she was in the clear for this reason and said she hadn't sent any classified email using that server when interviewed.

    The department of state had internal rules saying that no one could use a private server for any kind of government business without special permission. They didn't care if it was classified information or not. It was no go unless you got special dispensation to do it. She never saught such permission, nor did she know that it was needed (according to her testimony).

    So there are two rules at play here
    Rule A: Can she have a private server for non-classified emails?
    Rule B: Should she send classified emails on a nonsecure server.

    For Rule A: She claims she did not know of this rule, thus her defense is ignorance of it existing. She says she did what others had done before her and no one told her she could not do so. This is a State department rule and has absolutely nothing to do with classified information other than it is assumed such a server would not be used for classified communications. You have been treating this as synonomous with Rule B but it is really a seperate question. No number of security briefings would teach her this rule since it has nothing to do wtih the rules for classified information.

    For Rule B: She does not claim ignorance of the rule. She claims that she had entrusted others to ensure the rule was not broken (the people she corresponded with via the email, mostly her staff). She though the material she sent and received was not classified and she was wrong. This is the area where most of your arguments are directed. It really doesn't matter if she sent this by email, by post, or with a note under the door. If she wasn't using a secure channel, she was doing it wrong. The fact it was specifically on an email server is kind of coincedental to whether she broke this rule or not. There is specific protocal for classified information and if you don't follow it you are breaking the rules.

    -------- OK lets get back to our points now --------

    #1: This point is about Rule A. Can she use a private email sever for state department business that is NOT-CLASSIFIED?

    We know that she cannot and that the rules changed shortly vefore she came into office
    She claims she thought that she could based on Colin Powel doing the same thing in the past.
    No one is on record as telling her she could not do so.
    In the FBI transcripts many claimed to be ignorant of the fact her email was a private email. (her address was not a .gov address as office emails would be normally but not everyone understands that of course).
    We all know folks don't always read all the rules in the employee handbook, especailly not the executives outside of HR and IT. (OK at least I know this from personal expereince)

    Fine you say, ignorance is no excuse. And you are correct, but breaking the state department rule actually has almost nothing to do with the rule for classified information since it is assumed that such a server would not be used for confidential information. It is not a felony or even a misdemenor to break a state department rule, its just something that would come up in your performance review or the like. And since she was the head of the department it's really inconsiquential other than if you thought she was a good employee or not.

    Even if she did use regular government email, it is quite possible sending classified data with it would be a problem with rule A. When sending classified date electronically they have a special computer system you do that with that has various security protocals, one that is generally used only for that specific purpose and is not used for other general emails. Thus even if she followed Rule A here, she could have still violated rule B just as easily.

    Absolutely no security briefing is going to have anything to do with rule A and point #1.

    #2: This is all about Rule B. Not being an idiot and sending confidentail data on a non-secure channel.

    You are right in that she is claiming incompetence as her defense here. Specifically that she's not an expert in Classified information, at least not enough to know for sure what is or is not, so she relies on the discretion of her staf to keep her from making a mistake. She's a career politician, not a career government worker. Often politicians don't know secret information from a hole in the ground when they are elected or appointed to a possition. Many a diplomat come from the freinds and family of politicians and many politicians come from all walks of life. While they get briefed and trained, its not like that is what they are specifically elected to do, and they may or many not pay very much attention to the training they get. Clinton knows all about how to shooze with the rich and famous, how to persuade people to do things, and how to be diplomatic with a wide range of people. She's a people person. She also knows criminal law pretty well since she was a lawer. And she knows a lot about politics and getting people elected. Is she an expert in top secret data, nope, clearly not. did she take it upon herself to be come one? Nope, clearly not. Do we expect her to? Well that is an open question.

    Her claim is that the people on her staff were supposed to be experts and if they sent her an email on a subject using her private email address, she assumed it was not classified information since that person would know better than to send it to her there. The FBIs investigation had them talking to many of these people. Most of them said they were not aware her email was a private server and not a government one. She clearly assumed they would know that. (and we know how those kinds of assumptions work out) I can understand an exectutive saying, "Ya, I had a briefing a few years back, I only remember a little of it to be honest. My staff are experts so I'm going to rely on them to keep me on the up and up." I could see doing that myself in her situation. Of course you SHOULD be damned sure to tell your cohorts you are expecting this of them and that they should be damned careful about what information they send you and how. It seems clear that didn't happen.

    Is she responsible none the less? Ya I think so. The buck stops at the Secretary of State when it comes to State department business. Does that make her criminaly negligant? I don't think so. Trusting your subbordinates is part of being a good leader. You don't do everything yourself, you put trust in others to do things they are experts in and you do the stuff you are an expert at, usually directing them. She ****ed up, but is it the kind of thing no reasonable person would do... I woudln't say that. Did she reasonable know this would lead to a lot of classified data on a non secure channel. It seems she didn't. She thought that would get taken care of by the expertice of those she communicated with.

    Those security briefings of hers happened when she was a Senator which was a while a go. I'm pretty sure if I had her life, I could forget the details of a dry training session that happened more than a decade ago. Do you recall the details of a work HR orientation you had a decade ago?

    This really comes down to putting yoruself in her shoes abnd thinking, am I being flat out irresponsible or just making honest mistakes?

    #4: (Colin Powel) This is really a sub point of #1 as it relates to Rule A more than Rule B.

    1) There is no evidence that Powell had secret(at the time) info on his private e-mail.
    This is incorrect. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us...in-powell.html
    Can't copy and paste from the Times (follow the link read the first paragraph) it says that both Colin Powel and Condi Rice have received classified information on their private emails while working as Secritary of State. They Broke rule B just like Clinton did. The only difference is that when Colin was in office, he was not breaking Rule A (the state department policy). THey both had the same kinds of security briefings Clinton had had. Colin Powel should have been especially well informed since he was a long time General. Yet they both made the exact same type of mistake. (Though not on quite the same scale.)

    2) The rules were different regardless (private e-mail may have been considered "secure" at the time.
    Rule A was different, rule B was not. Private email servers (especially not AOL god help us) are not considered secure channels of communication, they never have been. AOL can read anyones email any time they want to. There is nothing secure about that. At the time you could use private email for state department business, but you could not use it for classified information.

    3) No evidence he deleted
    This has almost nothing to do with anything we discussed nor has anything to do with Rule A, or Rule B. There is no rule saying you can't delete classified emails. Nor is there a rule that you can't delete emails on your private server. The only relavant rule is that you have to record all your emails with the state department for their archives. Clinton felt she was complying because those she was corrisponding wtih did have a .gov email account and thus all those emails would be archived by that system. That is a cheezy way of accomplishing that, but that was her work around according to her testimony. Powel had actually done exports of his emails and sent them in. It is entirely possible he deleted a bunch of his emails but there would be nothing in the rules against it so long as he provided a copy to the state department prior to doing so.

    BTW: acording to the FBI documents Clinton herself did not delete any emails. The email host she had at the time deleted emails during the creation of backup archives. There is some question as to whether they were directed to do so, or did so by accident. They claim it was an accident but there was at least one call around the time directing them to do the archiving (which would not normally involve deleting and wiping emails). If any of those emails were corrispondence with govenrment officials on govenrment email addresses, the FBI would already have coppies (the recent additional emails they got were all from such sources, other governmnt email servers where her emails were sent and received from rather than from her servers.

    I get a page not found on your newsweek article... Reguardless, much of the classified info Clinton sent was also not "classified at the time" either. Though that is really a misnomer. All classified data is classified the moment it comes into exiestencde by its nature, it's just a question if someone marks it classified or not. So If you and I were state department officials and discussed an upcoming trade agreement with Japan, that information would by definition be classified the moment we spoke it. It would not be in some classified document yet. You are supposed to know what type of information is classified and what isn't so when you create it or repeat it you will do so securely. (Mind you I think all this is pretty unworkable if you want some kind of 0-tollerance for error. People are going to make a lot of mistakes as witniesed by all threee Secretaries of state transmitting such info insecurely.)

    My summary:

    #1: You still havn't quite gotten what #1 is about, but I hope you do now.
    #2: You make a good case and she should be responsible, but I don't think her errors rise to the level of a crime (gross negligence or willful misconduct). Nor do I even think they are extreemly careless. I'd just call it sloppy managment.
    #3: I lost already.
    #4: You are simply wrong / misunderstanding

    Subject: What should be classified


    A lot less than is. Most of what she sent was classified as "Confidential" the lowest rating. A small number were "secret" the next highest, and the latest count is 22 "top secret" which would be pretty serious stuff apparently. Still, not knowing what any of them really are, I can't really say how I feel about them reguardless of their Classification.

    Lets talk about Drones Strikes. You asked me if I think it should be classified. i'd say it really depends on what is discussed specifically. If ths a target and a date, ya, that should be absolutely secret and not on her private email. It its a discussion of what criteria to use to determine future drones strikes, that should be publicly published on a government website in my opinion so whe know how our government is choosing who to kill and what to bomb. Somewhere in the middle would be a discussion of if we should or should not drone strike a given individual. I would say that doesn't need to be secret, shouldn't be if it is an american citizen, but I'm not entirely adamant about it. Any savy enemy terrorist should know he may well be the target of an attack. They probably all are aware it can happen to them as it has happened to many others. There is no need for that to be a secret. Once a decision is made, then I think there is reason for secrecy to ensure the success of the specific opperation.

    I don't take the governments word for too much to be frank. I always check against what I think is likely based on past behavior. Some things I trust because I can't see any reason not to. But my expereince with classified information (as limitied as it has been) is that most of it is ******** and we keep far far too many secrets.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  27. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  28. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think that our nation is pretty much 40/20/40 .. where 40% will vote their party no matter what, and only 20% can really change their minds at all.

    IMO, It reflects both the unthinking nature of the country, and the horrible choices the parties put up. ... but mostly unthinking electorate.
    I don't think you are correct about everyone voting with their party no matter what. Many very traditional and high-profile republicans will not be voting for trump this year and it's safe to say that that goes for numerous Republicans in the electorate as well. And despite misgivings about Clinton, I don't think many Democrats are going to "jump ship" as it's pretty clear that the prospect of Trump becoming president gives Democrats, as well as non-Democrats, a STRONG motivation to vote for Hillary. If Hillary were running against a more qualified and well-liked Republican like the contenders of past elections (McCain and Romney), then Democrats would be more likely to jump ship (especially those who were Bernie Supporters in the primaries).

    I'd say the fact that Trump still has significant support amongst the electorate is a strong indication of an unthinking electorate. The man is clearly not qualified to be President. If one thinks that Hillary is also unacceptable, I won't say that they are wrong for thinking that but then they should be voting third party or not voting at all instead of voting for Trump. And I'm willing to predict that third parties will get an unusually higher percentage of the vote this year (not enough to win) because of how disliked both candidates are.
    Last edited by mican333; September 5th, 2016 at 02:57 PM.

  29. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't think you are correct about everyone voting with their party no matter what. Many very traditional and high-profile republicans will not be voting for trump this year and it's safe to say that that goes for numerous Republicans in the electorate as well. And despite misgivings about Clinton, I don't think many Democrats are going to "jump ship" as it's pretty clear that the prospect of Trump becoming president gives Democrats, as well as non-Democrats, a STRONG motivation to vote for Hillary. If Hillary were running against a more qualified and well-liked Republican like the contenders of past elections (McCain and Romney), then Democrats would be more likely to jump ship (especially those who were Bernie Supporters in the primaries).

    I'd say the fact that Trump still has significant support amongst the electorate is a strong indication of an unthinking electorate. The man is clearly not qualified to be President. If one thinks that Hillary is also unacceptable, I won't say that they are wrong for thinking that but then they should be voting third party or not voting at all instead of voting for Trump. And I'm willing to predict that third parties will get an unusually higher percentage of the vote this year (not enough to win) because of how disliked both candidates are.
    Actually, for what its worth, Trump is winning the indepedent electorate handily over Clinton.
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/0...pendent-voters

    The percentage of democrats and republicans who will not vote for their party's candidate is almost identical. I cannot find the poll, but basically Trump and Clinton are both at about 75% with members of their own party.

    In other words, your premises are wrong and do not support your conclusions. It is also a bit condescending to claim Trump's support comes from an unthinking electorate. Perhaps, the electorate is just thinking differently than you. Whether Clinton's behavior is technically illegal is not the point anymore. For a portion of the electorate, voting for Trump is a demand for political change. Rather than the typical shrug and acceptance of politics as normal (basically Sig's position), people are voting for Trump in protest. This is the antithesis of non-thinking. This is people who are thinking and reaching the conclusion that the type of corruption that has been tolerated has gone too far. Trump has reached those people. He has offered a brand of populism which has promised to take on the political norm. Now, I completely understand any and all skepticism. Let's not pretend that Trump is some high school dropout, incapable of running a small convenience store. The guy is not an idiot even if his behavior tends towards buffoonery. He is an alternative in a two-party system where one party's candidate is as corrupt as any politician which has ever come this close to the White House. She is a combination of Nixon and Grant. Pay for play and paranoia. If it takes a loudmouth like Trump to dredge the cesspool, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever.

    P.S.
    I'm probably going to vote for Johnson, however, I live in CA so it is not like my Presidential vote will matter anyhow.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What happens if Clinton scandal is real?
    By Ibelsd in forum Politics
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2016, 12:24 PM
  2. VA Scandal - an study of a real scandal
    By JimJones8934 in forum Politics
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: May 19th, 2014, 07:59 AM
  3. god....real...or just in your mind
    By vance101 in forum Religion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: September 7th, 2004, 10:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •