The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
07-05-2016, 01:32 PM
#6201
There's been a lot of speculation flying around. The best I can put together is this:
So, at the risk of sounding like I'm standing up for Clinton (I'm not), it looks like she actually didn't do anything wrong, and that she's merely facing increased scrutiny because she's a candidate for the Presidency of the US. In other words, we (WTP) would appear to be attributing to a conspiracy something which is adequately explained by laziness.
- People in high branches of government frequently use non-secure communications paths to send secure information mostly because secure systems are a pain in the ***. (Anyone who has ever worked as a gov't contractor knows this.)
- Clinton, like most other high-ranking members of government, has both a private (non-secure) and an official (secure) email address.
- The documents in question were sent to Clinton at her private email address by others, and despite containing classified information, were not actually marked as classified.
So, at the risk of sounding like I'm standing up for Clinton (I'm not), it looks like she actually didn't do anything wrong, and that she's merely facing increased scrutiny because she's a candidate for the Presidency of the US. In other words, we (WTP) would appear to be attributing to a conspiracy something which is adequately explained by laziness.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 01:32 PM
#6202
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Actually, yes, sending non-secure communications here at the DOS is pretty easy: You open up outlook, and type an email, and hit send (cntrl+enter for the power user). I'll send you a demonstration.
Secure stuff, isn't that hard, it's on its own network, but works just like any other computer. You just have to mark it up appropriately. but yes, it's much easier to ignore the FAH / FAM, and ultimately break the law.
Unlike Clinton, they aren't conducting official business using a private, non-secure, email server and then deleting official records and not fulfilling FIOA requests.
housing classified material in your own home is a violation of the law; that's something wrong. Didn't you JUST post recently about wanting people to be judged according to the law, and not other BS?
Secure stuff, isn't that hard, it's on its own network, but works just like any other computer. You just have to mark it up appropriately. but yes, it's much easier to ignore the FAH / FAM, and ultimately break the law.
Unlike Clinton, they aren't conducting official business using a private, non-secure, email server and then deleting official records and not fulfilling FIOA requests.
housing classified material in your own home is a violation of the law; that's something wrong. Didn't you JUST post recently about wanting people to be judged according to the law, and not other BS?
Last edited by Braineack; 07-05-2016 at 01:42 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 01:40 PM
#6203
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.
So in such matters, the prosecution must prove that not only did the accused have knowledge of wrongdoing, but further that they intended to cause harm to the US. This is why Snowden is a traitor, but Clinton is merely a bitch.Insofar as the preservation of liberties, criminal law works both ways. Sometimes it winds up protecting people like Hillary.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 01:40 PM
#6204
Elite Member
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Very NorCal
Posts: 10,441
Total Cats: 1,899
Did you guys actually read/watch the FBI statement in its entirety or just read the media headlines and sound bytes?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 01:42 PM
#6205
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 01:42 PM
#6206
Yeah, I'm not seeing how this isn't worthy of punishment. I can incur civil penalties up to $1.5 million for HIPAA violations due to negligence, and up to 10 years in prison for willful HIPAA violations. But a senior government official willfully stores classified data on an unsecured server, then obfuscates the record, and the FBI says, "Well, they didn't mean to, so we'll let bygones be bygones." Maybe we need to put the DHHS in charge of government security compliance.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 01:44 PM
#6207
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 06:45 PM
#6215
Actually, yes, sending non-secure communications here at the DOS is pretty easy: You open up outlook, and type an email, and hit send (cntrl+enter for the power user). I'll send you a demonstration... Secure stuff, isn't that hard, it's on its own network, but works just like any other computer. You just have to mark it up appropriately. but yes, it's much easier to ignore the FAH / FAM, and ultimately break the law... housing classified material in your own home is a violation of the law; that's something wrong. Didn't you JUST post recently about wanting people to be judged according to the law, and not other BS?
This is one of those interesting areas of the law in which mens rea is a necessary component of the crime. Specifically, Gorin v. US 312 U.S. 19 (1941) (an espionage case), pointed out that:
The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.
So in such matters, the prosecution must prove that not only did the accused have knowledge of wrongdoing, but further that they intended to cause harm to the US. This is why Snowden is a traitor, but Clinton is merely a bitch. Insofar as the preservation of liberties, criminal law works both ways. Sometimes it winds up protecting people like Hillary.Yeah, I'm not seeing how this isn't worthy of punishment. I can incur civil penalties up to $1.5 million for HIPAA violations due to negligence, and up to 10 years in prison for willful HIPAA violations. But a senior government official willfully stores classified data on an unsecured server, then obfuscates the record, and the FBI says, "Well, they didn't mean to, so we'll let bygones be bygones." Maybe we need to put the DHHS in charge of government security compliance.
However, the media isn't talking about the biggest fuckup she made. You think for a second that China didn't have a direct line to everything in her "private server"? What about our friends in Israel or France? There are thousands of dudes in China that their only job is to try and gain access to our ****... and hers was floating around on the internet. What about that Dude who claimed he'd hacked her **** and the FBI made a deal with him... you think he was the only one, or that there were a dozen like him selling all her **** for bitcoins.
I keep coming back to "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it"... and what awesomeness Hilldog will be remembered for 8 years from now.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 08:55 PM
#6216
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
I ask the following sincerely, of those who have contributed to this thread recently:
Suppose that you are an employee of Company X, which manufactures and sells industrial widgets. Does the salesman who routinely books 200% of quota, and at good margins, deserve to be held as tightly to the corporate rules for expense reimbursement as the recently hired field service tech?
Suppose that you are an employee of Company X, which manufactures and sells industrial widgets. Does the salesman who routinely books 200% of quota, and at good margins, deserve to be held as tightly to the corporate rules for expense reimbursement as the recently hired field service tech?
Last edited by Joe Perez; 07-05-2016 at 09:28 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 09:20 PM
#6217
I ask the following sincerely, of those who have contributed to this thread recently:
Does the salesman who routinely books 200% of quota, and at good margins, deserve to be held as tightly to the corporate rules for expense reimbursement as the recently hired field service tech?
Does the salesman who routinely books 200% of quota, and at good margins, deserve to be held as tightly to the corporate rules for expense reimbursement as the recently hired field service tech?
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 09:30 PM
#6218
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
I have updated my previous post to include a preamble to the hypothetical which I omitted the first time. Does this affect your answer?
Presume that there is no past history to influence the enforcement of the rules for expense reporting.
Presume that there is no past history to influence the enforcement of the rules for expense reporting.
Reply
0
0
07-05-2016, 10:30 PM
#6220
I work for the DoD in an unclassified area of an unclassified building doing things that couldn't even be aggregated into something harmful to the government. If I were to auto-forwarded my work email to my personal email so that I could receive my team lead's inane after hours questions without having to carry a laptop home and VPN onto our network, I could be fined or put in jail.
We're not talking about fudging your petty cash reports here. Like Samnavy said, we're talking about something that can and has caused people to go to jail for doing ONCE. And she gets off scot free after doing it a HUNDRED times. She showed that intent to harm the government simply by setting up the server and allowing people to conduct Department of State business over it.
Reply
0
0
