Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:20 am UTC

Dmitry Rybolovlev's private plane was at the same airports as Trump's plane, REPEATEDLY, during the 2016 presidential campaign. I'm sure it was just a coincidence. (Video autoload warnings)

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 9979971765

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 9988675966

[Edited to add: This link has some interesting tables of Rybolovlev's plane's movements over the past year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/shu ... a89a7a2acb ]

[Edited to add: This is the guy to whom Trump was alluding when he said, back in July 2016, that he had sold a Russian a Florida mansion for more than twice what Trump had paid for it: (Video autoload warning)

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/27/news/do ... l-mansion/ ]

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5843
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:35 am UTC

Do you have a corroborating source on this? Seems juicy, but story needs to be fully run down.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6861
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:05 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:????? You're protecting content of the message not the bytes on the disk. The proper place of custody would be a list of people with security clearances adequate to the level of the content. That's a quibble.
I'm aware (I mentioned that in my post), but the other poster was apparently under the belief that "proper place of custody" referred not to the Secretary of State's custody, but government servers. So I was pointing out how even if that was the case, nothing was "removed" from them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5843
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:56 pm UTC

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/p ... .html?_r=0
President Trump, a day after leveling a widely disputed allegation that President Barack Obama had ordered the tapping of his phones, on Sunday demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Mr. Obama abused the power of federal law enforcement agencies before the 2016 presidential election.

In a statement from his spokesman, Mr. Trump called “reports” about the wiretapping “very troubling” and said that Congress should examine them as part of its investigations into Russia’s meddling in the election.
Lol, he's doing the classic Russian tactic, butwhataboutthis? Well, I shouldn't be laughing, because Trump feels besieged (regardless of how successful or lack there of Democrats really are). When Trump feels cornered like this, he lashes out badly, except this time he has executive powers behind him.

commodorejohn
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:59 pm UTC

The really funny part is that he should know that the person who stands to lose the most from any investigation of the circumstances surrounding his election is himself.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

mcd001
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:46 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:the other poster was apparently under the belief that "proper place of custody" referred not to the Secretary of State's custody, but government servers.

The "proper place of custody" absolutely DOES refer to government servers. I refer you to https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

"The [State] Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.” The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data. Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets)."

This policy was in place at the time Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Her private email server did NOT have "the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information." At the very least, the personnel managing that server did not have security clearances. Nor did her lawyers (who had the privilege of reviewing all her emails to decide which they would hand over to the government before the rest were conveniently destroyed as 'personal'. And as we later learned, many of those erased 'personal' emails were not. This sure sounds like gross negligence to me.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6861
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:25 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:The "proper place of custody" absolutely DOES refer to government servers. I refer you to https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

"The [State] Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.” The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data. Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets)."
So I presume it's also illegal to print out a copy of a classified email to read, since a printed copy is also not stored on an AIS? Besides -- I am highly skeptical that this policy was written with the law you've cited in mind.

Let's try a different tact: Neither of us are (presumably) experts on this law. The FBI (presumably) is. They investigated this matter and determined that no law was actually broken. What special information do you possess that the FBI lacks?
mcd001 wrote:This policy was in place at the time Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Her private email server did NOT have "the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information." At the very least, the personnel managing that server did not have security clearances. Nor did her lawyers (who had the privilege of reviewing all her emails to decide which they would hand over to the government before the rest were conveniently destroyed as 'personal'. And as we later learned, many of those erased 'personal' emails were not. This sure sounds like gross negligence to me.
I'm not intimately familiar with the operation of email servers, but I'm reasonably certain that they're not typically set up in such a way to give anyone managing them carte blanche to read any email they'd like. Also, I'm fairly certain any lawyer involved in these proceedings would have had enough sense of the law to avoid implicating their client merely by researching the evidence against them.

Regardless, whether or not Hillary was guilty of gross negligence is immaterial; again, the law you cited specifies that it applies in circumstances where something has been leaked -- not circumstances where something could have been leaked. This law was clearly written to punish people for a leak -- not punish people for leak-risky behavior. Unless you can prove that a leak happened as a consequence of her actions, this law does not apply.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:33 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Let's try a different tact: Neither of us are (presumably) experts on this law. The FBI (presumably) is. They investigated this matter and determined that no law was actually broken.


Technically, they determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a law was broken. This is a rather important distinction.

mcd001 wrote:This policy was in place at the time Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Her private email server did NOT have "the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information." At the very least, the personnel managing that server did not have security clearances. Nor did her lawyers (who had the privilege of reviewing all her emails to decide which they would hand over to the government before the rest were conveniently destroyed as 'personal'. And as we later learned, many of those erased 'personal' emails were not. This sure sounds like gross negligence to me.


Gross negligence would have been sufficient evidence for the FBI to indict Clinton. They did not. I'd have to place my bets on the FBI over your opinion.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7547
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:42 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Technically, they determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a law was broken. This is a rather important distinction.

You say that as if there's a third option other than "indict" and "insufficient evidence", and I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. Like, if the FBI decides to investigate claims Russia replaced the moon with a giant pink space-rabbit, and the FBI's like "Welp, moon's still there..." they would still say "insufficient evidence".
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:58 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Technically, they determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a law was broken. This is a rather important distinction.

You say that as if there's a third option other than "indict" and "insufficient evidence", and I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. Like, if the FBI decides to investigate claims Russia replaced the moon with a giant pink space-rabbit, and the FBI's like "Welp, moon's still there..." they would still say "insufficient evidence".


Oh, there's plenty of options available. One for example, was perhaps not drawing the attention of the FBI in the first place.

There's no doubt in my mind that Clinton's email practices were insufficient. They just weren't provably criminally insufficient.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Mutex
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:48 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Technically, they determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a law was broken. This is a rather important distinction.

You say that as if there's a third option other than "indict" and "insufficient evidence", and I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. Like, if the FBI decides to investigate claims Russia replaced the moon with a giant pink space-rabbit, and the FBI's like "Welp, moon's still there..." they would still say "insufficient evidence".

There is the option of "actually innocent", which is when the defendant is proven to definitely be innocent, as opposed to there simply not being enough evidence of guilt.

mcd001
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:25 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:So I presume it's also illegal to print out a copy of a classified email to read, since a printed copy is also not stored on an AIS?

You presume wrong. You can print a classified email and read it with no problem. When you're done, you can shred it, or store it in an approved safe or locking file cabinet with proper access controls. What you can't do is leave it lying around unattended on your desk, or take it home with you, no matter how 'convenient' that might be.

The Great Hippo wrote:Let's try a different tact: Neither of us are (presumably) experts on this law. The FBI (presumably) is. They investigated this matter and determined that no law was actually broken. What special information do you possess that the FBI lacks?

None. But I do believe Director Comey's decision not to indict was a political one, not a legal one.

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm not intimately familiar with the operation of email servers, but I'm reasonably certain that they're not typically set up in such a way to give anyone managing them carte blanche to read any email they'd like.

And I'm reasonably certain that the server managers had root privileges. If so, there's no way to prevent them from reading your mail if they want to.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6861
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:36 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:You presume wrong. You can print a classified email and read it with no problem. When you're done, you can shred it, or store it in an approved safe or locking file cabinet with proper access controls. What you can't do is leave it lying around unattended on your desk, or take it home with you, no matter how 'convenient' that might be.
And doing otherwise is against the law?

Can you cite any instance of someone being prosecuted for this? Not for leaking a classified document -- but simply not properly handling a classified document Leaving it out unattended on your desk, so on?
mcd001 wrote:None. But I do believe Director Comey's decision not to indict was a political one, not a legal one.
You think Comey's on Hillary's side? How on earth do you fit Comey's last-minute announcement into this narrative? What reason do you have to distrust Comey? Do you have enough experience in law to make an actual assessment of this case?
mcd001 wrote:And I'm reasonably certain that the server managers had root privileges. If so, there's no way to prevent them from reading your mail if they want to.
Again, I'm not deeply familiar with email servers, but I would presume that -- once received -- email data would be encrypted for every user? Regardless, you'd have to demonstrate somehow that the emails in question were leaked (by pointing at the leaked emails).

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:48 pm UTC

I swear I am gonna paraphrase Bernie Sanders jfc
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

mcd001
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:08 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:And doing otherwise is against the law?

Once again, paragraph (f) of U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793: "...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody..."
Per the Department of State's own policies, Clinton's private email server was not the proper place of custody for the classified information that ended up on that system. Clinton either new this and blatantly disregarded it to further her own purposes, or she didn't know it, demonstrating an appalling level of ignorance and the inability to grasp basic concepts of information security. Since Clinton has never struck me as particularly dense or ignorant, I think the former (blatant disregard) is the most logical explanation.

The Great Hippo wrote:Can you cite any instance of someone being prosecuted for this? Not for leaking a classified document -- but simply not properly handling a classified document

I recall a recent case of an American sailor who took a couple of pictures of his work space on a nuclear submarine. He did not sell them or post them or give them to anyone, they were solely for his own memories. He is currently in prison. I also recall Sandy Berger (National Security Advisor for Bill Clinton) being fined $50,000 for taking classified documents from a secure document room at the National Archives.
I've also read someone's post on this forum that no one has ever been convicted for the Title 18 law I posted. This may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the law of the land.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:23 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
mcd001 wrote:None. But I do believe Director Comey's decision not to indict was a political one, not a legal one.
You think Comey's on Hillary's side? How on earth do you fit Comey's last-minute announcement into this narrative? What reason do you have to distrust Comey? Do you have enough experience in law to make an actual assessment of this case?
If I may presume, I think that having come out 'against' Hillary (in that unconventional way, whether born of anti-Hillary sentiment or just a more neutral "hey, guys, this needs to be looked at now!" ), the idea is that the Obama Administration then strongarmed Comey to neuter his own actions. Not my own views on the matter, but certainly the obvious approach under that worldview.

mcd001 wrote:And I'm reasonably certain that the server managers had root privileges. If so, there's no way to prevent them from reading your mail if they want to.
Again, I'm not deeply familiar with email servers, but I would presume that -- once received -- email data would be encrypted for every user?
It varies, IME. Overwhelmingly, though, system administrators have either direct access to the text of all mails (which is not to say that text is not further encrypted on a case by case basis) or at least the automatic ability to get past the file-level storage obfuscation. As an email administrator myself, in the past (archaic platform!) I had plenty of power1, and though I'm not one at the moment it would take an onerous system (mostly getting end-users to do their part, which is often just impractical!) to create a bulletproof system.

But I also know how seriously email administrators (and other kinds) take their jobs. Well, footnote excepted. Probably there should have been at least a cursory security check on those at Hillary's servicing company (routine background), but without any bad-flags coming up, I can imagine that being sufficient by all kinds of possible objecters of a non-technical kind. And the technical kinds would understand enough about the PEBCAK issue not to press for an impossible degree of security.


1 Only 'abused' to read 'too kuch' on one occasion, that I recall. Someone had sent an email to me that they immediately regretted. Rushed downstairs to me to ask me to remove it without looking at the contents. I did, and showed them that I had done (and had a tech colleague confirm this!). When they left, however, I used the server OS's "undelete" function to recover it for long enough to check it out (didn't involve the tech colleague in this part). Wasn't exactly world-shaking. Technically it wasn't overstepping the usual position of trust, but I could have used it to go still further and poke around outside my own emails (the admin account wasn't my mail-using account, so the distinction was negligible). With a few minor changes of details, most email systems I managed since then could have been similarly circumvented. As I did for official reasons when rapidly kludging an effective eradication method for either the Melissa or Anna Kournikova email worm, I think it was, in parallel to the proper filter and worldwide enhanced desktop scanning. Exilerating!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6861
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:51 pm UTC

mcd001, I don't think we can have a productive dialogue on this issue. You have your religious beliefs -- I will leave you to them.
Soupspoon wrote:If I may presume, I think that having come out 'against' Hillary (in that unconventional way, whether born of anti-Hillary sentiment or just a more neutral "hey, guys, this needs to be looked at now!" ), the idea is that the Obama Administration then strongarmed Comey to neuter his own actions. Not my own views on the matter, but certainly the obvious approach under that worldview.
Are you referring to the last-minute pronouncement, or the investigation in general?

I could see a narrative where Comey faced resistance from the Obama administration -- and the last-minute pronouncement was one last stab at seeing justice done. However, I find it hard to imagine the Obama administration being powerful enough to stop a determined FBI director who's on his last term. Maybe I don't know enough about the bureaucracy of the government, though? It seems way more reasonable to me to accept that the FBI investigated this matter and found there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:53 am UTC

The prior resistance and the "one last stab" isn't part of the narrative I was giving. But given (however it came to pass) this ultra-late reversal of Clinton's momentum, it's not beyond imagination that a quiet word (backed up with a big stick, not necessarily career-related) might have been had, in an attempt to nix it.

Add whatever level of wild-eyed conspiracy theory you want. Adorn it all with other conspiracies, like pizza toppings, if you like. The question is not whether it happened that way, but whether some people could conceivably believe that it happened that way.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3757
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:26 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote: The question is not whether it happened that way, but whether some people could conceivably believe that it happened that way.


... Well, I believe the current on-topic consideration is whether there's any equivalency between what Hillary was accused of doing and what various members of the Trump administration are (or are accused of) doing, rather than how voters responded to those accusations last year.

I understand the will to outrage over Republicans going nuts over Hillary's e-mail server and the apparent hypocrisy shown by the Trump administration, but frankly demonstrating hypocrisy in politics is shooting fish in a barrel using a rocket launcher, especially where secrets are concerned. As far as "one rule for the rich, another rule for the rest of us" argument goes Trump is pretty much the poster child for how the wealthy are treated differently than the rest of us, so bringing it up with regards to Hillary's e-mail server is.. naive at best.

If anything bringing up the Hillary controversy to say "Hey, those Republicans are hypocrites!" only poisons the well, the campaign between her and Trump was deeply partisan and only ever slightly rational. The strongly emotional response to the topics brought up in that unpleasantness have a distinct tendency to drown out the conversation about what exactly is going on at the present moment.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:42 am UTC

Thank you Dauric <3
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5843
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:57 am UTC

So, who else reported MCD and great hippo for beating a dead horse?
Edit. That Trump is pulling some McCarthyism level shit. Now people are demanding comey deny the allegation instead of demanding Trump answer his Russia connections.
Last edited by sardia on Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:17 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6861
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:09 am UTC

I don't think this is the appropriate place to start a discussion about who you're going to report to the moderators. Regardless, I'm done discussing that issue, and apologize for the thread derailment.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7547
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:54 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:There is the option of "actually innocent", which is when the defendant is proven to definitely be innocent, as opposed to there simply not being enough evidence of guilt.

No, "actually innocent" is not a legal term, and guilt is determined in court, which her case was never taken to. And even in court, the terms are "Guilty" and "Not guilty". There wasn't even a settlement here.

Usually the FBI doesn't even give its recommendations regarding cases like this. The DOJ decides if something goes to court or not, the FBI just presents relevant evidence. The attorney general decided to recuse herself because of conflicts of interests, and delegated the decision to the FBI. The FBI thus had more power and influence than in usual cases, and they deemed it doesn't make sense to go to trial.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:09 pm UTC

I'm vaguely hopeful that the investigations will be concluded. Probably not in a timely manner. Timely would've been several months ago.

But yeah, sardia, Trump's attempted deflection is ominous. As a few editorials have said, it's the action of a guy who is afraid the jig is gonna be up soon. I don't know if I'd go that far or not. The coordinated Russia meddling narrative just seems to fit so well that it's easy to be convinced by it before all the evidence is in.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

cphite
Posts: 1163
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:07 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Once again, there's exactly zero reason to believe there was ever any intention to send or receive any classified information on the private email server.


Sure there is.

There is the fact that classified networks are physically separated from the public networks; which means that you have to take deliberate steps to move data from one to the others. You either have to setup your device to use both networks at once, which is frowned upon - or you have to actually copy data from one client to another. Neither of these things is something you just do by accident.

The spillage is a separate issue which would have been just as much of an issue on a state.gov account.


Except that the governor of Indiana doesn't have access to the classified federal system in the first place, which means that no - it's not even an issue.

I'm not saying the spillage wasn't technically in violation of a couple of statues.


Um... good?

I'm saying those are separate matter from the use of the private email server for her unclassified processing and that in the absence of "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice", people aren't actually prosecuted under them. Big or little.


Except that, again, if you actually understand how these systems work, it's practically impossible to do what she did without it being intentional and willful. It is completely outside of credibility that she and her staff managed to get classified information onto thousands of emails by sheer accident, or without knowing that they were doing it.

As far as "people aren't actually prosecuted" goes, here are some pretty widely known examples:

    David Petraeus was criminally charged and managed to plea out, for making classified data accessible to someone without clearance.

    Sandy Berger was convicted in 2005 to taking physical copies of classified documents outside of a facility.

    John Deutch was charged (but pardoned) for having copies of files on his home computer.

    Bryan Nishimura (Navy) was charged with unauthorized removal and retention - basically what Clinton should have been charged for at minimum - and was sentenced to two years probation.

    Kristian Saucier took a photo in the engine room of a submarine and was indicted on unlawful retention of classified information.

    Donald Willis Keyser, one year in prison for taking data files to his residence.

    People are prosecuted under these laws - and should be.

If you're complaining that that applies to the unclassified emails relating to defense that were sent over that server were in violation of that statue, she wasn't violating the regulations that existed at the time by setting up the email server. As State, she had a quite a bit of leeway in deciding their "proper place of custody" at the time. Paragraph f simply doesn't apply to those.


The fact that she used a private server isn't an issue, at least not legally. It was within regulations at the time.

The illegal part is that she copied and transmitted classified data on that private server. And no, she has no leeway, real or imaginary, that allows her to clear a server sitting in her private residence as being a proper place of custody for classified information.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:37 am UTC

Commentary: Donald Trump's wiretap tweets raise his risk of impeachment by Noah Feldman

TL;DR version:

President Donald Trump has accused his predecessor, President Barack Obama, of an act that could have gotten the past president impeached. That's not your ordinary exercise of free speech. If the accusation were true, and Obama did order a warrantless wiretap of Trump during the campaign, the scandal would be of Watergate-level proportions.

But if the allegation is not true and is unsupported by evidence, that too should be a scandal on a major scale. This is the kind of accusation that, taken as part of a broader course of conduct, could get the current president impeached.

[...]

If the alleged action would be impeachable if true, so must be the allegation if false. Anything else would give the president the power to distort democracy by calling his opponents criminals without ever having to prove it.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3757
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:03 am UTC

...but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership, but finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it.

-Douglas Adams: "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", 1979
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:14 am UTC


I don't want this thread overrun with Clinton-email discussions. In this thread, you can only discuss Clinton's email server if it's a secondary point in your post, with the primary points directly related to the OT.

If people would like to keep discussing Clinton's server as a main topic, please start a new dedicated thread.

Trebla
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Trebla » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:54 pm UTC



The argument may be logical, but it's wishful thinking. He's already said it... he could shoot someone on the street (especially if they were a minority... ZING!) and still have support of his followers (and enough of Congress to prevent a conviction even if he were actually impeached). Love him or hate him, if Republicans took any steps to remove him from office and succeeded, they'd completely fragment their base. Not sure what would happen if they failed, but nothing that they'd risk, I'm sure.

If Democrats happen to gain enough control in 2018... it still seems like it would be a bad move to impeach him.

Spoiler for addressing Clinton e-mails...
Spoiler:
cphite wrote:There is the fact that classified networks are physically separated from the public networks; which means that you have to take deliberate steps to move data from one to the others. You either have to setup your device to use both networks at once, which is frowned upon - or you have to actually copy data from one client to another. Neither of these things is something you just do by accident.


And NEITHER of those things happened. The extent of the published findings (that I'm aware of) is that she had received e-mails that was classified at the time it was sent, though none of them had classification markings. Some e-mail bodies had section markings, but none were marked Secret or higher.

Basically, someone else sent her e-mail with information that was discovered to be classified at the time it was sent and she received it. Even if she had been using a government server, the problem would have been EXACTLY the same. So the inappropriate e-mails originated on an unclassified network and were sent to her. She probably replied to at least some of these, with the body included in the reply meaning she technically sent some as well... I'm sure you believe she did so with full knowledge of the contents.

She did say she was unaware what (c) meant... which I find to be relatively unbelievable, though without context, my first assumption would be "copyright"

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:00 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:[...]
If the alleged action would be impeachable if true, so must be the allegation if false. Anything else would give the president the power to distort democracy by calling his opponents criminals without ever having to prove it.
[/quote]

Except, this is exactly his alternate fact M.O. Why bother proving someone's a criminal when you can just claim it, and the supporters will lap it up.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:08 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:If Democrats happen to gain enough control in 2018... it still seems like it would be a bad move to impeach him.

Yup. Clinton's failings reduced her popularity with her base, so focussing on them was a net vote winner.

Trump's failings are a big part of his appeal to his base. Attempting to impeach him will only whip up and enrage his supporters further.

He needs to fail in some other way in order to be impeachable.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5843
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:10 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/se ... The Affordable Care Act/
The first look at Trumpcare is unveiled. Percentage wise, it screws the poor in favor of the rich. But, even the winners lose because everyone gets less subsidy overall.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby DaBigCheez » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:55 pm UTC


I saw an alternate argument which came at this from a somewhat different angle: let's assume the allegation is true, and Obama placed a wiretap on Trump. With a classified FISA warrant, which Trump now has the power to know about.

The judges which govern such things don't exactly give those out like dime-store candy for investigating your political opponents, especially post-Watergate, so there must have been some damn strong probable cause involved. So, if the allegation is false, and Trump's just blowing smoke based on a Breitbart article (when he has the power to know better), that's bad enough. But if it's true, that implies there was strong enough evidence of collaboration with a foreign power to justify issuing a wiretap warrant on political opponents in the middle of an election season...
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:20 pm UTC

Visa is the notorious "approves almost everything" court, right?

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:42 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Visa is the notorious "approves almost everything" court, right?

wiki wrote:In the period 1979–2006, a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.[23]
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KittenKaboodle » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:08 pm UTC

"We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before" DJT

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby DaBigCheez » Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:32 pm UTC

Ah. The place I was hearing that seemed to have things...somewhat backwards, then.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seven-groups-that-could-complicate-gop-plans-to-repeal-obamacare/
The first look at Trumpcare is unveiled. Percentage wise, it screws the poor in favor of the rich. But, even the winners lose because everyone gets less subsidy overall.


Personally speaking, I'm kinda happy with a lot of the details of the new plan. Its relatively practical and a conservative step forward.

* Fewer subsidies is a conservative thing -- Conservatives believe that the US Government shouldn't be in the business of handing out subsidies, because it creates distortions in the marketplace. Of course, The Affordable Care Act was a progressive plan, so "correcting" a progressive plan implies moving towards a more regressive tax model. However, taken in isolation, I don't think you can claim that the $2000 subsidy for insurance is "regressive". Its just "less progressive" than what was under The Affordable Care Act (and to be expected from Conservatives who dislike progressive plans in any case)

* Medicaid cuts -- Yeah, I was more or less expecting this too. Really just a continuation of my earlier point.

* Individual mandate is replaced by the 30% penalty for one year-- A practical solution to the problem of "people buy healthcare only when they're sick". However, I'm personally concerned that 30% is too low of a number and will need to rise higher to be practical. Individual mandate was a big tax imposed on the population every year to force us all to buy Health Insurance. In effect, the "penalty stick" has gotten much weaker, and "gaming the system" seems very possible with only a 30% penalty for one year (aka: buying insurance after you get a chronic condition).

* A lot of the The Affordable Care Act features are kept: Health Savings Plans look like they might be expanded in the new plan (good: more self-insurance is better for this country). Preexiting conditions are still banned. Children up to age 26 must still be supported. Lifetime caps are banned. Benefits remain specified.

------

I think in many ways, this bill is closer to a "Repair The Affordable Care Act" as opposed to a "repeal". Which is practical. The GOP gets the standard talking points to say they've repealed Abortion coverage or other pet-issues... they also are getting rid of Medicare expansion (dunno if they'll be able to get rid of that though. Seems like a lot of Representatives don't like that idea).

The House Freedom Caucus is calling this bill "Obamacare-lite", and they're correct in many respects. They recognize that this isn't a "Repeal".

With only 21 "spare seats", the Majority Whip is going to have issues making sure that all Republicans actually vote for this. I'm curious what the insurance companies will say about the 30% surcharge... I dunno enough about Health Care to know if that's a good number or not.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:16 pm UTC

At least they haven't given this thing a stupid name...

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:30 pm UTC

For the record that is actually a different bill.

This is the one Paul Ryan and co are putting forth: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... %5D%7D&r=3
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hollow, Opus_723 and 19 guests