Simon

In light of Comey stating today that the FBI's review of Huma Abedein's emails does not change their recommendation to not pursue any charges against Clinton: I'm still running into people (not here, in the "real world"...which is a strange and disturbing place) that don't seem to understand the extent to which this is a non-story. Specifically, there seems to be a lack of understanding of what the difference between a State Dept. hosted public email server and a privately hosted public email server would be. The difference? Audit. That's it. They both would have been _public_ email servers. They both would have handled the same traffic. They both would have handled the same emails. They both would have been publicly accessible, with publicly known and determinable IP addresses. They both would have relied entirely on the users to prevent the transmission of classified information to non-entitled parties. That's the nature of a public email server. Classified information is handled on an entirely separate network (most notably, non-public). A State Dept. run email server would have been more easily audited....and that's it. The entire non-story is about the notion that by running an email server that wasn't under the direct control of the State Dept. that emails may not be available for FOIA requests and/or audits by the feds. That's it. As it stands, her emails have gone though more scrutiny than any other politician that I'm aware of (let alone Secretary of State). Between the FBI's investigation and the Wikileaks releases, it's an unprecedented level of review (both public and political). The results? She's an extremely methodical and planned/scripted politician. That's it. No smoking gun, no nothing.

Here's the thing that keeps getting glossed over in all of this: the private email server vs. State Dept. email server doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the handling of classified information. If the email server had been in the hands of the State Dept. from the outset (something which HRC had actually been going for and requested the NSA's help with, but was turned down...so she ended up using a private server that was setup by the secret service for Bill), it would have still been public/non-protected. It's a PUBLIC EMAIL SERVER -- not part of the protected network. That's just how the inter tubes work. The whole non-scandal was about auditing -- having access to the emails to check up on her. Ostensibly, there's the possibility for real-time audits within gov't-controlled systems...with data exfiltration controls...but those _still_ don't exist on the State Department's public-facing systems....so the sole difference between her running her emails through the State Dept. systems and her private systems is auditing and data preservation...which the State Dept. is pretty bad about historically. As it stands, all of the emails that she sent have been analyzed (including the deleted 33k -- they were primarily personal or duplicates of emails previously turned over). The extent of the improper information? Those ( C ) connotations in some of the emails that were sent to her (and which she replied to). The content of those emails? Call notes. Which become immediately declassified as soon as the call happens or is set to happen (the nature of the State Department's work).

Depends on what you mean. There has been some alteration by Wikileaks (or other parties involved during/after the hacking of the accounts) in order to make them look worse than they are. One of them was attributed to Bloomenthal in the leaked email but was actually written by a Newsweek author (IIRC) -- so they know that tampering has been going on at that level. One of the earlier outcries on the email scandal referred to Clinton instructing State Dept. staffers to "remove the paper" or some such from classified documents so that they could be sent externally (as they were required in short time frame). Early outcries stated that this was an example of her instructing someone to remove the classified headers and send classified information out...but that's not what it means -- the parlance used meant to remove the classified information so that the document could be sent...which is proper procedure.

I probably didn't explain what I'm getting at too clearly. I'm going with the assumption that she's "guilty" of everything she's been accused of/investigated for. It's either that, or you have to take the massive number of accusations and level of investigation into account when looking at any singular issue that you think she may actually be guilty of....which I fear is too brief of a statement to make sense....so I'll try to elaborate. Case 1: she's guilty of all or most of the things she's been accused of. She's just powerful enough or good enough at politics to get away with them. This isn't a matter of the ends justifying the means, it's just a very powerful (competent) politician. One who is able to do whatever they want. Worrying concept until you look at her record -- "whatever she wants" appears to be generally good. Fighting for child welfare, education, fairly balanced tax plans, even a relatively pragmatic approach to international politics that combined both US interests and diminishing of conflict. Of particular note is that you don't find a track record of evil or corrupt/self-serving acts. Case 2: she's innocent of all or most of the things she's been accused of. This changes things substantially. If she's not getting away with all of this stuff because she's just that powerful, then it means that the investigations and scrutiny that she has faced have legitimately tried and failed to turn up any actionable indiscretions on her part. Which is kind of extraordinary -- it means she is fundamentally honest in a way that we don't give many politicians credit for. It changes how you look at any individual accusation/investigation. The email scandal has to be viewed not from the perspective of someone too powerful to take on, but from the perspective of someone who has been accused time and again by opposition politicians looking for something that they can use to take her down. Everything was examined (yes, even the deleted 33k)...and they couldn't find anything actionable. Personally, I find Case 2 more plausible. On the email side, a local friend used to work with the NSA in classification and has had some interesting input into what constitutes an actionable breach. It puts the FBIs statements in perspective and makes them understandable -- not as "she's too powerful to take down" but more exactly what they said, "she didn't perform any actions which should be prosecuted, though she was extremely careless in her handling of sensitive information". He went over far worse instances of mishandling (by far less powerful individuals) which were not actionable.

Note: Admin hat is _off_ for this post. I'm curious about feedback on what I would consider a "different take" on the arguments against Clinton. I'm assuming that Trump's inability to fulfill pretty much any of the requirements for office are obvious at this point...I'm looking to address just Clinton. Full disclosure: I started out thinking/stating that she was a poisoned candidate -- someone who didn't have the political wherewithal to avoid the pitfalls and accusations that had been leveled at her over the years. I formally withdraw that statement...and, in fact, reverse it. But that's not the point of this post. Those who like HRC don't need my encouragement. This is about those who despise her -- those who think she's gotten away with murder/espionage/etc. Fact: she's been accused of many things. She's been investigated more than just about any other politician or candidate for the presidency. Other fact: she hasn't been found in criminal or prosecutable violation of anything. You know this because she hasn't been prosecuted. Other other fact: her general ratings in any given capacity (First Lady, senator, Secretary of State) at the end of her time in the office have been very good. That's our starting point. Let's go with the apparent belief of those that hate HRC -- that she's gotten away with everything because she's just too powerful. Too connected. She has too many friends in power. Leaving aside everything and just taking that at face value, wouldn't that make her the most powerful politician we know of? She knows that she can get away with anything (according to some, including murder), and she does. I'm not even going to bother arguing what's been actually found...let's just go with that -- she knows that she can get away with anything she wants and she has done so routinely throughout her career. Regardless of the validity of that assumption, if we go with that we have to take her as a ridiculously powerful force in politics. The likes of which we have never seen before. That's scary. Particularly if she's out for evil. So we have to ask ourselves what she's after....and the only thing we have to look at is what she's actually fought for, what she's done. What she's gone after in her time as First Lady, congresswoman, and Secretary of State. Remember, she knows that she can get away with whatever she wants...since she's been doing that for 30 years. Her record throughout her time in politics has her fighting for child welfare and education first and foremost. Hmm...doesn't sound so evil. She's not as far left as Sanders...more left of center than anything else. But is that a bad thing? Again, let's assume that everything that's been said is correct and she's actually that good -- she's good enough to get away with everything that she's been accused of, despite years and millions of dollars of concerted effort to investigate her. If she's that good at getting what she wants...and what she wants is something as innocuous as child welfare and education (and women's rights)....how exactly does that make her unfit? Her accusers say that she just wants power. So what? Let's say that that's all she's after. If her way of getting power is fighting for (and getting) things that benefit those of us who most need it, is that a bad thing? Do those of you who hate her think that she's been playing a 30 year "long game" just to get into the White House (again) so that she can show her true colors and kill of the American Dream?

You can follow the instructions in this thread to properly associate .jar files with Java on your system...or you can google "jarfix" to find a small app that will take care of that for you.

Pretty sure that would be a quick route to "Most Hated Man in America" status... ...still tempting...

And...we're now losing Marcus from the discussion. READ. THE. RULES.

Among many other things, yes.

This is not up for discussion.

Easy way to handle this one. Welcome to moderation. Will be followed by banning if you continue down this route.

Not on this

Really? Let's review since you apparently haven't been paying attention. 1. He has repeatedly stated that he wants to ban Muslims from immigrating. Including refugees...especially refugees. He has painted an entire religion as evil and a problem. 2. He has stated that Muslim communities in the US should be faced with increased policing. 3. He has stated (through Christie) that one of his first actions in office will be to root out government employees and posts that were appointed by Obama and replace them with those friendly to him. 4. He has based his entire campaign on an appeal to anger, hatred, and bigotry. 5. He has stated his approval of the Japanese internment camps in WWII. ...the list goes on. The parallels with Hitler's rise have been remarked on by VASTLY more intelligent and knowledgeable folks than myself. Do a little research. Relying on government opposition to prevent the formation of internment camps or other atrocities is a blindness to any form of moral obligation that I can't even fathom.

You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him? You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged? What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again." That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant. The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred. And oppose them.

Statements early on from the IRS is that they don't do anything in terms of preventing or discouraging the release -- that's entirely on Trump and his legal advisors.

It would also help to look at the responses at the time. This would have blown over almost immediately for Trump if he/his campaign had simply issued a mea culpa and moved on. Their continual denial and mental gymnastics on the matter are just making it continue to be a thing long past the point that it needs to be (and yes, we've seen that in the past on the Democratic side -- Clinton and Lewinski)

Yeah...problem with that: Obama stated (and Patrick verified) that they had shared the quotes prior to Patrick's speech -- i.e. Obama had shared the quotes with Patrick and they both used it. That's not plagiarism. You'd be better referencing Biden during his presidential bid...and he dropped out of the race because of it.

That came out largely during Comey's testimony before Congress....along with the whole misreporting/misunderstanding of "stripping the classified headers from documents" thing -- I think the parlance used was "remove the paper", which apparently is a standard term in diplomatic circles for removing the classified information and sending out the document. In other words, perfectly normal and acceptable operation.

The auto-formatting performed by the server on the ( C ) designator (spaces inserted to prevent it in this case) brings up still more issues with the "she should have known before replying" arguments.

A couple of things that continue to bug me about the arguments regarding Clinton's email server: 1. The issue was over her use of a personal email server vs. an email server maintained by the State Department. Any discussion of the emails sent is meaningless from this perspective -- they would have been the same from a State Department server. The State Department's email server is not connected to protected networks (they're air-gapped). The only thing you're dealing with is ease of audit and backup. 2. The emails that were recovered from Clinton's server(s) that contained classified information were sent by others. Clinton replied to them. In particular, they apparently contained classified information which was designated by © in the text - making it entirely within reason that Clinton either did not see the designator or grok its significance (particularly when going through things on her blackberry). Regardless your feelings on the previous statement, I find it difficult to see how you can even consider faulting Clinton and wanting to see prosecution but not looking to the originator of the email chain. Even when looking at the originator of the email chain, you lack required demonstration of either intent to harm the US or "gross negligence". Which means that you're left with the option of disciplinary action (which is taken by that person's superior and presumes that they are still with the State Department).

If the law for speed limits stated that you needed to show either intent to cause harm (modifying US C 793 here) or gross negligence, then no you shouldn't. But that's not how the speed limit laws and regulations are written.

You won't get one -- you'll just get removed from this thread (potentially the NGD as a whole) and placed in the moderation queue for the foreseeable future. You have the rules. If you choose to continue to push the bounds, you'll suffer the same consequences that others have. This is the last post I'll make on this and I would STRONGLY SUGGEST that you follow suit.

Put slightly differently: Clinton was authorized to have the classified information that she placed in her emails. She was authorized to send that information to the individuals she was communicating with. Finally, she was authorized to send that information via the communication channels that were utilized (i.e. unsecured email). She was (in Comey's words) extremely careless in her decision to use a personal server as the origin point of those communications, but the communications themselves were not an issue.

OK...I think I see where the confusion is: lack of understanding of the nature of the communications channel itself and the impact that has on the ability/likelihood of prosecution. I alluded to this previously in my data at rest statement. If you have a system that is a secured system meant to store classified information, there are controls around that system to both limit access to that information only to those qualified to access it, limit the ability of individuals to modify that information, and the limit the ability of individuals to move that information to a non-secured environment. Take Snowden as an example -- he took classified information from controlled systems and transferred it onto USB drives (and other devices) with the clear and demonstrated intent of providing it to non-qualified individuals. Regardless of your opinions of his actions as a whistleblower, this meets all definitions for prosecution. With email, you're dealing with something else entirely -- it's not data at rest. Clinton did not take files from a controlled/air-gapped system, move them to her personal server, and then send them out. She communicated (wrote emails containing) classified information. Even this is not a problem - it's the nature of her job at the time. That she used a personal server to do this means that one end of the email chain was not under direct control of the government -- everything after the sending server is exactly as it would have been at any other time. The concern this raises is that her personal server _may_ not have been as well-protected as the State Department systems (though they found no evidence of a compromise to the servers, while the State Department systems were compromised during the same timeframe). The main issue this raises is one of an audit trail or accountability -- it is more difficult for the government to maintain a full audit trail of the communications. Not impossible -- and this is the nature of what the FBI did (which was pretty impressive)...they reconstructed the audit trail for her email traffic. In more detail than you would likely get from the State Department systems. The best non-technical example I can give is similar to the one used above: you have someone making a phone call to an individual outside of the US. The person knows classified information and is authorized to discuss it with the person she is calling. While they have apparently taken precautions to ensure that their own phone is not compromised or monitored, they are not calling from a functionally identical phone within the State Department. This means that there is some concern that the originating phone may not be as secure as it could be. Everything after the originating phone is still exactly as it would be in any other case: the lines of communication between the two individuals could still be monitored in either case, the receiving phone could be compromised and/or monitored in either case, or the receiving individual could be compromised and/or monitored in either case.

That is actually very false, a fact that is corroborated by Director Comey in his statement. Which of the following are you alluding to: 1. Director Comey lied when he said that while Clinton's actions were extremely careless, there was no precedent for prosecution given the facts and evidence (and that there is precedent for the opposite, hence his recommendation) 2. Director Comey is misinformed and you or the public sector has better information