or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 64

post #946 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So it's your viewpoint that it's up to the sender to understand the legal status and security level of the server being used by the Secretary of State for work emails?

If it isn't a .gov or a .mil account then they should assume that the account is not secure even for unclassified information. Actual working documents to a .com email address is a big no no. If you can't send encrypted unclassified emails to an account then it definitely isn't secure
Edited by Rumpelstiltskin - 7/5/16 at 10:52am
post #947 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I have no idea what "esoteric reading" means in this context - is it related to cultural Marxism?

I (like the rest of the poasters here) haven't reviewed the evidence and thus have no basis to form a solid opinion on whether an indictment was warranted.

I will say that while I'm not friends with Jim Comey, I've worked in some of the same circles for and known him professionally for years. His integrity is beyond reasonable questioning.
But I'm sure you legal experts all know far better.

Cleverly hiding a layer of meaning opposite to the surface narrative, usually because it is not safe to speak the truth directly.

You're of course right that the public has incomplete information this case.. but just take Comey's statement in isolation. He describes H engaging in activity clearly in violation of at least one Title 18 section (that doesn't require intent.)

The reason Comey gave for not recommending indictment amounted to a single sentence in the 20 minute press conference: that a reasonable prosecutor would not bring a case based on the evidence his team reviewed.

I am open to be persuaded of that (especially if there is some kind of high burden of proof for showing harm done), but Comey spent zero time in his press conference trying to do so. Instead he seemed to be constructing a straw man diversion around intent.
post #948 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Cleverly hiding a layer of meaning opposite to the surface narrative, usually because it is not safe to speak the truth directly.

You're of course right that the public has incomplete information this case.. but just take Comey's statement in isolation. He describes H engaging in activity clearly in violation of at least one Title 18 section (that doesn't require intent.)

The reason Comey gave for not recommending indictment amounted to a single sentence in the 20 minute press conference: that a reasonable prosecutor would not bring a case based on the evidence his team reviewed.

I am open to be persuaded of that (especially if there is some kind of high burden of proof for showing harm done), but Comey spent zero time in his press conference trying to do so. Instead he seemed to be constructing a straw man diversion around intent.

I can't speak to Comey's actual reasoning process, of course. But not explaining his analysis in detail is pretty standard. Among other things, the analysis is something that as a general rule would be considered privileged and/or confidential work product. Plus, if I were in his shoes I'd be thinking, among other things: (1) 95% of the people out there hold strong opinions without much regard for the evidence, and giving them more detailed shit to argue about, distort, and misunderstand will serve neither public discourse nor the agency's reputation and credibility; (2) these decisions often involve consideration of facts not only about targets or subjects but about potential witnesses that might be considered private or embarrassing; in a case where you're not moving forward there's less reason to say fuck it and spill all of that; (3) the specific of his case aside, one reason folks in his position rarely explain in detail why they didn't bring this case or that case is that it just provides fodder to defense attorneys to start pulling stuff out of context and arguing "this factor exists in my case, so there's no way you should be prosecuting my guy (or gal)".
post #949 of 3333
Another consideration one might make in deciding whether to prosecute -- something Comey actually mentioned -- would be if the person has been removed from positions of power or authority or trust, so they can't do any more damage in the future. But I'm betting Clinton hasn't agreed to retire.

Speaking of, I am a little fuzzy as to why the FBI is apparently making the decision of whether to prosecute here. I understand they make recommendations, but the considerations we're talking about aren't usually entrusted to law enforcement.

ETA: or maybe Lynch didn't say she absolutely was going to take the FBI's recommendation despite what the media seems to be saying.
post #950 of 3333
Someone edited Comey's Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey
Quote:
James Brien Comey, Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer. He is the seventh and current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is well known for shielding powerful politicians from the law. American justice system is known to be unfair and Comey's contribution in this regard is immense as he protected one of the nation's most powerful and dishonest politicians who accumulated immense wealth after entering politics. Comey's sense of fairness ranks below those of world leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Gaddhafi.

post #951 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Another consideration one might make in deciding whether to prosecute -- something Comey actually mentioned -- would be if the person has been removed from positions of power or authority or trust, so they can't do any more damage in the future. But I'm betting Clinton hasn't agreed to retire.

Speaking of, I am a little fuzzy as to why the FBI is apparently making the decision of whether to prosecute here. I understand they make recommendations, but the considerations we're talking about aren't usually entrusted to law enforcement.

My guess on the latter point would be that the AG's Office and the FBI agreed that FBI would give the press conference, which makes sense (assuming one believes holding a press conference is a good idea to begin with) since Lynch publicly said she'll defer to the FBI's recommendation.

Many U.S. Attorney's Offices have press officers who handle press conferences even thought they're not the actual decision makers, so it's not like the person with the ultimate legal say is always the one who does the 'splainin'.
post #952 of 3333
Guys, guys, guys, relax....she only showed "extreme carelessness" with national security. She deserves a promotion!
post #953 of 3333
Good interview with Giuliani:
post #954 of 3333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

If it isn't a .gov or a .mil account then they should assume that the account is not secure even for unclassified information. Actual working documents to a .com email address is a big no no. If you can't send encrypted unclassified emails to an account then it definitely isn't secure

And then you have the Sec. of State and her lackies tell you to just fucking do it...

So I guess we have a hostile work environment suit to look forward to?
post #955 of 3333
So,

Is this where Lynch comes out and says:

” With all due respect to the FBI, we have decided to exercise our discretion and will proceed to indict Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton for multiple violations of Federal Law ” ?
post #956 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

So,

Is this where Lynch comes out and says:

” With all due respect to the FBI, we have decided to exercise our discretion and will proceed to indict Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton for multiple violations of Federal Law ” ?
Psych! Total Game of Thrones twist.
post #957 of 3333
I watched a few minutes of the Obama/Hillary speech in NC. Apparently Hillary is looking out for the little guy. Obama specifically named some low wage occupations. No mention of how keeping 15-20 million illegals while bringing in more will help the people who are competing against them in the job market.
post #958 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

And then you have the Sec. of State and her lackies tell you to just fucking do it...

So I guess we have a hostile work environment suit to look forward to?

The thing is you can't even send an encrypted email to a non Govt account unless IT has signed off of it (multiple signatures) AND added it to the GAL (Global address book) AND synced a CAC (Common Access Card) to it.

Again receiving classified material is nothing. And I seen nothing accusing Hillary of that. Sending classified information on am unclassified system however is a problem
post #959 of 3333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

The thing is you can't even send an encrypted email to a non Govt account unless IT has signed off of it (multiple signatures) AND added it to the GAL (Global address book) AND synced a CAC (Common Access Card) to it.

Again receiving classified material is nothing. And I seen nothing accusing Hillary of that. Sending classified information on am unclassified system however is a problem

I'm confused.
post #960 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I'm confused.

Phone typo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS