That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
I asked because if I have access to classified information, on a secure network, and I email it to you, and you aren't on the secure network, I'm at risk for going to jail, not you.Grifman wrote:Hmm, I would have that it was pretty clear - it was emailed to her. In most cases, maybe even all, it wasn't a document that was attached, it was a classified matter discussed by someone else who wrote the initial email and then it worked its way up the chain to her. She ddin't download a file of classified info, if that's what you are asking.
Congress isn't allowed to go on a fishing expedition to find out whether there's a different investigation happening (or not happening) that's not directly related to the subject of the original inquiry. FBI doesn't report to them. Comey nipped this tangential line of questioning in the bud, just as he should.malchior wrote:I was out doing some yard work a few minutes ago and I recalled there was an actual interesting moment in the Comey inquisition. I don't know if anyone else was watching but at the end Chaffetz asked a question about whether they found anything implicating the Clinton Foundation. This seemed (to me at least) to get under Comey's skin. I don't know if it was supposed to be an off-limits topic, something Chaffetz found out about, or just bluster but Comey's composure changed and Chaffetz started swaying back and forth like he wanted to dig in on it. Maybe it is the poker player in me looking for something but there was something going on there. Comey said he wouldn't answer the question and Chaffetz just moved briskly on with his presen-questioning. Thought that was fairly odd.
Can we get the Supreme court to bitch slap Congress for not hearing the nomination and then have Justice enforce the slap? You'd think there would be something that would prevent a theoretical 4/7th of 1/6th of federal government the whole United States hostage.Smoove_B wrote:Can we open an investigation as to why there isn't a hearing on the Supreme Court nomination that was made 113 days ago? Has Hillary commented on this in any capacity - something meaty not just a, "This is absurd" sentiment?
I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails, and yet rather than following departmental policy and using the departmental email systems, you chose to set up a private server. That would make you a party to whatever infraction occurs.RunningMn9 wrote: In other words, setting up the private email server is against State Dept policy, but is obviously not against the law. If classified information ends up on that server, it's not the responsibility of the person that setup the server. It's the responsibility of the person that emailed classified information to a network or server that isn't designated for classified information.
+1 I'd take that case in a heartbeat.Grifman wrote:I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails, and yet rather than following departmental policy and using the departmental email systems, you chose to set up a private server. That would make you a party to whatever infraction occurs.RunningMn9 wrote: In other words, setting up the private email server is against State Dept policy, but is obviously not against the law. If classified information ends up on that server, it's not the responsibility of the person that setup the server. It's the responsibility of the person that emailed classified information to a network or server that isn't designated for classified information.
It's like digging a hole in a well traveled path and then saying you didn't know someone was going to fall in. They should have looked where they were going. Not my fault!
Umm, I'm not seeing anyone doing that here. I think most would agree that what she did was incredibly stupid, but being stupid isn't generally criminal, or we could arrest most of the Republicans at today's hearingKurth wrote:Say what you want about this whole email fiasco, but I think it's pretty clear that Hillary is by no means innocent of wrong doing. I'm glad she's not being charged (I think that's probably the right call), but don't confuse that with an absolution of guilt. She screwed up here, but because of who she is, to the extent she faces any consequences, they aren't going to be the same as they would be for someone in a lesser position. That's life, and if you are OUTRAGED about it, you're naive.
But let's not confuse that with any proclamations of Clinton's innocence in the matter.
You can argue all you want, it doesn't work like that.Grifman wrote:I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails
What???!?!em2nought wrote:Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.
So you're equating Clinton with the snipers, the protesters with the snipers, or both?em2nought wrote:Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.
Uh, and how many senders would know that Clinton set up a private email server? And if they did know, what do they do if Clinton needs to get a classified email? Just say no to their boss? Or course she's responsible because, she sent up a non-secure private system to receive emails that she should have known would contain classified info, forcing her employees to use it to send her anything. It does indeed work that way, or the FBI director wouldn't have been investigating herRunningMn9 wrote:You can argue all you want, it doesn't work like that.Grifman wrote:I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails
It is the sender's responsibility to not email classified information to an unclassified server.
The hell?em2nought wrote:Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.
I love me some Cracker Barrel.hepcat wrote:That combo wouldn't be able to make either one look sane. If anything, a rip in time and space would be created by their close proximty, sucking in all logic and good taste until this world resembled a Cracker Barrel after 11pm.
Democrats have learned that they're above the law. Laws are only made for law abiding conservatives to follow. Seems like a pretty simple lesson, and it's being learned very easily it seems. Guess what? I've never shot anyone. Go spew your toxic venom on some deserving democrat.LordMortis wrote:The hell?em2nought wrote:Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.
You're a troll. If you really believe what you're saying, you're an idiot.em2nought wrote: Democrats have learned that they're above the law. Laws are only made for law abiding conservatives to follow. Seems like a pretty simple lesson, and it's being learned very easily it seems. Guess what? I've never shot anyone. Go spew your toxic venom on some deserving democrat.
This may be even a bit more esoteric but I see your Hanks and raise you some dinosaurs.Covenant72 wrote:
I don't know what the difference is, but therefore I know which one should have been determined.Texas Sen. Ted Cruz expressed concern Friday over testimony from FBI Director James Comey the previous day on the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, suggesting that Comey’s decision not to recommend charges reflected increased “politicization” in the FBI, claiming the same has been true for the Department of Justice.
“We saw this with the administration’s refusal to effectively investigate and prosecute abuse of the IRS targeting citizens,” Cruz told Glenn Beck on his radio show. “And I’m very concerned that we’re seeing the same thing with the FBI, that we’re seeing leadership of the FBI behaving just as politicized as the Department of Justice.”
...
Pointing to Comey’s testimony about Clinton’s conduct, Cruz said it “described a pattern of breaking the law, and a pattern of repeatedly giving false statements about it, that what she told the American people, that what she told Congress was flat out contradicted by what Comey reported.”
“And yet, the FBI director effectively rewrote a federal statute where in his own words, he said Hillary Clinton was extremely careless with classified information,” Cruz said, offering his explanation for Comey’s reasoning to not bring charges because Clinton did not demonstrate malicious intent.
“Now, the federal criminal law criminalizes gross negligence. I’ve been a lawyer a lot of years. I gotta tell ya, I’m not smart enough to know the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence,” Cruz exclaimed. “And for Comey to say the fact it’s clear she was extremely careless yet the case should not even be brought to a grand jury, I think that raises a very, very serious question about whether the FBI is now behaving more as a political institution than a law enforcement institution, at least its leadership.”
While noting the “many brave and honorable agents” in the FBI, Cruz deemed Comey’s “performance … deeply disturbing.
All of them.Grifman wrote:Uh, and how many senders would know that Clinton set up a private email server?
Not send it to her at an email address that isn't on the classified network.Grifman wrote:And if they did know, what do they do if Clinton needs to get a classified email?
Yes.Grifman wrote:Just say no to their boss?
It doesn't indeed work that way. As I mentioned above, as soon as the classified information hit her system, it immediately becomes her responsibility to contain the spill. She's not responsible for CREATING the spill. The sender has the responsibility to not send classified information outside of a specific classified network (SIPRNet). It doesn't matter if the Secretary of State tells you to do it. You can't do it. Because then YOU are responsible for spilling the information.Grifman wrote:Of course she's responsible because, she sent up a non-secure private system to receive emails that she should have known would contain classified info, forcing her employees to use it to send her anything. It does indeed work that way, or the FBI director wouldn't have been investigating her
Beck is Ted Cruz's most ardent supporter. He still believes Cruz is God's chosen vessel to save America. Failing that, Cruz will lead the small remnant of the faithful who survive the collapse of Clinton's or Trump's America.Isgrimnur wrote: And I thought Glenn Beck had passed from the stage of relevance.
They’ve invested so heavily in the fantasy that Hillary’s one email or utterance away from complete self-destruction that they can’t bring themselves to accept anything less than the highest return. A sunk cost fallacy of power politics and partisan score-settling.
The pattern has become so familiar that reporters now anticipate it. When FBI Director James Comey excoriated Clinton for her sloppy email protocol, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Republicans would peer so deeply into the mouth of the gift horse he’d just given them that they’d pop out the other end.
When Michael Ratney served as the top diplomat in Jerusalem, he found emails with attachments to be a nuisance, the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said. So, at times, he simply got rid of them to keep his inbox from breaching the storage limits.
Retention of emails is largely a matter of server policy, isn't it? Mail relay and spoofing leading to the Retention of million of spams to non existient addresses on even small enterprise servers was a big problem in the late 90s wasn't it?Defiant wrote:If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?
We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?
Yup - any regulated institution I have dealt with has email hold periods of 5-7 years and most have a robust e-discovery team in place to handle investigation requests whether external or internal.YellowKing wrote:We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?
It shouldn't boggle your mind because the lack of retention was certainly intentional and not just some rookie mistake.YellowKing wrote:We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?
To be clear they are (as I understand it) talking about e-mail retention on official State Department e-mails (for the diplomat in Jerusalem) and not Clinton's private e-mail server. I think it's more likely that the lack of retention on that end was due to a shitty IT budget and sloppiness.Scraper wrote:It shouldn't boggle your mind because the lack of retention was certainly intentional and not just some rookie mistake.YellowKing wrote:We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?
I'm not surprised at the sloppiness. If you're a competent IT professional and plugged into the news then you've seen how working for the Federal govt can be a thankless job. Working at less pay than in private sector, with minimal budgets, and always feeling like someone's watching over your shoulder to spot "wasteful spending". Even if you didn't know how crappy it was beforehand, a few years in would be enough to teach you how crappy it is.El Guapo wrote:To be clear they are (as I understand it) talking about e-mail retention on official State Department e-mails (for the diplomat in Jerusalem) and not Clinton's private e-mail server. I think it's more likely that the lack of retention on that end was due to a shitty IT budget and sloppiness.Scraper wrote:It shouldn't boggle your mind because the lack of retention was certainly intentional and not just some rookie mistake.YellowKing wrote:We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?