Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by ed » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:32 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote:Yet why did Comey publicly exonerate her? Since when does the FBI do such a thing? Had it ever before?
1) He didn't. He just didn't recommend charges.
2) All the goddamn time.
3) See above.


The only thing I can recall in this regard was the poor fucker who was identified as a person of interest in the Atlanta bombings years ago. He tried to get the feds to finally admit that he was not a person of interest any more and he had a damn hard time making them fess up.

Can you tell me a case where the director of the fbi (or even a minion) said similar things about a less guilty well known person?
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1720 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by Grammatron » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:37 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote:
Does the relevant statute demand "intent"?
Somewhere above I get into this. It demands "gross negligence," which as a legal term is both misplaced in criminal law and archaic in the sense that modern statutes tend to define their own terms. A general principle is that ambiguity in a criminal statute is to be resolved in favor of the accused.

So "gross negligence" requires some level of willfulness, and that wasn't present in this case.

Clinton wasn't known for her IT skills. She was in that office from 2008-12, which is a while ago in common knowledge of computer security years, and she was secretary of state, not secretary of information technology.
Since when does ignorance of the law makes one innocent? The time period, 2008-12 was not the early years of the internet. Cyber security was already well established and Federal Government had training and guidelines with well defined penalties.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13861
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 337 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by WildCat » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:38 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:Clinton wasn't known for her IT skills.
Her IT skills seem to depend heavily on whether or not having them makes her look bad or good.

[youtube][/youtube]

But apparently she knew enough to smash her phones with hammers and use BleachBit on her server when Congress asked for access.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19830
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed
Has thanked: 572 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by Rob Lister » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:49 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:Clinton wasn't known for her IT skills. She was in that office from 2008-12, which is a while ago in common knowledge of computer security years, and she was secretary of state, not secretary of information technology.
That argument is so weak that it turns the rest of your better arguments on their head. Understanding the rules for classified--or just sensitive--material was absolutely core to her position. If she did not know them, she had no business there. Same for her previous position as senator.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:51 pm

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote:Yet why did Comey publicly exonerate her? Since when does the FBI do such a thing? Had it ever before?
1) He didn't. He just didn't recommend charges.
2) All the goddamn time.
3) See above.
On the other hand what Comey did was not ordinary course of FBI procedure.
Well, probably. Thing is, any deviation was to the detriment of Hillary Clinton. Had he just quietly forwarded the recommendation rather than turn into a frightful attention whore about the whole thing, the election may well have been different.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:58 pm

Rob Lister wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Clinton wasn't known for her IT skills. She was in that office from 2008-12, which is a while ago in common knowledge of computer security years, and she was secretary of state, not secretary of information technology.
That argument is so weak that it turns the rest of your better arguments on their head. Understanding the rules for classified--or just sensitive--material was absolutely core to her position. If she did not know them, she had no business there. Same for her previous position as senator.
This isn't about whether she did something that she shouldn't have out of foolishness. It is about whether it is a crime.

If this a civil suit seeking damages for provable harm caused by a data breach, it would win. It isn't.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:06 pm

Grammatron wrote: Since when does ignorance of the law makes one innocent?
That isn't the claim being made. If I slam a door open and it hits you in the face, my being ignorant of you being on the other side is legally important. That isn't ignorance of the law...

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by ed » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:13 pm

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
US Code

a-c are not particularly relevant.

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Not relevant

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
Read with respect to Hillary. Read (g) with respect to anyone who know about her server.

Seems pretty clear.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:16 pm

WildCat wrote:
But apparently she knew enough to smash her phones with hammers and use BleachBit on her server when Congress asked for access.
Even without getting into the at best distorted factual implications, this is a stupid argument from incredulity.

lol

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by ed » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:18 pm

(f) & (g) particularly refer to Huma and her Weiner. Why did the feds not sweat her? I am sure that there are others. I am sure that the fat little fuck that set up the server could have been sent up the river unless he flipped. What exactly dd they do to get to the bottom of the mess?

Shit, I could have done a better job. Easy peasy.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:31 pm

ed wrote:
Seems pretty clear.
I don't see what you are getting at. Conspiracy might not mean what you think it does. It requires an agreement to commit a crime, and that does nothing at all to reduce the required mental state of the underlying crime.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by ed » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:44 pm

Tell me where I am going wrong:
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense
This is what Hillary had, no? Also Huma, presumably.
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,
We come to the nubbin here. Are Hillary and her acolytes so ignorant of what they were dealing with that they had no business occupying the positions that they held?
willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,
The fat fucker had no clearance. Neither did the Weiner. And who had access to the server in her house? The maid? The carpenter? Who?

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence
Gross negligence. Is that a legal term of art?

Here is a definition I found:
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... negligence

Can you seriously argue that Hillary was not grossly negligent? If so, could you find a definition that supports that contention?
permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,


I must be missing something. Seems to me that Hillary and any number of her people could be charged under this Title. At the very least the feds could do what they do so well to obtain their conviction rates: stack charges and squeeze. They didn't. And that is a miscarriage. IMHO of course. (but I AM the rhino of the Florida swamps)
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1720 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by Grammatron » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:20 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote: Since when does ignorance of the law makes one innocent?
That isn't the claim being made. If I slam a door open and it hits you in the face, my being ignorant of you being on the other side is legally important. That isn't ignorance of the law...
If you want to make that analogy, then it's more like: you slam a door open and it hits me in the face after ignoring multiple signs that informed you the door WILL hit people in a face if you slam it, attending training on the importance of not slamming the door and why it's dangerous to do so. Then you ignore all of that and habitually slam the door until someone gets knocked the fuck out from your slam.

Maybe you're not a criminal, but you are incompetent and don't care about consequences of your actions.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1720 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by Grammatron » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
This isn't about whether she did something that she shouldn't have out of foolishness. It is about whether it is a crime.

If this a civil suit seeking damages for provable harm caused by a data breach, it would win. It isn't.
It's about 2 things actually. First thing you've covered that it's not a crime.

The second thing, would any other person working for government be afforded the same courtesy in a similar matter?

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67548
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3394 times
Been thanked: 2157 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by Doctor X » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:09 pm

Grammatron wrote:The second thing, would any other person working for government be afforded the same courtesy in a similar matter?
Indeed.

Whether they would or not does not matter given the appearance as detailed above: actual investigators openly working for her interests, changing the findings, her behavior that changed depending on the circumstances, all suggest a resounding "no."

And enough of the "babe in the woods" excuses: people working for the State Department on the level of I Deny You Your Visa You Foreign Hippy Scum have known about levels of classification of e-mails . . . for . . . decades.

She wanted, as always, to control access and the eventual narrative. She also continues to woefully misunderstand appearances.

Now, there are other matters going on: the continued investigations from both sides keeps the wounds open. It is to the Republican interest to keep showing how corrupt the Obama Administration appears with regards to selective investigation, prosecution, et cetera. To keep hammering the Clintons. With sentence fragments.

It is to the Democrat interest to keep claiming that Trump and Putin stole the election.

In the rain.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
AL Champions!!!

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by ed » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:27 pm

Doctor X wrote:
She wanted, as always, to control access and the eventual narrative.
--J.D.
That is the nubbin precisely. She damn well knew she was going to run for president and she wanted the "glory" of being sec state without ANY exposure to any troublesome counterpoint. How to do that? Pass communications thru a filter.

She also continues to woefully misunderstand appearances.
With respect, no. She perfectly well understands appearances. She simply thinks that she is above such mundane concerns. I think that when she gets slammed she is completely surprised. And, frankly, I think that that surprise is as close as you will ever get to an authentic peek at Hillary Clinton.
eta maybe we are saying the same thing.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13861
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 337 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by WildCat » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 pm

Hillary told the FBI she thought the "C" on classified material meant "put this in alphabetical order". She clearly lied, yet wasn't charged.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... were-meant
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:49 pm

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote: Since when does ignorance of the law makes one innocent?
That isn't the claim being made. If I slam a door open and it hits you in the face, my being ignorant of you being on the other side is legally important. That isn't ignorance of the law...
If you want to make that analogy, then it's more like: you slam a door open and it hits me in the face after ignoring multiple signs that informed you the door WILL hit people in a face if you slam it, attending training on the importance of not slamming the door and why it's dangerous to do so. Then you ignore all of that and habitually slam the door until someone gets knocked the fuck out from your slam.

Maybe you're not a criminal, but you are incompetent and don't care about consequences of your actions.
I don't want to make the analogy to argue the ultimate merits. We could fuck around that forever. The point was to differentiate between ignorance of the law and ignorance of relevant facts.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:06 am

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
This isn't about whether she did something that she shouldn't have out of foolishness. It is about whether it is a crime.

If this a civil suit seeking damages for provable harm caused by a data breach, it would win. It isn't.
It's about 2 things actually. First thing you've covered that it's not a crime.

The second thing, would any other person working for government be afforded the same courtesy in a similar matter?
Any? Yes. Every? Who knows. We don't know all that much about people who were not charged. The "gross negligence" section as far as I know has been charged only once, the facts in that case were absurdly extreme, and that case pled out to something else. Other people may have pled to that section as a plea to a greater charge because they didn't want to admit something or whatever.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Post by RCC: Act II » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:16 am

ed wrote:Tell me where I am going wrong:
I kinda covered this in the sense that there was no intent. The definition for gross negligence that you cited requires that the person violating the standard of care be fully aware of the standard of care and know they are violating it.

There was no evidence of that. There are a lot of theories and suspicions and stuff, but that is what Comey, in the end, was saying.

As to the first one I really don't get the factual references.