Obama 'guarantees' he will not interfere with Clinton email investigation

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Apr 11, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Of course he won't. He'll have Valerie Jarrett do it.

    That should have been Chelsea Manning's defense: "There's classified, and then there's classified." :D

    The President is saying that Hillary storing TS/SCI information on her home server is no big deal because hey, it's all open source anyway. However, intelligence reports are classified TS/SCI not because of the information they contain but because they reveal sources and methods which are certainly not "open source."


     
  2. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    what for if he can just pardon her if she gets convicted?
     
  3. kch50428 macrumors 6502

    kch50428

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Location:
    North Iowa
    #3
    The same president promised we could keep our doctors and insurance, and everything would be cheeper... We have president Joe Isuzu.
     
  4. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    I would pardon the **** of her if I was Obamer.
     
  5. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #5
    As long as this has been going on, I think all we're seeing is someone trying to drag out the controversy for election season. The FBI investigation should've been done in two months, their evidence long since handed over to the justice department.

    Now I know the usual excuse for the delay is usually something like "HILLARY IS A SLIPPERY EEL", but, you know, mishandling classified information is a pretty straightforward thing. Either you did it, or you didn't. The only argument she could present would be to claim the documents in question were retroactively classified, which can be easily countered.

    I've long since been of the opinion that, like Benghazi, this is political theater.
     
  6. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #6
    I doubt the F.B.I. is dragging for political purposes, but if they are it's hard to see why as it's only hurting Hillary. It is hard to grok why it's taking so long, though.
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    You know, when the GOP witch hunt has been going on longer than any investigation in US history (longer than the 9/11 commission, the Watergate investigation, the Warren Commission, etc.) you have to wonder...why is that exactly? Now what's interesting is in getting to the bottom of Benghazi they haven't interviewed one CIA personal, be it someone that was there or in charge of the place.

    God, I wonder if maybe this is just a political hit investigation swindling millions in taxpayer dollars?

    I'm no fan of Hillary...at all. But this entire thing has been a ****ing charade.
     
  8. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    How do you figure the GOP is responsible for the endless FBI investigation? FBI is part of the executive branch.
     
  9. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #9
    According to Hillary it is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    Giving the FBI the benefit of the doubt, they could just be triple checking everything, making sure they've dotted their i's, and crossed their lower cased j's.

    But considering that being incredibly sloppy with classified information you're granted access to while passing it along to other authorized individuals isn't a criminal offense, they'd be doing a lot of work for very little. Plus, there's the fact that if there were evidence of an actual information leak to outside sources, it'd have been smeared across every media outlet in the country by now.

    I'm more inclined to agree with NT's take on things above.
     
  11. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    Benghazi? Yes. This ? If they ever make 3+ investigations then yes, for now let them make sure they do indeed do a thorough investigation and be done with it
     
  12. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    Occam's Razor would suggest that they are simply taking extra care because this is a political hot potato. However, criminal acts may have occured: Hillary's people emphasize that nothing she received was "marked" classified which makes me believe that the FBI is investigating whether someone stripped the classification headers before passing it to Hillary. Wouldn't be Hillary's fault but still embarrassing if her aides did it and it's a felony.
     
  13. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #13
    The thing is, the FBI has all the evidence right in front of them. Even if they were taking their time, it shouldn't take this long to come up with a good reason for an indictment.

    I mean it's been, what? A year now? What are they doing, limiting themselves to reading 50 pages a day?
     
  14. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    Depends on what the aides were told. Perhaps she instructed them to do so
    --- Post Merged, Apr 11, 2016 ---
    What "evidence" since she managed to delete plenty of it?
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    Manning took information from classified systems and then worked to publish them, first through the Washington Post and the New York Times, and then to Wikileaks.

    On the other hand, Clinton apparently passed information during an emergency that may or may not have been classified (there's distinct arguments about this) using her personal email server to aides at the State Department.

    Again, without the documents, we can only make guesses, but it seems clear that HRC did not send a document marked TS/SCI, but rather discussed an evolving event.

    For those who don't understand the differences:

    Let's say that I have a source, who tells me via a secure network, that in six days Apple will release the iPad Pro. They say they have this information via an engineer at Apple, who worked on the project and that they got this information to me using a veiled video on Wikimedia commons.

    Now, two days before the iPad Pro is about to be released, MacRumors and Wall Street Journal release articles that the iPad Pro is forthcoming and they have their own video of the new device.

    Can I write to a friend that I'm going to buy the new iPad Pro? Or, have I exposed classified information?

    That's the crux of the argument. Did HRC's email to aides expose TS/SCI documents? Or, did she talk about something, using her unclassified email, that was widely known?
     
  16. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #16
    Exactly. Under any circumstance there is no clear reason why this is taking so long. Complicated financial crimes are dealt with in a much shorter time.

    Unless she's a total moron she knew that that data was classified with or without headers so the first time she saw it she should said "stop!" However, unless someone flips and says that Hillary ordered them to do it, she'll skate.
     
  17. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    Even if she did tell her aides to strip the classified markers off an email before sending it to her, it's still not criminal, since everyone involved has clearance to see them. The problem is sending classified information over unsecured networks, which is easily enough to get someone ****canned and blacklisted (if they weren't Hillary), but wouldn't risk any jailtime without a leak.

    It's the digital equivalent of leaving top secret documents sitting next to the toilet while you host a party. So long as no one touches it, it's not a felony. But goddamn if you're not dumb for being that cavalier with state secrets.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 11, 2016 ---
    That an aside, since if the FBI had reason to believe she deleted anything incriminating, they'd be using it against her.
     
  18. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    I don't think she ordered them to do it. It was probably more a case of underlings trying to do anything to make things easier for the boss. However, at some point somebody deliberately moved the data across the air gap between unclassified and classified systems. That is a felony no matter what was or wasn't stripped or what clearances everyone possessed.
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    Admittedly, we're talking about the minutiae of things I don't know that much about. Though I've always been working under the impression that so long as it's being sent to those with the proper clearance, it's not a felony. Sending classified information over insecure channels is in an entirely different legal world from actively and purposefully leaking.
     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    It doesn't really matter. As head of the department she does not need classification markings, and she is required to recognize the secrecy of the document. If she received a potentially top secret document without warning anyone, and she also stored it outside of the department's control, then she's guilty.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 11, 2016 ---
    Yes, mishandling of classified info is a potential felony.
     
  21. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #21


    Not necessarily.

    If someone at the State Department received a classified e-mail; and wanted to consult Secretary Clinton about it, that person could refer to the general subject matter of the classified e-mail. Or refer her - in the e-mail - to a non-classified source that covered the same information.

    And thats pretty much exactly what happened in at least some of the e-mails that were later upgraded to "classified." A State Department aide informed Clinton about a report, filed by a US Consular official on a speech former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had made in Africa. The original Consular report was classified. But the text of Blair's actual speech had been published in
    several newspapers.

    Why is the investigation taking so long?

    To begin with there is the sheer volume of email communication. Some fifty thousand or more. Each of which has to be examined on several grounds: Was it classified when sent? Does it contain information that should now be considered classified? What were the circumstances under which it was sent; by whom and to who. And if so, does the totality of those circumstances add up to an indictable offense. For more than fifty thousand documents, some of which probably run to several pages. Many of which require review from security-cleared and briefed personnel at various different agencies (State; DoDd; White House; NSA; CIA; etc. etc.) - before being passed on to similarly security-cleared lawyers at the FBI and Justice Department.

    And its the sort of job nobody wants to screw up on.
     
  22. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    Yes but that's not the case. DoS already said that they can't publish some of the emails under FOIA, not even in part, due to their classification at the highest secret levels.




    That is irrelevant for administrators.

    Yeah. I am actually glad that the FBI it's taking its time.
     
  23. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #23


    But not for prosecutors or, theoretically, Jurors.

    Because the US Constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecutions, prosecutors would have a very hard time convicting someone of simply passing on publicly-available information if the content of that data was later deemed to be classified. They would instead have to argue that the person transmitting the data not only knew (or should have known) that the information was so highly sensitive as to be potentially classifiable, and that moreover they knew that transmitting it to the United States Secretary of State was going to greatly risk it falling into the wrong hands.

    In the larger sense, I think the case - both legally, and from a political standpoint - against Hillary Clinton or her staff would be a lot stronger if it could be shown that the e-mails actually had been compromised. If they had been disseminated by Wikileaks or Anonymous. If the FBI or CIA or whoever was alleging that Clinton's private server had actually been successfully hacked by the Chinese, or the Iranians, or the North Koreans.

    So far none of that has been alleged. That doesn't mean to say it didn't happen. It doesn't mean the FBI doesn't know about it. But, so far at least, we've had no indication that there was any leak of classified material. No reports that intelligence assets were compromised or that diplomatic initiatives were scuttled because of Hillary's Massapequa server being hacked.
     

Share This Page