News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[russ_watters]

Good op-ed in everyone's favorite right wing rag about hairsplitting the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness":
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...reless-his-recommendations-make-no-sense.html

Since I'm not shocked by the outcome, it does tickle me (more than anger me) to see Hillary supporters fall all over each other to proclaim just how stupid Hillary is -- and how ok that is!

I should start a meme or two...

 

[RonL]

As a last act, will the president just simply make a pardon ? I think I have seen it happen in the past.

 

[phinds]

As a last act, will the president just simply make a pardon ?

Pardon who for what?

 

[RonL]

Hillary, but I guess she is without blame at this point, statement withdrawn :)

 

[Dr Transport]

A search of a residence by authorities will, but an inadvertent trip home and back to secure storage the next day, later reported, probably not.

True, but taking home a document then returning it the next day and self reporting is still a violation, and the company I used to work for is now using that as grounds for immediate dismissal, it helps them reduce staff. In that world right now, any security violation will pretty much get you fired and your clearance yanked.

 

[mheslep]

Yes of course, loss of clearance and or termination. The question was about something else entirely, criminal charges.

Companies can be a bit conflicted with security violations. They don't want them to happen or course, but when they take action they're also obligated to report the statistics back to DoD or whoever granted them access. If they report too many, the agency can yank their ticket to have any classified material at their facility.

Former AG Mukasey has an op ed today in which he cites examples of former prosecutions of mishandling classified material:

...And although the FBI may not have been involved, there are indeed reported felony prosecutions of soldiers for putting copies of classified documents in a gym bag and then not returning them out of fear of discovery; placing classified documents in a friend’s desk drawer and forgetting them; tossing documents meant to be destroyed in a dumpster rather than in the appropriate facility...

 

[Dr Transport]

Yes of course, loss of clearance and or termination. The question was about something else entirely, criminal charges.

Yes, but top secret documents were mishandled, every case I know of outside of this one the person was arrested and charges brought forth... I have seen it happen and at least one of the individuals that I know is in prison for it.

The individual(s) who sent those documents to that server at bare minimum should be charged under the appropriate statutes. I suspect that this isn't the end of it, there will be charges leveled in some of the state department employees who initiated the emails.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, but top secret documents were mishandled, every case I know of outside of this one the person was arrested and charges brought forth... I have seen it happen and at least one of the individuals that I know is in prison for it.

I personally know a field tech who took a hard disk, large back in the day, with classified data on it from the office lab out to to a field test under a tight schedule, without any kind of authorization, where the data was required to calibrate the equipment the company was developing, probably in the same way as had been done routinely inside the secure facility. Later he was honest (and cranky) about what he had done when asked the question, "have you ever mishandled ...". Lots of yelling but no criminal consequences.

... I suspect that this isn't the end of it, there will be charges leveled in some of the state department employees who initiated the emails.

There is no shadow government, no secondary FBI to fulfill the role you suggest with the passive tense with "there will be...". It's over with respect to criminal culpability for data going in/out of Clinton's servers.

 

[Evo]

Just the ones we know of. I truly can believe that she was not tech savvy enough to understand and believed it when told that using a private email server, and not using public email would be ok.

All the Other Times a Politician Avoided Official Email

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on the defensive ever since the New York Times first reported that she used a private email account for government business.

But Clinton is hardly first government official to breach the public’s trust in this way. Here is a quick review of other officials .

Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state, Politico, March 2015
Since news of Clinton’s use of private email for White House business broke, an aide to Colin Powell says he “might have occasionally used personal email addresses” to correspond with staff and officials during his tenure as Secretary of State[1].

Continued

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...r_secretary_of_state_is_hardly_the_first.html

Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state

Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.

“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers.

Clinton allies have maintained that the presumed Democratic presidential front-runner’s use of a personal email account was not out of step with how former secretaries used email to conduct work related to the State Department.

“Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials,” said Nick Merrill, spokesman for Clinton, in a statement.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...email-secretary-of-state-115707#ixzz4DfYJDUja

 

[russ_watters]

Just the ones we know of. I truly can believe that she was not tech savvy enough to understand and believed it when told that using a private email server, and not using public email would be ok.

1. She claims she was told it was OK, but has produced no evidence to support that. At the same time, she was also told it was not ok.

2. Having the private server was merely a starting point - an enabler: the felonies she committed were based on using it to mishandle classified documents. We wouldn't be having this conversation if all she did was use it to handle non-classified business.

3. Colin Powell has not even been accused of the crimes in #2. His actions were not, as far as we know, equivalent to hers.

 

[mheslep]

4. Colin Powell never assembled a staff of lawyers to delete his old emails, and to do so in such a way as they were completely obliterated (per the FBI), not just tossed into the trash bin.

 

[Evo]

1. She claims she was told it was OK, but has produced no evidence to support that. At the same time, she was also told it was not ok.

2. Having the private server was merely a starting point - an enabler: the felonies she committed were based on using it to mishandle classified documents. We wouldn't be having this conversation if all she did was use it to handle non-classified business.

3. Colin Powell has not even been accused of the crimes in #2. His actions were not, as far as we know, equivalent to hers.

I'm not saying it was "OK", I'm saying I can believe that she could be "clueless"

4. Colin Powell never assembled a staff of lawyers to delete his old emails, and to do so in such a way as they were completely obliterated (per the FBI), not just tossed into the trash bin.

5. Why would he have to?

I'm also not saying that some emails weren't intentionally deleted to hide things she didn't want known, now THAT I disapprove of and THAT I can believe. Now ask me if I think that Trump hasn't done shadier things in business deals.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not saying it was "OK", I'm saying I can believe that she could be "clueless"

Highlighting the Slate article on Powell in response to the Clinton story suggest her case is similar. It is not.

5. Why would he have to?

He did not. Clinton should not have. Government officials are required, since a while before Clinton, to maintain their records. One reason is to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. It was FOIA that triggered the demand for Clinton's emails. Her legal team then destroyed many of them, claiming them personal, and then turned over what they said was all of the work email.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm saying I can believe that she could be "clueless"

I've heard this elsewhere too and I still find it disturbing that our next president knows almost nothing about basic digital security when WW3 may very well be digital.

 

[RonL]

Having served as a government employee for a number of years, the tests and certifications that must be taken and renewed on a regular basis by everyone that is issued a computer, completely eliminates the excuse of not knowing what was wrong or being in the dark, by lack of knowledge.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Having served as a government employee for a number of years, the tests and certifications that must be taken and renewed on a regular basis by everyone that is issued a computer, completely eliminates the excuse of not knowing what was wrong or being in the dark, by lack of knowledge.

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

 

[mheslep]

I've heard this elsewhere too and I still find it disturbing that our next president knows almost nothing about digital security when WW3 may very well be digital.

If that was the case, it would not bother me in the slightest given a healthy respect for the rules and sufficient judgement to delegate to those that do understand. FDR couldn't have had the slightest notion of how atomic weapons worked but the US program went ahead with gusto.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If that was the case, it would not bother me in the slightest given a healthy respect for the rules and sufficient judgement to delegate to those that do understand. FDR couldn't have had the slightest notion of how atomic weapons worked but the US program went ahead with gusto.

The entire world is a digital network. The atomic bomb was a pretty isolated technology.

 

[RonL]

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

Someone else might beat me to to it, but I'll see what I can come up with, the government has a pretty serious firewall, the very reason for a private server.

 

[Evo]

The entire world is a digital network. The atomic bomb was a pretty isolated technology.

McCain didn't even know how to use a computer, his wife, daughter and aides had to read him e-mails, there are members of the NSA that don't use e-mail.

Some NSA Friends in Congress Admit They Don’t Use Email

Leading national security hawks Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., likely agree. The duo admit they don’t use email.

"I don't email at all," McCain told the National Journal last week. "I have other people and I tell them to email because I am just always worried I might say something. I am not the most calm and reserved person you know.”

Graham, on the other hand, appears never to have caught up with the Internet revolution. “You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one,” Graham told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program Sunday.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...friends-in-congress-admit-they-dont-use-email

 

[axmls]

MCCain didn't even know how to use a computer

The quote you posted does not indicate that he didn't email because he didn't know how, but that he didn't email to avoid accidentally sending something he would regret. I imagine this is common, because if something bad does get out, they can always use the "it wasn't me" excuse.

 

[Evo]

The quote you posted does not indicate that he didn't email because he didn't know how, but that he didn't email to avoid accidentally sending something he would regret. I imagine this is common, because if something bad does get out, they can always use the "it wasn't me" excuse.

I posted this earlier.

John McCain 'technology illiterate' doesn't email or use internet
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has admitted that he never uses email and that his staff has to show him websites because he is only just "learning to get online myself".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-illiterate-doesnt-email-or-use-internet.html

John McCain Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/03/john-mccain-doesnt-know-how-use-computer-video

 

[jim hardy]

"I don't email at all," McCain told the National Journal last week. "I have other people and I tell them to email because I am just always worried I might say something. I am not the most calm and reserved person you know.”

Do i ever understand "foot in mouth syndrome" !
That he recognizes his temperament and copes with it raises my esteem for McCain.

Maybe Trump should tap him for public speaking coach.

edit - oops, off topic... sorry

 

[Evo]

Anyway, we're getting sidetracked. I wanted to say I came across an article in Politico that might prove that the missing emails that were deleted from Hillary's servers were indeed "personal, and it's shameful if true.

But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-us-russia-bilateral-presidential-commission of https://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/pmdainitiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”

What could explain this lack of emails on the Russian Nuclear Agency? Were Clinton’s aides negligent in passing along unimportant information while ignoring the far more troubling matters concerning Rosatom? Possibly. Or, were emails on this subject deleted as falling into the “personal” category? It is certainly odd that there’s virtually no email traffic on this subject in particular. Remember that a major deal involving Rosatom that was of vital concern to Clinton Foundation donors went down in 2009 and 2010. Rosatom bought a small Canadian uranium company owned by nine investors who were or became major Clinton Foundation donors, sending $145 million in contributions. The Rosatom deal required approval from several departments, including the State Department.

continued..

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...server-investigation-fbi-214016#ixzz4DfkPjGvU

This lowers her closer to Trump's level, just not as crazy.

 

[mheslep]

...
This lowers her closer to Trump's level, just not as crazy.

That would be the case ... if Trump was for sale as the article suggest for Clinton, and he had been investigated by the FBI for criminal action and coming very close to being indicted.

Trump has own nonsense, nonsense, really nonsense.

 

[RonL]

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

This is a start point, maybe why 7 million + and two years of wading through everything produced so little. But anyone given a government computer is required to do the tests.

https://www.dhs.gov/topics

 

[Astronuc]

Do you have a link to more information on these tests and certs?

I would expect that specific training programs and certs are not publicly available, however, there is a requirement for training of those using federal information systems.


Subpart C—Information Security

Responsibilities for Employees who Manage or Use Federal Information Systems
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 4118; Pub. L. 107–347,
116 Stat. 2899.
SOURCE: 69 FR 32836, June 14, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/214650.pdf
5 CFR Ch. I (1–1–12 Edition) § 930.301 (while it is he 2012 edition, the paragraph dates to 2004).

 

[CalcNerd]

I am kind of sickened by my choices for President. I will openly admit, of the top three republicans, the best man won (Trump, Cruz, Rubio-couldn't even win Florida-that says something). Sadly, they were the top three! Hillary is very lucky to have such competition, as if any decent and qualified candidate were running against her, she would be the one lagging far behind in the polls. I may very well end up casting my vote based upon who they select as their Vice President.
.
However, onto Hillary: She doesn't live in the same world as any of us or even a typical cabinet member even. Remember, she is the wife of a former President, WHO has had secret service protection for nearly a quarter of a century (and the last president to get secret service protection for life)! Her home may be every bit as secure as her office. So her keeping a server at home, which would be negligent for the everyday Joe (or any of us), doesn't register (or probably actually apply) to her.
.
You can certainly find plenty of dirt on Hillary at "Skeletons in the closet" website about past political presidential contenders. Not sure if the website admin has updated for this election (probably has several more volumes of information to add for both of our contenders!).
.
President Obama won his first election on a Change, Change, Change jingle. And yet he kept the Patriot Act, kept Gitmo open, kept using drones, in fact he increased drone strikes, doesn't sound like Change, Change, Change to me. Yeah, we got ObamaCare, but it seems like the insurance companies now have Uncle Sam enforcing health care and insurance upon us (admittedly, something had to be done, but I suspect it was done and implemented to benefit Corporate insurance companies and not for the benefit of our Citizenry).
.
Well Trump might actually be the REAL DEAL! However, he might also light up a few countries too. Do you really want to dump the Devil you know for the Devil you Don't? Trump has a large group of the republican party wetting their pants. Aside from a dedicated Anarchist, can anyone feel comfortable with Trump? He has made statement after statement that he would do this or do that. Admittedly, it is talk and that may be part of his election strategy. But it bothers me. Can a President survive on misdirection? And the press may be cooking the books, so to speak, trying its best to give Hillary the election (well aside from Faux News, that is), selectively quoting out of context, the press is good at that!
.
Today's press has been brow beaten and kowtowed to the point of nearly being unrecognizable by our press decades ago. Fortunately, they don't hold back on potential candidates.
.
As for the FBI and their ending their investigation, perhaps there is a conspiracy. They know who Donald is too. Perhaps they had to decide if they really wanted to make him their next Commander in Chief or "roll the dice". I know I would have preferred a dice roll myself and leave it in the hands of the people (who will be the real losers in this election, regardless of the winner).

 

[Astronuc]

Why Comey decided not to indict Clinton

"For an indictment you need probable cause, but prosecutors and investigators are looking for far more. You're looking down the road at a substantial likelihood of success at trial that's beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-fbi-director-comey-didnt-140432047.html

Interesting analysis.

 

[mheslep]

Hosko suggests, as have some others, that Comey did not want to be the fulcrum upon which the 2016 election swings, that the electorate should decide. I'm not sure this was Comey's rationale, though I can sympathize with that motivation.

The problem is that it suggests important politicians are above the law, that they are too valuable. I'm more inclined to put the burden back on the Democratic electorate, that they should have put up a candidate not under threat of indictment. The consequence of these passes, if that's what this was, is that it will encourage more lawlessness. There is already enough mindset among high level polls that they can do and say whatever they want, that they'll get a pass.

Reid, Romney tax smear with no libel vulnerability

...When asked about critics who said his smear of then-Republican presidential candidate Romney echoed the tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, he brushed them off and said with a smile, "Romney didn't win, did he?"

Pelosi, is the Obamacare mandate constitutional (decided by 1 vote in SCOTUS): "Are you serious"?