News Hillary Clinton Running for President

[Bystander]

Anyone buying her sincerity?

 

[cellurl]

So, that she is not associated with astroturf is a positive for her. Ok, I agree, I like her and hope she wins, I can't think of anyone that is as qualified as she is.

I don't see the difference between Hillary possibly exposing TOP SECRET information in her emails and Edward Snowden exposing possibly TOP SECRET information.

 

[lisab]

I don't see the difference between Hillary possibly exposing TOP SECRET information in her emails and Edward Snowden exposing possibly TOP SECRET information.

Really? You equate improper handling of secrets with purposely exposing secrets (possibly with intent to become famous)?

 

[cellurl]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

 

[WWGD]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

She acted irresponsibly, no doubt, maybe illegally, but do you have any reason to believe that either she intended to aid the enemy or that the(an) enemy benefitted from the situation?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, the intent is everything here, which is why what Snowden did was treason, while what Hillary did was just reckless (at most a moderate felony). I see no evidence to suggest ill intent and no evidence to suggest the recklessness actually resulted in harm.

 

[mheslep]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

No mens rea with respect to interests hostile to the US.

 

[WWGD]

No mens rea with respect to interests hostile to the US.

I would say no _womans_ ' rea, to be precise ;) (though some have questioned even _that_ about Hillary. The whole questioning got started when someone misunderstood the statement that Hillary "was not born a broad ".)

 

[cellurl]

She acted irresponsibly, no doubt, maybe illegally, but do you have any reason to believe that either she intended to aid the enemy or that the(an) enemy benefitted from the situation?

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Snowden's position was that some things that the US government declared a secret shouldn't be secrets. Interestingly, some of Sec. Clinton's defenders (although not Sec. Clinton herself) are using the exact same argument in her defense: "Oh, the government classifies lots of things that aren't really all that secret".

 

[Bandersnatch]

Snowden's position was that some things that the US government declared a secret shouldn't be secrets.

Having recently watched 'Citizenfour', I find that a poor representation of his motives. I'd say it was more about the government officials publicly lying about what they're doing. About how invasive their surveillance programs are. He certainly did not take it upon himself to decide what should and what shouldn't be kept secret - that's why he went to the press with his revelations instead of publishing the data in bulk.
If anything, one could say that he wanted government lies not to be swept under the rug, which is a very much different stance.

 

[WWGD]

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

Sorry, I was just dealing with (my limited understanding of ) the formal legalities on whether Hillary violated the law .

 

[russ_watters]

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

Sometimes treason and patriotism overlap -- indeed, patriotism is a pretty common reason (excuse?) for treason. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of his action, he still did something that was clearly damaging to the USA, at face value. The law does not concern itself with 'doing harm to do good', it stops at 'doing harm'.

The same issue exists with stealing food because one is hungry.

 

[Evo]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

Yes, the difference is that Snowden acted intentionally, he intended to commit an act of treason without concern for the harm it could cause. No more of this nonsense comparing the two unless you happen to have acceptable sources that show this. Please read the "current event" rules before posting, such claims are not allowed in this forum, even if it was just an effort at a bad joke. When I have time, there may be some thread cleanup needed to bring the thread back to the guidelines.

 

[WWGD]

Sometimes treason and patriotism overlap -- indeed, patriotism is a pretty common reason (excuse?) for treason. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of his action, he still did something that was clearly damaging to the USA, at face value. The law does not concern itself with 'doing harm to do good', it stops at 'doing harm'.

The same issue exists with stealing food because one is hungry.

But this definition of treason:
"The betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by purposely a consciously acting to aid its enemies"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

I am not sure Snowden's action fall under it. Even more complicated is the fact that, AFAIK, it was the press and not Snowden who published the data. He allegedly did try to raise concern internally before going public, which makes it harder to argue he was trying to defend or aid its enemies. I am neither defending nor condoning his actions, I am just not sure they fall under what I believe is the legal definition of treason. . And I don't think h has been tried, even in absentia.
EDIT: But you may have been talking in a less formal sense.

 

[russ_watters]

But this definition of treason:
"The betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by purposely a consciously acting to aid its enemies"

I am not sure Snowden's action fall under it.

I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see it. Snowden "purposely and consciously" undermined intelligence activities designed to protect the USA, "acting to aid its enemies."

To keep this tied to Hillary: again, the difference is intent, but the reason Hillary's actions are still pretty bad and potentially punishable by prison time. For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/petraeus-to-be-sentenced-for-leaking-classified-material/
David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information as part of aiding a biographer (who he was sleeping with...). He probably didn't even intend for the information to get out and certainly didn't intend harm to come to the US, but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail. His actions and Hillary's as pertains to her giving her lawyer a copy of her emails appear to me to be roughly equal. I see a wide range of potential outcomes for Hillary, from nothing to jail time.

Even more complicated is the fact that, AFAIK, it was the press and not Snowden who published the data.

For Snowden or Hillary, no, it really doesn't. The crime starts and ends with the initial disclosure of the classified information to unauthorized people. Yes, it is possible that the people it is disclosed to commit their own crimes - and in the case of the media, that can be complicated - but it doesn't have much impact on the person disclosing it.

He allegedly did try to raise concern internally before going public, which makes it harder to argue he was trying to defend or aid its enemies.

Nobody is claiming he wanted to aid the USA's enemies, only that he did aid the USA's enemies. It doesn't matter if he was legally or morally right in what his objection was, he still did it.

It is also worth noting that Snowden did not narrowly focus his efforts. He may have disclosed as many as 1.8 million documents. He went after the program he didn't like by undermining it directly - instead of just exposing its existence, he released its results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

Look, I was in the Navy and for a time an officer candidate. We took ethics and morality classes in addition to attending weekly (monthly?) seminars outside of the normal classes. The issue is clearly a really big deal in the military because there is a push-pull particularly with officers between responsibility for following orders and responsibility for upholding the Constitution. We were taught that an officer is duty-bound not to follow an illegal order. Refusal to follow an order is alone a difficult thing that can get you courtmartialed. Hopefully, the court recognizes that the order was illegal. But there is still a huge gulf between refusing to follow an illegal order and refusing to follow an illegal order and then telling the enemy about it.

 

[Evo]

I'm still shocked that Hillary would do something like this. She knew better. I didn't work for the government but worked with the government in clandestine and covert operations. I knew to never post about or copy communications to an non-secure server/network that wasn't on a private network. I can't even really say what I did. but it was an eye opener. I had no idea what really went on and I am proud that these things happened.

But I don't know that anyone else would be any better. I think once these people find out the truth, their minds kind of break down. And I only know a TEENSY WEENY bit of some side operation.

 

[WWGD]

<Snip>. I had no idea what went really went on and I am proud that these things happen.

?

 

[Evo]

?

I am under a ton of documentation not to disclose anything.

 

[WWGD]

I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see it. Snowden "purposely and consciously" undermined intelligence activities designed to protect the USA, "acting to aid its enemies."

To keep this tied to Hillary: again, the difference is intent, but the reason Hillary's actions are still pretty bad and potentially punishable by prison time. For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/petraeus-to-be-sentenced-for-leaking-classified-material/
David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information as part of aiding a biographer (who he was sleeping with...). He probably didn't even intend for the information to get out and certainly didn't intend harm to come to the US, but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail. His actions and Hillary's as pertains to her giving her lawyer a copy of her emails appear to me to be roughly equal. I see a wide range of potential outcomes for Hillary, from nothing to jail time.

For Snowden or Hillary, no, it really doesn't. The crime starts and ends with the initial disclosure of the classified information to unauthorized people. Yes, it is possible that the people it is disclosed to commit their own crimes - and in the case of the media, that can be complicated - but it doesn't have much impact on the person disclosing it.

Nobody is claiming he wanted to aid the USA's enemies, only that he did aid the USA's enemies. It doesn't matter if he was legally or morally right in what his objection was, he still did it.

It is also worth noting that Snowden did not narrowly focus his efforts. He may have disclosed as many as 1.8 million documents. He went after the program he didn't like by undermining it directly - instead of just exposing its existence, he released its results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

Look, I was in the Navy and for a time an officer candidate. We took ethics and morality classes in addition to attending weekly (monthly?) seminars outside of the normal classes. The issue is clearly a really big deal in the military because there is a push-pull particularly with officers between responsibility for following orders and responsibility for upholding the Constitution. We were taught that an officer is duty-bound not to follow an illegal order. Refusal to follow an order is alone a difficult thing that can get you courtmartialed. Hopefully, the court recognizes that the order was illegal. But there is still a huge gulf between refusing to follow an illegal order and refusing to follow an illegal order and then telling the enemy about it.

I can see (extremely) poor judgement and recklessness , but not intent.
EDIT: Never mind, I get your point.

 

[WWGD]

I am under a ton of documentation not to disclose anything.

Don't worry, I saw a few guys in trench coats (in 95 deg weather)) and dark glasses hinting at their guns staring after me, right after I replied.

 

[Evo]

Don't worry, I saw a few guys in trench coats (in 95 deg weather)) and dark glasses hinting at their guns right after I replied.

It was bad, well, what I did was bad, but he lived. That's all I can say.

 

[mheslep]

David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information ... but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail.

Close. Two years probation and $100K.

 

[jim hardy]

I'm still shocked that Hillary would do something like this. She knew better.

Darn tootin' she did, her husband had to pardon John Deutsch for the exact same thing. (Deutsch liked Macs.)

Lapse of judgement ?

 

[Astronuc]

Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far
http://news.yahoo.com/far-legal-experts-see-no-criminal-trouble-clinton-154607712--election.html

Good news (so far) for Hilary, I guess. It certainly is not clear or apparent that classified information was delivered to an unauthorized person, which would be a clear violation, but only that classified material (some of which was unclassified at the time) was delivered to, stored on and transmitted from an unsecure server. I would have expected a person in her position to know about certain subject matter.

 

[mheslep]

Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far
http://news.yahoo.com/far-legal-experts-see-no-criminal-trouble-clinton-154607712--election.html

Good news (so far) for Hilary, I guess. It certainly is not clear or apparent that classified information was delivered to an unauthorized person, which would be a clear violation, but only that classified material (some of which was unclassified at the time) was delivered to, stored on and transmitted from an unsecure server. I would have expected a person in her position to know about certain subject matter.

A more accurate summary of the article would be that, according to Ken Dilanian of AP, Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases, indicates there is yet no clear proof of criminal wrong doing.

 

[gravenewworld]

I do not understand the appeal of Hillary at all. She is the biggest phony of all time and won't hesitate to sell herself out at all if it is what the audience wants to hear or if it will get her votes (fake southern accents anyone?). How would she sell out the country then if she were in charge if she has no problem faking her way around?

I'm not even a conservative hack, but do not like Hillary. I've voted Dem my whole life so far, but Hillary is toxic.The presidency and government should also not be controlled by 2 powerful families.

 

[Hepth]

If history teaches us anything, its that this will all blow over. People don't discuss it much now, but something similar but much much worse happened during the Bush presidency : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Its quite surprising that 88 administration officials had RNC accounts, used them for business (some), the emails were deleted allegedly with the RNC knowing they needed to keep them, and no one was really charged with anything. Not trying to derail, just keeping things in perspective.

 

[jim hardy]

"Hoisted on your own petard". Occupational hazard in politics?

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton says she didn't 'stop and think' about email setup - Er, What!?
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-she-didnt-stop-think-email-setup-070132231--election.html