In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
He is saying the Washington has shitting IT policies for security as a whole and Clinton is the poster child. These emails were sent by people and some of them might have known she used a private servicer. Someone set it up.
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
Dude are you kidding me right now? There has to be proof it caused harm for you to care?
And how in the world would you prove there could have been harm *without* doing an investigation. LOL, wtf???
No, I am not. This shit has been going on for like 4-5 years now and Republicans have straight up said on the news “look how we hurt her credibility in the polls with the email investigation.” On TV, out loud. You don’t get to spend this much time and money investigating something and tell me no one was hurt, it was just a bad practice, but we think our main political rival and maybe candidate for president should go to jail for it. I wasn't born yesterday.
In 4-5 years the Republicans have not suggested a way to update the requirements, rules or anything to prevent the issue with in the future. All they care about is discrediting Clinton. So yeah, I stopped giving a fuck until they can prove to me that someone was hurt by those rogue emails.
Just like how all the new abortion laws are not about women's health.
Or the voter ID laws are not about non-existent voter impersonation.
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
He is saying the Washington has shitting IT policies for security as a whole and Clinton is the poster child. These emails were sent by people and some of them might have known she used a private servicer. Someone set it up.
yeah pretty much. like at my workplace proper IT and security is emphasized fairly heavily-- i do some financial stuff for the company, so basically if i leave my computer i have to lock it. and i got yelled at for connecting my phone to our secure network when the public one was down, lol.
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
He is saying the Washington has shitting IT policies for security as a whole and Clinton is the poster child. These emails were sent by people and some of them might have known she used a private servicer. Someone set it up.
The policies already exist. The policies just aren't enforced and nobody follows them apparently.
Anybody who received an email from Hilary and didn't report that secret information was being sent in an insecure fashion is also to blame, but good luck explaining to old people what the difference between NIPR and SIPR is.
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
He is saying the Washington has shitting IT policies for security as a whole and Clinton is the poster child. These emails were sent by people and some of them might have known she used a private servicer. Someone set it up.
yeah pretty much. like at my workplace proper IT and security is emphasized fairly heavily-- i do some financial stuff for the company, so basically if i leave my computer i have to lock it. and i got yelled at for connecting my phone to our secure network when the public one was down, lol.
Note that nobody said anything when Hillary used her own server, and she used it for years. You could tell, it was in her email address from what I gather. And previous secretaries used their own emails. Something about the State Department not really caring about whose servers you run your emails through. I have talked to people who worked in DOD style stuff and info security on emails is a big deal. But I don't think that culture was going on at state. From what I have read of this, it doesn't look like Hillary thought she was doing anything wrong using her own email server instead of a state provided email server.
For months, reporters and political operatives (including me) have been pointing out that Ben Carson’s campaign bears many of the hallmarks of a political scam operation. Now Carson seems to agree. On CNN on Tuesday, Carson discussed his year-end staff shake-up:
“We had people who didn't really seem to understand finances," a laughing Carson told CNN's Poppy Harlow on "CNN Newsroom," adding, "or maybe they did—maybe they were doing it on purpose."
It’s a remarkable statement—especially because he’s so blithe about it.
Carson has taken in incredible amounts of money during the race. His campaign has raised more than any other Republican presidential rival, though they’ve raised more when super PACs are included. But he’s also spent more than any of them, so that despite his prolific fundraising, he has barely $4 million in cash on hand.
That’s because Team Carson has been plowing a huge portion of the money it raises back into fundraising, using costly direct-mail and telemarketing tactics. Pretty much every campaign uses those tools, but the extent to which Carson was using it raised eyebrows around politics. First, many of the companies being paid millions and millions of dollars are run by top campaign officials or their friends and relations, meaning those people are making a mint. Second, many of the contributions are coming from small-dollar donors. If that money is being given by well-meaning grassroots conservatives for a campaign that’s designed not to win but to produce revenue for venders, isn’t it just a grift?
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
He is saying the Washington has shitting IT policies for security as a whole and Clinton is the poster child. These emails were sent by people and some of them might have known she used a private servicer. Someone set it up.
The policies already exist. The policies just aren't enforced and nobody follows them apparently.
Anybody who received an email from Hilary and didn't report that secret information was being sent in an insecure fashion is also to blame, but good luck explaining to old people what the difference between NIPR and SIPR is.
Enforcement is important. We have it at my firm for PII. If the Republicans were trying to solve a problem and make top secret information more secure, I would be all for it. But I have never heard anything but them pushing for criminal charges against Clinton or asking her to explain an attack on an embassy like she somehow is field commander for security decisions for it. These hearings are wildly unpopular for a reason. Not that the Republicans pay attention to polls like that.
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
He is saying the Washington has shitting IT policies for security as a whole and Clinton is the poster child. These emails were sent by people and some of them might have known she used a private servicer. Someone set it up.
yeah pretty much. like at my workplace proper IT and security is emphasized fairly heavily-- i do some financial stuff for the company, so basically if i leave my computer i have to lock it. and i got yelled at for connecting my phone to our secure network when the public one was down, lol.
My work is absolutely paranoid about information security, virtually to the point of treating employees as criminals (we literally have to pass through a metal detector on our way out of the office).
Ironically, a lot of that security gets in the way of actually doing my job, so I find ways to circumvent it. It is actually ridiculously easy; and if I was trying to sneak out confidential info, instead of stuff that got encrypted for no fucking reason at all, it would be completely trivial.
On February 25 2016 02:12 oneofthem wrote: not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
Agreed. As I have pointed out, there is clearly a lot of bipartisan support for more protectionist policies. This is a huge change in the political paradigm of this country.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large.
I agree with all of this in terms of some of the potential consequences of America turning to a more mercantilist trade stance. In fact, there are some chilling similarities between today's economic and political environment and the environment that existed immediately prior to and during the Great Depression.
The problem, however, is that Sanders and Trump are generally correct in asserting that the US -- particularly main street -- is getting the shaft from these trade policies. Only the economic and political elite in the US are benefiting from America's subsidizing the rest of the world in the current world order. This is obviously a big problem, and one that is not easily fixed.
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
1. Because foreign governments that may or may not have known about the server will not act on the intel obtained until its useful, in such a situation proving proximate cause without a defector (who would never be disclosed to the public as that also would be top secret) is nearly impossible. This is like a member of the order asking to expose what the Death Eaters were saying in private meetings, the only way to know is to have a Snape. And you don't burn Snape.
2. The person who received the "top secret" emails was Clinton. They were sent by Clinton aides (such as Huma Abedin), those people are also under investigation. No one outside this "circle" sent or received classified info from the Clinton private server.
3. The correspondences sent from the Clinton server, outside the "circle" are basically exactly similar to those of Sec. Powell's use of his private email, State Department-only correspondence. As Powell (or Clinton) was head of State at that time, he was in charge of determining whether State Dept correspondence is classified. Thus, even if there is info that people might consider Confidential (no one has suggested any of his is even Secret or Top Secret level info, but it would still apply then) he can merely deem it not to be and only the President (Bush) would have the authority to override that determination.
4. However, Clinton's aids sent her information that had been originated and designated classified by other departments (DOD, CIA, etc) so she doesn't have similar authority.
Honestly, I think you have intentionally avoided facts in this situation.
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I'm also aware that people have been slinging dirt at the Clintons in general forever, which is why I'm trying to keep an open mind about the whole situation.
But I don't feel it necessary to prove substantive harm in order to recognize that there's a problem. I don't see "everyone does it" as a viable excuse, more an acknowledgement of the failings of the systemic security integrity.
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
He is saying the Washington has shitting IT policies for security as a whole and Clinton is the poster child. These emails were sent by people and some of them might have known she used a private servicer. Someone set it up.
yeah pretty much. like at my workplace proper IT and security is emphasized fairly heavily-- i do some financial stuff for the company, so basically if i leave my computer i have to lock it. and i got yelled at for connecting my phone to our secure network when the public one was down, lol.
You and I have already discussed that we share somewhat similar roles within our companies, so I'm definitely familiar with that stuff. Win+L has been ingrained in my soul and I die a little every time I lock my home PC when I get up.
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
1. Because foreign governments that may or may not have known about the server will not act on the intel obtained until its useful, in such a situation proving proximate cause without a defector (who would never be disclosed to the public as that also would be top secret) is nearly impossible. This is like a member of the order asking to expose what the Death Eaters were saying in private meetings, the only way to know is to have a Snape. And you don't burn Snape.
2. The person who received the "top secret" emails was Clinton. They were sent by Clinton aides (such as Huma Abedin), those people are also under investigation. No one outside this "circle" sent or received classified info from the Clinton private server.
3. The correspondences sent from the Clinton server, outside the "circle" are basically exactly similar to those of Sec. Powell's use of his private email, State Department-only correspondence. As Powell (or Clinton) was head of State at that time, he was in charge of determining whether State Dept correspondence is classified. Thus, even if there is info that people might consider Confidential (no one has suggested any of his is even Secret or Top Secret level info, but it would still apply then) he can merely deem it not to be and only the President (Bush) would have the authority to override that determination.
4. However, Clinton's aids sent her information that had been originated and designated classified by other departments (DOD, CIA, etc) so she doesn't have similar authority.
Honestly, I think you have intentionally avoided facts in this situation.
Yes, and after all of these, they found 22 emails with top secret information. They were not labeled, they just had language that matches language in top secret documents and they might have been flagged within the text. But how is this helping me or making me safer? Is there a larger investigation into how wide spread this issue is? Is it limited to Clinton? Was it the practice before Clinton and she just continued it? Why wasn't she informed by the state departments legal team this wasn't legal? Do other people in congress have this problem as well? Anyone in congress receiving secure emails on their not approved Ipad?
This is my problem. Its been known for years that Washington's IT security is terrible and their policies are bad. It was talked about when Obama took office and they found lots of external hard drives and old PCs. But the solution isn't the goal here.
Top Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to continue blocking President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court ahead of November’s presidential election, even if Obama chooses the Republican governor of Nevada to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, is among the Supreme Court candidates under White House consideration, according to two people familiar with the selection process. Some key Democrats view Sandoval as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
But after The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election on Tuesday, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.”
The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday he would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval because he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of party.
Top Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to continue blocking President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court ahead of November’s presidential election, even if Obama chooses the Republican governor of Nevada to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, is among the Supreme Court candidates under White House consideration, according to two people familiar with the selection process. Some key Democrats view Sandoval as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
But after The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election on Tuesday, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.”
The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday he would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval because he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of party.
If they don't cave on this before the inauguration, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
You'd be pleasantly surprised when Republicans don't do their job? Not surprised at all. So called establishment candidate Marco Rubio did plenty nothing while senator. No wonder he's liked so much.
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
1. Because foreign governments that may or may not have known about the server will not act on the intel obtained until its useful, in such a situation proving proximate cause without a defector (who would never be disclosed to the public as that also would be top secret) is nearly impossible. This is like a member of the order asking to expose what the Death Eaters were saying in private meetings, the only way to know is to have a Snape. And you don't burn Snape.
2. The person who received the "top secret" emails was Clinton. They were sent by Clinton aides (such as Huma Abedin), those people are also under investigation. No one outside this "circle" sent or received classified info from the Clinton private server.
3. The correspondences sent from the Clinton server, outside the "circle" are basically exactly similar to those of Sec. Powell's use of his private email, State Department-only correspondence. As Powell (or Clinton) was head of State at that time, he was in charge of determining whether State Dept correspondence is classified. Thus, even if there is info that people might consider Confidential (no one has suggested any of his is even Secret or Top Secret level info, but it would still apply then) he can merely deem it not to be and only the President (Bush) would have the authority to override that determination.
4. However, Clinton's aids sent her information that had been originated and designated classified by other departments (DOD, CIA, etc) so she doesn't have similar authority.
Honestly, I think you have intentionally avoided facts in this situation.
Yes, and after all of these, they found 22 emails with top secret information. They were not labeled, they just had language that matches language in top secret documents and they might have been flagged within the text. But how is this helping me or making me safer? Is there a larger investigation into how wide spread this issue is? Is it limited to Clinton? Was it the practice before Clinton and she just continued it? Why wasn't she informed by the state departments legal team this wasn't legal? Do other people in congress have this problem as well? Anyone in congress receiving secure emails on their not approved Ipad?
This is my problem. Its been known for years that Washington's IT security is terrible and their policies are bad. It was talked about when Obama took office and they found lots of external hard drives and old PCs. But the solution isn't the goal here.
1) What I bolded is necessitated by how the systems work. Huma doesn't get a Top Secret doc from the CIA in an inbox and forward it to Hillary. She needs to transcribe the information from either A) A physical (paper) document; or B) The screen of a classified computer (which runs on a different network than a normal computer). What this is evidence of is the tedium required to do what they did.
2) Whether or not it makes you safer is, probably no. Because the information is already leaked, or not. Forward looking it certainly does if it spurs changes. Whether there is a large scale investigation is related to whether the bureaucracy is going to hold itself accountable. It is actually in their interest to slow-walk the investigation and keep the spotlight on Clinton, so your average State employee doesn't get investigated. The best case (for the bureaucracy) is to run out the clock, get Hillary elected, and in 8 years people forgot even though you continued to be mostly incompetent.
3) Is it limited to Clinton? Probably, by nature this fact pattern is limited to high-level political appointees in State/DOD. Perhaps also members of the Joint Chiefs, but since those are also mostly lifers they are more likely to already be comfortable using the standard channels. Remember, the main reasons for the private email were 1) Convenience; and 2) Avoiding FOIA.
4) Was it practice? Unknown. Was it legal? Nope. Why did no one inform her it wasn't? She wasn't sending emails to them.
5) Congress. Highly unlikely. They don't have nearly the access in this way. They aren't allowed to possess the "classified network" computers because unlike the SOS they don't have security details.
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
1. Because foreign governments that may or may not have known about the server will not act on the intel obtained until its useful, in such a situation proving proximate cause without a defector (who would never be disclosed to the public as that also would be top secret) is nearly impossible. This is like a member of the order asking to expose what the Death Eaters were saying in private meetings, the only way to know is to have a Snape. And you don't burn Snape.
2. The person who received the "top secret" emails was Clinton. They were sent by Clinton aides (such as Huma Abedin), those people are also under investigation. No one outside this "circle" sent or received classified info from the Clinton private server.
3. The correspondences sent from the Clinton server, outside the "circle" are basically exactly similar to those of Sec. Powell's use of his private email, State Department-only correspondence. As Powell (or Clinton) was head of State at that time, he was in charge of determining whether State Dept correspondence is classified. Thus, even if there is info that people might consider Confidential (no one has suggested any of his is even Secret or Top Secret level info, but it would still apply then) he can merely deem it not to be and only the President (Bush) would have the authority to override that determination.
4. However, Clinton's aids sent her information that had been originated and designated classified by other departments (DOD, CIA, etc) so she doesn't have similar authority.
Honestly, I think you have intentionally avoided facts in this situation.
Yes, and after all of these, they found 22 emails with top secret information. They were not labeled, they just had language that matches language in top secret documents and they might have been flagged within the text. But how is this helping me or making me safer? Is there a larger investigation into how wide spread this issue is? Is it limited to Clinton? Was it the practice before Clinton and she just continued it? Why wasn't she informed by the state departments legal team this wasn't legal? Do other people in congress have this problem as well? Anyone in congress receiving secure emails on their not approved Ipad?
This is my problem. Its been known for years that Washington's IT security is terrible and their policies are bad. It was talked about when Obama took office and they found lots of external hard drives and old PCs. But the solution isn't the goal here.
1) What I bolded is necessitated by how the systems work. Huma doesn't get a Top Secret doc from the CIA in an inbox and forward it to Hillary. She needs to transcribe the information from either A) A physical (paper) document; or B) The screen of a classified computer (which runs on a different network than a normal computer). What this is evidence of is the tedium required to do what they did.
2) Whether or not it makes you safer is, probably no. Because the information is already leaked, or not. Forward looking it certainly does if it spurs changes. Whether there is a large scale investigation is related to whether the bureaucracy is going to hold itself accountable. It is actually in their interest to slow-walk the investigation and keep the spotlight on Clinton, so your average State employee doesn't get investigated. The best case (for the bureaucracy) is to run out the clock, get Hillary elected, and in 8 years people forgot even though you continued to be mostly incompetent.
3) Is it limited to Clinton? Probably, by nature this fact pattern is limited to high-level political appointees in State/DOD. Perhaps also members of the Joint Chiefs, but since those are also mostly lifers they are more likely to already be comfortable using the standard channels. Remember, the main reasons for the private email were 1) Convenience; and 2) Avoiding FOIA.
4) Was it practice? Unknown. Was it legal? Nope. Why did no one inform her it wasn't? She wasn't sending emails to them.
5) Congress. Highly unlikely. They don't have nearly the access in this way. They aren't allowed to possess the "classified network" computers because unlike the SOS they don't have security details.
1) Innocent until proven guilty is still a thing. Doing this would be a clear sign of someone willingly breaking all regulations with regards to classified information. It is quite possible that this information was marked classified after the fact, as seems to be the case with a whole load of government documents they don't want to give out under the FOIA. I find that a ridiculous state of affairs, but it is completely separate. Seemingly, it is very hard to even figure out whether these documents were classified at the time Hillary and her aides worked with them.
2) It really depends on what is happening and how widespread it is. If this were a general government thing then you'd expect republicans to be a bit more careful, because it could easily blow out of control. But if this is general practice in the state department, it'd surprise me if it wasn't also general practice in defense and intelligence organizations, which would be pretty big. Even so, this is assuming that something dodgy was happening with classified information in the first place, and that hasn't even been established yet.
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
1. Because foreign governments that may or may not have known about the server will not act on the intel obtained until its useful, in such a situation proving proximate cause without a defector (who would never be disclosed to the public as that also would be top secret) is nearly impossible. This is like a member of the order asking to expose what the Death Eaters were saying in private meetings, the only way to know is to have a Snape. And you don't burn Snape.
2. The person who received the "top secret" emails was Clinton. They were sent by Clinton aides (such as Huma Abedin), those people are also under investigation. No one outside this "circle" sent or received classified info from the Clinton private server.
3. The correspondences sent from the Clinton server, outside the "circle" are basically exactly similar to those of Sec. Powell's use of his private email, State Department-only correspondence. As Powell (or Clinton) was head of State at that time, he was in charge of determining whether State Dept correspondence is classified. Thus, even if there is info that people might consider Confidential (no one has suggested any of his is even Secret or Top Secret level info, but it would still apply then) he can merely deem it not to be and only the President (Bush) would have the authority to override that determination.
4. However, Clinton's aids sent her information that had been originated and designated classified by other departments (DOD, CIA, etc) so she doesn't have similar authority.
Honestly, I think you have intentionally avoided facts in this situation.
Yes, and after all of these, they found 22 emails with top secret information. They were not labeled, they just had language that matches language in top secret documents and they might have been flagged within the text. But how is this helping me or making me safer? Is there a larger investigation into how wide spread this issue is? Is it limited to Clinton? Was it the practice before Clinton and she just continued it? Why wasn't she informed by the state departments legal team this wasn't legal? Do other people in congress have this problem as well? Anyone in congress receiving secure emails on their not approved Ipad?
This is my problem. Its been known for years that Washington's IT security is terrible and their policies are bad. It was talked about when Obama took office and they found lots of external hard drives and old PCs. But the solution isn't the goal here.
1) What I bolded is necessitated by how the systems work. Huma doesn't get a Top Secret doc from the CIA in an inbox and forward it to Hillary. She needs to transcribe the information from either A) A physical (paper) document; or B) The screen of a classified computer (which runs on a different network than a normal computer). What this is evidence of is the tedium required to do what they did.
2) Whether or not it makes you safer is, probably no. Because the information is already leaked, or not. Forward looking it certainly does if it spurs changes. Whether there is a large scale investigation is related to whether the bureaucracy is going to hold itself accountable. It is actually in their interest to slow-walk the investigation and keep the spotlight on Clinton, so your average State employee doesn't get investigated. The best case (for the bureaucracy) is to run out the clock, get Hillary elected, and in 8 years people forgot even though you continued to be mostly incompetent.
3) Is it limited to Clinton? Probably, by nature this fact pattern is limited to high-level political appointees in State/DOD. Perhaps also members of the Joint Chiefs, but since those are also mostly lifers they are more likely to already be comfortable using the standard channels. Remember, the main reasons for the private email were 1) Convenience; and 2) Avoiding FOIA.
4) Was it practice? Unknown. Was it legal? Nope. Why did no one inform her it wasn't? She wasn't sending emails to them.
5) Congress. Highly unlikely. They don't have nearly the access in this way. They aren't allowed to possess the "classified network" computers because unlike the SOS they don't have security details.
1) Innocent until proven guilty is still a thing. Doing this would be a clear sign of someone willingly breaking all regulations with regards to classified information. It is quite possible that this information was marked classified after the fact, as seems to be the case with a whole load of government documents they don't want to give out under the FOIA. I find that a ridiculous state of affairs, but it is completely separate. Seemingly, it is very hard to even figure out whether these documents were classified at the time Hillary and her aides worked with them.
2) It really depends on what is happening and how widespread it is. If this were a general government thing then you'd expect republicans to be a bit more careful, because it could easily blow out of control. But if this is general practice in the state department, it'd surprise me if it wasn't also general practice in defense and intelligence organizations, which would be pretty big. Even so, this is assuming that something dodgy was happening with classified information in the first place, and that hasn't even been established yet.
Personally, I would be perfectly happy with a major shakeup and breakup of DOD, State, etc as a result of this investigation (instead of a Hillary indictment, which changes very little). And I'm sure they need such a massive shakeup because we consistently see problems with ossification with those departments, and even new ones like DHS. The problem is that all these departments are basically monopolies and full of self-interested (like the rest of us) people. But I do think that such an action is unlikely unless a Hillary or another high-level, high profile person gets taken down.
Not to be too conspiracy-theory-ish but Petraus probably got a good deal because his trial would have been a shit show with things like that.
EPT
