US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1204

On February 06 2019 03:01 Nouar wrote:


https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary R. Clinton Part 01 of 28/view
Page 11 : A notice recommended employees to avoid conducting state business with personnal emails. Then two lines later, a policy requiring those who conduct state business on a personal email to forward a copy to a State address for record-keeping. This is probably why she's not being prosecuted for the private mail server itself.
Page 17 : X had trouble exporting from Mac to Exchange so he sent the whole email archive from Clinton to a personal gmail account. Unskilled, dangerous idiot.
Page 20 : Confidential mails with no distinctive headers, only a (C) somewhere on top the paragraph. And that's why we use plugins like Classify to properly and compulsorily mark emails, since non-tech people are not versed in those and easily confused.
Page 27 : forensic analysis, sadly very partial due to 3 servers over the years. (btw in an earlier page, it was mentioned that the server admin was requested to encrypt the mails to avoid anyone but the recipient being able to access those. He did not do it to be able to troubleshoot potential email issues. Dangerous idiot #2.
Page 29 : one suspicious login via TOR on a staffer's email that did not know TOR. (so that's one address compromised)
Page 31 : 2011, a memo urging state employees to limit the use of personal emails for State business (wtf, this should not be urging, these should be expressly forbidding... What were their IT SecOffs doing??), stating that "some home systems have been compromised and reconfigured to forward copies to an undisclosed recipient" (does not say it happened to HRC's server)
Page 32 : Blumenthal had his AOL account compromised, and a Confidential email chain disseminated. Now that is a proper compromission.
Page 32 : the metadata of the headers have been extracted to produce electronic signatures and try to find these emails in the available databases, from FBI and other agencies, and even foreign intelligence agencies, to see if they were disseminated. No results. It's at this step that if there were strange things in the metadata, it would have appeared clearly. VERY clearly. So trying to not disclose that part would be very strange, especially since Horowitz made another investigation afterwards.

In the army, she would have been punished with administrative sanctions for that (I was, for vaguely related items, where no information was actually disseminated. Not the US army of course). However, pushing a criminal investigation with these kind of elements would not bring conclusive charges and would be a waste.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-fbi-ignored-major-lead-on-clinton-emails-closed-door-testimonies-suggest_2782019.html
China receiving emails in real time : 2 anonymous sources to FOX and DailyCaller. No proof, logs or anything available that I can find.
Well, it says that Horowitz investigation did not talk about that lead in the report, so I am not going to read it (3 days saved, yeah !)

https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398647
Yeah, well. It seems Rucker was not called to testify. Why ? The Reps were in control of Senate and House. So while it's concerning if true, they had ample opportunity to bring McCullough and Rucker to testify. They did not. I cannot find that ICIG report available, and while Gohmert said that ICIG can document that, they did not. So I call bullshit on it.
By the way China is only a "likely culprit" in this case.

Conclusion : yes, you ARE assuming the server was compromised, as the information is coming from conservative outlets on anonymous sources, and a lone Republican (when it's from Dems, you are discarding this type of rumor easily). No available information lets us know it was. One user had its credentials found, and its mails accessed. There is no available proof, nor available lead, that it was compromised. I will trust you if you can provide me with something showing evidence it was the case (I'd be happy with the ICIG supposed report)



From what I read in the FBI full report (I ate most of the 30+pages), the technical details and the investigation was really thorough and cross-checked, even from random dumps of the emails that were leftovers from botched migrations, on old laptops or USBs. I didn't really find any glaring holes. (I cannot tell you my exact job obviously, but I have been dealing with these kind of deep dives for some time).
Of course, the files themselves are not included, and if that ICIG report is true, it IS a big deal. But in this case, it looks to me that the "deep state" is a wish to explain that the results do not match with conservatives expectations (as is the case on some of Trump's own investigations)



Right, but honestly, are you even fathoming the damage Trump's way of governing is doing to the world and the US first and foremost ? It's a lot worse. I'm not even talking about the US in its internal microcosm, I'm talking about the place and rank of the US around the world, your leadership position. Africa has been abandoned to China, you are alienating all your historic allies, to the benefit of Russia or China down the line, the US isn't to be trusted anymore (I mean, we already did not trust it to an extent, but diplomacy worked). Most of the countries are bracing and hoping that the norm will return after 2020, and we can resume relationships as usual, but a lot has been irreparably damaged severely. Results won't be shown for quite a long time though.
Everything is reduced to money and cost by POTUS, he has no grasp on long term investment, stability or working together for future benefits. Only trying to destroy everything else and unbalance what he can, in hope of short-term gains for the US (questionable) and his image. He has no contingency plan in case things go south, and does not intend to take responsibility when things turn sour.
I could care less about internal US policies.


Pearl Harbor, are you talking about the advance knowledge conspiracy theory ? Well... Even if true, it's the same as 9/11 Rumsfeld/Bush theory to trigger a war on terror. Also, have you heard of Coventry and Enigma ?

On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server).

On March 13 2019 05:22 Nouar wrote:


If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices (link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes).

Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world...
To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27).
There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people).

It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them).

On March 13 2019 06:06 Doodsmack wrote:


But if you've set out from the outset to put all your emails on a private system, haven't you disseminated to that private system? And you've mishandled because you put it all on a private system? If you've set out to only use a private system, you've set out to put your emails and documents on that system. You've set out to put classified info on a private system. Though I guess if she mostly used a gov't system for classified stuff, that might change things.

On March 13 2019 06:10 xDaunt wrote:

Yes, this is exactly the problem.

On March 13 2019 06:10 xDaunt wrote:

Yes, this is exactly the problem.

§ 2400.28 Dissemination of classified information.
Heads of OSTP offices shall establish procedures consistent with this Regulation for dissemination of classified material. The originating official may prescribe specific restrictions on dissemination of classified information when necessary.

(a) Classified information shall not be disseminated outside the executive branch except under conditions that ensure that the information will be given protection equivalent to that afforded within the executive branch.

(b) Except as provided by directives issued by the President through the National Security Council, classified information originating in one agency may not be disseminated outside any other agency to which it has been made available without the consent of the originating agency. For purposes of this Section, the Department of Defense shall be considered one agency.

On March 13 2019 06:09 xDaunt wrote:
On Page 25 of the Day 2 transcript, Page said it was the DOJ’s decision — the Obama DOJ’s decision — not to put the email server case in front of a grand jury. Oof.

On March 13 2019 06:09 xDaunt wrote:
On Page 25 of the Day 2 transcript, Page said it was the DOJ’s decision — the Obama DOJ’s decision — not to put the email server case in front of a grand jury. Oof.

On March 13 2019 06:13 IyMoon wrote:


Didn't she not put all of her emails on it? Just the private ones?

Maybe I am remembering wrong but I am pretty sure not every single email HRC got went to that server.

On March 13 2019 06:23 xDaunt wrote:

The email address that she was using for work (at least one of them) was on that server. She even communicated with Obama in an official capacity using that email address. This is one of the reasons why I’m sure that Obama’s DOJ wanted this to go away. The problem is that James Baker has already testified that he thought Hillary should have been indicted.

“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”

On March 13 2019 06:09 xDaunt wrote:
On Page 25 of the Day 2 transcript, Page said it was the DOJ’s decision — the Obama DOJ’s decision — not to put the email server case in front of a grand jury. Oof.

On March 13 2019 06:27 Nouar wrote:

I don't really see why the average joe that brings his USB key with classified docs at home by mistake, or someone that leaves a secret document on his desk, or someone that mistakenly sends a classified document to an unclassified address (to an authorised recipient) would only get administrative sanctions, but HRC, would be treated differently, "just because".

That guy sending pictures of classified portions of a nuclear submarine to his family and friends, that Trump pardoned "because HRC" though, was clear, wilfull disclosure of classified information.

On March 13 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:
I'd love to know exactly how these various officials concluded that "gross negligence" could be unconstitutionally vague given that it is a common legal term of art. And I'm also very curious as to why all of these law enforcement officials are bending over backwards to conduct this analysis in the first place. Who gave those marching orders?

Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.

Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.