|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On January 15 2023 00:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2023 15:27 Sermokala wrote:On January 14 2023 09:52 JimmiC wrote:On January 14 2023 08:49 Sermokala wrote:
Yes we should accept that dems have to be held to a much higher standard and that republicans can break laws as much as they want and never face consequences. Thats a great way to run a country.
Gh doesn't give a shit about the documents he just wants to delegitimize organized government as much as possible. Its been his shtick for years and nothings changed. Yes voters should hold their politicans to a high standard regardless of if other political parties do not even remotely. Im clearly not suggesting they should vote republican since in this case it's even objectively way worse, just pick a better dem to lead them. That's not how reality works though. Holding politicians to a standard needs to be an equal standard or else you're just rewarding one side for having a lower standard. Why do republicans get to have such an advantage to you? What has taking the high road every time ever done for democrats in this nation other than losing elections? We don't get to pick our leaders we only get to pick between two. There isn't an endless supply of better politicians or else they would be the one we could have voted for in the first place. Im not convinced shooting yourself in the foot by having incompetent people is an advantage. This is ehy the redwave didnt happen. Maybe more people will jump sides the clearer that both sides are not the same. If you force Biden to retire at the end of his term over this you can pick a new better candidate, I see no down side. If he broke whayever rules there are significantly than he should be held accountable or the system does not work. It shouldnt matter whay colour jersy they wear. @micro I could never be in compliance, i often agree with the intent but many of the rules I deal with are so impractical (not nuclear secrets mind you). And then when you see high ups not follow them the instant reaction is, why would I? The higher you go the more you need the rules or whats the point?
We both know this isn't true though. I do believe that it shouldn't matter which side you are on but reality tells us that it very clearly does and you say that it matters as well. It does hurt you to have a much higher standard than the other side when the other side can point to you and say that you're the real criminal, after all you're the one that decided that they needed to retire after committing a crime, not us we didn't have to do anything therefore our thing was much less worse.
This is idealism overriding the reality that you see out your window. We don't live in a just or fair world we live in a cruel and despicable rat fight that decides that the ends don't justify the means, they demand the means. GH likes to stand over there like hes above everything without ever effecting anything. You only matter in US politics if you win, otherwise you just lose and no one cares what you think.
|
|
|
On January 14 2023 21:12 micronesia wrote:
Very senior people are given the most leeway for where they can have/read classified documents, and they are also the most incompetent when it comes to following the rules for safeguarding classified information. It's frustrating for people like me who are responsible for implementing these rules within our respective departments.
Yeah, I’m a bit unclear on whether this kind of thing would be fireable for a civil servant with clearance. I think it might be, but it’s hard to imagine because I don’t think some random State Department employee would never get permission to store a bunch of classified information in a filing cabinet in their garage. So if they did it would already be fireable, but that’s a more or less normal thing for someone at the level of VP.
The other aspect is that civil servants are brought up through their career with specifically these skills being emphasized. So if someone had years of experience and didn’t understand some basic point about classified information handling that would reflect a real incompetence. But politicians win a popularity contest and get dropped into the top of the org chart without any of that background. Meticulous record-keeping is a nice skill for anyone to have, but it’s not how they got the job and it’s probably not the most important quality you’d want them to have either.
At the end of the day this story so far seems to amount to “someone was supposed to move all files of type A from location 1 to location 2; but when someone went through location 1 later there were still a couple of type A files there.” If that story is shocking to you, I don’t think you’ve ever worked somewhere with a paper filing system.
|
Don't forget the Presidential Records Act which applies to former VPs and their documents, regardless of whether the documents are marked classified. One has to assume a lot of facts right now to conclude that Biden did nothing wrong. In the course of assuming those facts, the argument morphs into one that mishandling classified information is no big deal. Biden knows he shouldn't have these documents - which is probably why he (presumably) recently asked his lawyers to go looking for what he had. I mean I don't think anything will come of it from the DOJ's end - a documents case isn't enough to go after a high govt official. That's the practical reality of it and that's probably why Garland has treated Trump's documents case with kid gloves.
|
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping.
|
On January 15 2023 02:17 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping.
Are you familiar with Asia Janay Lavarello?
|
On January 15 2023 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 02:17 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping. Are you familiar with Asia Janay Lavarello?
I wasn’t, although I just read a CNN article about it. Brief summary (tell me if you think I have this wrong): she was working at the embassy in Manila on some kind of thesis using classified documents. She took some documents back to her hotel room. People from the embassy noticed, told her to bring them back, she eventually did but not as soon as she was told to. This got investigated, eventually she took a plea deal for 3 months prison time.
We can compare/contrast this but the most obvious differences are that taking the documents was against the rules in the first place, somebody else had to notice the violation, and she wasn’t very compliant even after that. Even so I think prosecuting over that is a bit fucked, I have to wonder if she would have been prosecuted without the Trump stuff happening around the same time.
But you brought it up. Your thoughts?
|
On January 15 2023 03:55 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 02:17 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping. Are you familiar with Asia Janay Lavarello? I wasn’t, although I just read a CNN article about it. Brief summary (tell me if you think I have this wrong): she was working at the embassy in Manila on some kind of thesis using classified documents. She took some documents back to her hotel room. People from the embassy noticed, told her to bring them back, she eventually did but not as soon as she was told to. This got investigated, eventually she took a plea deal for 3 months prison time. We can compare/contrast this but the most obvious differences are that taking the documents was against the rules in the first place, somebody else had to notice the violation, and she wasn’t very compliant even after that. Even so I think prosecuting over that is a bit fucked, I have to wonder if she would have been prosecuted without the Trump stuff happening around the same time. But you brought it up. Your thoughts?
That people get demolished for mishandling just "secret" classified documents.
Mishandling (whatever rationalizations people make about it) a Top Secret SCI document that belongs in a SCIF even with the best intentions and excuses is the sort of breach that carries serious consequences .
So yeah, I believe it would be disqualifying for someone just to keep a job with clearance, let alone the highest office in the land. But I wasn't even pitching impeachment (though I do think it joins a long and running list of impeachable offenses), just that it gave Democrats an easy reason not to have to nominate him knowing he mishandled classified documents, especially mishandling any labeled "Top Secret", even more so with the "sensitive compartmented information” designation.
Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump.
There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents.
|
On January 15 2023 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 03:55 ChristianS wrote:On January 15 2023 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 02:17 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping. Are you familiar with Asia Janay Lavarello? I wasn’t, although I just read a CNN article about it. Brief summary (tell me if you think I have this wrong): she was working at the embassy in Manila on some kind of thesis using classified documents. She took some documents back to her hotel room. People from the embassy noticed, told her to bring them back, she eventually did but not as soon as she was told to. This got investigated, eventually she took a plea deal for 3 months prison time. We can compare/contrast this but the most obvious differences are that taking the documents was against the rules in the first place, somebody else had to notice the violation, and she wasn’t very compliant even after that. Even so I think prosecuting over that is a bit fucked, I have to wonder if she would have been prosecuted without the Trump stuff happening around the same time. But you brought it up. Your thoughts? That people get demolished for mishandling just "secret" classified documents. Mishandling (whatever rationalizations people make about it) a Top Secret SCI document that belongs in a SCIF even with the best intentions and excuses is the sort of breach that carries serious consequences . So yeah, I believe it would be disqualifying for someone just to keep a job with clearance, let alone the highest office in the land. But I wasn't even pitching impeachment (though I do think it joins a long and running list of impeachable offenses), just that it gave Democrats an easy reason not to have to nominate him knowing he mishandled classified documents, especially mishandling any labeled "Top Secret", even more so with the "sensitive compartmented information” designation. Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump. There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents.
Were they Top Secret documents that were supposed to be stored in a SCIF? I haven’t seen that reported but I think the story is stupid so I haven’t followed every update. As I understand it, there was nothing illegal or improper about him having the documents there while VP, they were just supposed to be given to the National Archive when he left office.
I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from here. You’re already on record that electoral politics is not capable of bringing about the necessary change in the world, so I have to imagine you’re trying to consider someone’s perspective other than yours in arguing what Democrats should do. So is this judgment about how horrible it is to mishandle documents *your* judgment? Or are you trying to imagine how others would/should feel? Or is this purely a strategic analysis of the Democrats’ position, divorced from your own feelings of what *should* happen in the world?
Because it reads like you’re just looking for any reason to tear down Biden because you despise him, but even from that point of view I don’t know why you’d choose this. Start a sentence with “Joe Biden is a despicable person because…” and you could end that sentence a lot of ways that would have me nodding and saying “yeah, he’s got a point.” This just isn’t on the list, partly because I have trouble believing you mean it. I’d expect you to say “the US government’s secret-keeping is indefensible and Biden is despicable for not immediately declassifying everything” before you’d say “Joe Biden is despicable for doing a bad job keeping the US government’s secrets.”
|
There's also the difference of keeping them in a hotel room in a not entirely friendly country, and keeping them in your office (or even the basement of your golf club). One has obvious strangers with guaranteed access. The other... doesn't.
|
On January 15 2023 05:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 03:55 ChristianS wrote:On January 15 2023 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 02:17 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping. Are you familiar with Asia Janay Lavarello? I wasn’t, although I just read a CNN article about it. Brief summary (tell me if you think I have this wrong): she was working at the embassy in Manila on some kind of thesis using classified documents. She took some documents back to her hotel room. People from the embassy noticed, told her to bring them back, she eventually did but not as soon as she was told to. This got investigated, eventually she took a plea deal for 3 months prison time. We can compare/contrast this but the most obvious differences are that taking the documents was against the rules in the first place, somebody else had to notice the violation, and she wasn’t very compliant even after that. Even so I think prosecuting over that is a bit fucked, I have to wonder if she would have been prosecuted without the Trump stuff happening around the same time. But you brought it up. Your thoughts? That people get demolished for mishandling just "secret" classified documents. Mishandling (whatever rationalizations people make about it) a Top Secret SCI document that belongs in a SCIF even with the best intentions and excuses is the sort of breach that carries serious consequences . So yeah, I believe it would be disqualifying for someone just to keep a job with clearance, let alone the highest office in the land. But I wasn't even pitching impeachment (though I do think it joins a long and running list of impeachable offenses), just that it gave Democrats an easy reason not to have to nominate him knowing he mishandled classified documents, especially mishandling any labeled "Top Secret", even more so with the "sensitive compartmented information” designation. Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump. There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents. Were they Top Secret documents that were supposed to be stored in a SCIF? I haven’t seen that reported but I think the story is stupid so I haven’t followed every update. As I understand it, there was nothing illegal or improper about him having the documents there while VP, they were just supposed to be given to the National Archive when he left office. I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from here. You’re already on record that electoral politics is not capable of bringing about the necessary change in the world, so I have to imagine you’re trying to consider someone’s perspective other than yours in arguing what Democrats should do. So is this judgment about how horrible it is to mishandle documents *your* judgment? Or are you trying to imagine how others would/should feel? Or is this purely a strategic analysis of the Democrats’ position, divorced from your own feelings of what *should* happen in the world? Because it reads like you’re just looking for any reason to tear down Biden because you despise him, but even from that point of view I don’t know why you’d choose this. Start a sentence with “Joe Biden is a despicable person because…” and you could end that sentence a lot of ways that would have me nodding and saying “yeah, he’s got a point.” This just isn’t on the list, partly because I have trouble believing you mean it. I’d expect you to say “the US government’s secret-keeping is indefensible and Biden is despicable for not immediately declassifying everything” before you’d say “Joe Biden is despicable for doing a bad job keeping the US government’s secrets.”
Yes, there were documents labeled Top Secret and with the designation of “sensitive compartmented information” that belonged in a SCIF. + Show Spoiler + We don't (and likely never will) know if there was anything illegal about them being there (that's why there's an ostensible investigation though), in part because Biden claims he didn't even know that he had documents marked Top Secret/SCI, which in itself meets any reasonable threshold for negligent or "improper" care for such documents (and other than for Trump, carries serious consequences).
Without getting too into the weeds of it, we don't know that the three times classified documents have been found to be improperly in Biden's possession are or will be the only times/documents. We also don't know that all the documents (Biden allegedly didn't even know he had) remained in his possession (and likely can never fully know regardless of the investigation's results) since Biden wouldn't know if or what he purportedly doesn't remember taking was missing from the files he claims he didn't know he had.
Beyond that, I'm clearly saying:
Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump.
There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents.
Outrageously sad but predictable they'd be so resistant to setting what I think we'd all agree is a tragically low bar when only (in all US history afaict + Show Spoiler +[edit: at least as far as people seriously running for president]
I'm saying as lowly as I think of the Democratic party and electoral politics, surely some of their supporters have enough dignity to demand at least not having to nominate someone they know can't clear such a dismally low bar. Moreover, they probably have a responsibility strategically to not let themselves get flanked on this like the current strategy allows Republicans to do with DeSantis because he can clear that dreadfully low bar.
|
On January 15 2023 05:37 Acrofales wrote:
There's also the difference of keeping them in a hotel room in a not entirely friendly country, and keeping them in your office (or even the basement of your golf club). One has obvious strangers with guaranteed access. The other... doesn't.
Btw according to their website Biden's think tank says they didn't open their doors until Feb 2018, which is more than a year after he would have left office. Do you have a source for the narrative that the documents were "in an office that Biden used when he was VP"? The timeline seems to not add up.
|
On January 15 2023 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 05:35 ChristianS wrote:On January 15 2023 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 03:55 ChristianS wrote:On January 15 2023 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 02:17 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping. Are you familiar with Asia Janay Lavarello? I wasn’t, although I just read a CNN article about it. Brief summary (tell me if you think I have this wrong): she was working at the embassy in Manila on some kind of thesis using classified documents. She took some documents back to her hotel room. People from the embassy noticed, told her to bring them back, she eventually did but not as soon as she was told to. This got investigated, eventually she took a plea deal for 3 months prison time. We can compare/contrast this but the most obvious differences are that taking the documents was against the rules in the first place, somebody else had to notice the violation, and she wasn’t very compliant even after that. Even so I think prosecuting over that is a bit fucked, I have to wonder if she would have been prosecuted without the Trump stuff happening around the same time. But you brought it up. Your thoughts? That people get demolished for mishandling just "secret" classified documents. Mishandling (whatever rationalizations people make about it) a Top Secret SCI document that belongs in a SCIF even with the best intentions and excuses is the sort of breach that carries serious consequences . So yeah, I believe it would be disqualifying for someone just to keep a job with clearance, let alone the highest office in the land. But I wasn't even pitching impeachment (though I do think it joins a long and running list of impeachable offenses), just that it gave Democrats an easy reason not to have to nominate him knowing he mishandled classified documents, especially mishandling any labeled "Top Secret", even more so with the "sensitive compartmented information” designation. Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump. There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents. Were they Top Secret documents that were supposed to be stored in a SCIF? I haven’t seen that reported but I think the story is stupid so I haven’t followed every update. As I understand it, there was nothing illegal or improper about him having the documents there while VP, they were just supposed to be given to the National Archive when he left office. I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from here. You’re already on record that electoral politics is not capable of bringing about the necessary change in the world, so I have to imagine you’re trying to consider someone’s perspective other than yours in arguing what Democrats should do. So is this judgment about how horrible it is to mishandle documents *your* judgment? Or are you trying to imagine how others would/should feel? Or is this purely a strategic analysis of the Democrats’ position, divorced from your own feelings of what *should* happen in the world? Because it reads like you’re just looking for any reason to tear down Biden because you despise him, but even from that point of view I don’t know why you’d choose this. Start a sentence with “Joe Biden is a despicable person because…” and you could end that sentence a lot of ways that would have me nodding and saying “yeah, he’s got a point.” This just isn’t on the list, partly because I have trouble believing you mean it. I’d expect you to say “the US government’s secret-keeping is indefensible and Biden is despicable for not immediately declassifying everything” before you’d say “Joe Biden is despicable for doing a bad job keeping the US government’s secrets.” Yes, there were documents labeled Top Secret and with the designation of “sensitive compartmented information” that belonged in a SCIF. + Show Spoiler + We don't (and likely never will) know if there was anything illegal about them being there (that's why there's an ostensible investigation though), in part because Biden claims he didn't even know that he had documents marked Top Secret/SCI, which in itself meets any reasonable threshold for negligent or "improper" care for such documents (and other than for Trump, carries serious consequences). Without getting too into the weeds of it, we don't know that the three times classified documents have been found to be improperly in Biden's possession are or will be the only times/documents. We also don't know that all the documents (Biden allegedly didn't even know he had) remained in his possession (and likely can never fully know regardless of the investigation's results) since Biden wouldn't know if or what he purportedly doesn't remember taking was missing from the files he claims he didn't know he had. Beyond that, I'm clearly saying: Show nested quote +Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump.
There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents. Outrageously sad but predictable they'd be so resistant to setting what I think we'd all agree is a tragically low bar when only (in all US history afaict) Trump and Biden (and I guess Hillary Clinton?) don't clear it. I'm saying as lowly as I think of the Democratic party and electoral politics, surely some of their supporters have enough dignity to demand at least not having to nominate someone they know can't clear such a dismally low bar. Moreover, they probably have a responsibility strategically to not let themselves get flanked on this like the current strategy allows Republicans to do with DeSantis because he can clear that dreadfully low bar.
So is the claim that it was improper to have them there in the first place? I don’t care about what an investigation *might* find because you’re not giving hypothetical prescriptions, you’re drawing conclusions here and now. I’m all in favor of qualified professionals determining exactly how the documents got there, why they weren’t returned, and whether there are any more floating around, but until they show something happened we’re not deciding against him in a primary on innuendo alone.
Again, since when do you care about SCI procedure? The “low bar” high jump metaphor is obfuscating, rather than clarifying. Can you explain in your own words why people should care about this issue specifically? There’s lots of issues (the economy! climate change! the war in Ukraine!) that people might care about and like or dislike Biden’s performance on them. Do you really believe they should instead prioritize compliance with SCI procedures in their decision making, and if so, can you explain why? I know you don’t like Biden in other issues, too, but that’s not what you’re arguing here - you’re arguing that effectiveness at maintaining compliance with classified information and archival regulations should outweigh whatever other considerations people have. Why?
|
On January 15 2023 07:31 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 05:35 ChristianS wrote:On January 15 2023 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 03:55 ChristianS wrote:On January 15 2023 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2023 02:17 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah I mean obviously the documents shouldn’t be there. Ideally any time remote document archives are maintained for the benefit of executives, there should be clear records of where they’re being maintained and what all is stored there. And there should be clear procedures for retrieving everything when that archive is shut down. Barring that, at least have a team go through with the same scrupulous precision as your FBI agents would if you were raiding for them a few years down the line - but do it on January 19th or w/e. It’s fair to fault Biden (and Obama, and Trump, and everyone else in charge at the time) for not ensuring those procedures were put into place.
But at the end of the day this isn’t much more than kinda sloppy record-keeping. Are you familiar with Asia Janay Lavarello? I wasn’t, although I just read a CNN article about it. Brief summary (tell me if you think I have this wrong): she was working at the embassy in Manila on some kind of thesis using classified documents. She took some documents back to her hotel room. People from the embassy noticed, told her to bring them back, she eventually did but not as soon as she was told to. This got investigated, eventually she took a plea deal for 3 months prison time. We can compare/contrast this but the most obvious differences are that taking the documents was against the rules in the first place, somebody else had to notice the violation, and she wasn’t very compliant even after that. Even so I think prosecuting over that is a bit fucked, I have to wonder if she would have been prosecuted without the Trump stuff happening around the same time. But you brought it up. Your thoughts? That people get demolished for mishandling just "secret" classified documents. Mishandling (whatever rationalizations people make about it) a Top Secret SCI document that belongs in a SCIF even with the best intentions and excuses is the sort of breach that carries serious consequences . So yeah, I believe it would be disqualifying for someone just to keep a job with clearance, let alone the highest office in the land. But I wasn't even pitching impeachment (though I do think it joins a long and running list of impeachable offenses), just that it gave Democrats an easy reason not to have to nominate him knowing he mishandled classified documents, especially mishandling any labeled "Top Secret", even more so with the "sensitive compartmented information” designation. Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump. There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents. Were they Top Secret documents that were supposed to be stored in a SCIF? I haven’t seen that reported but I think the story is stupid so I haven’t followed every update. As I understand it, there was nothing illegal or improper about him having the documents there while VP, they were just supposed to be given to the National Archive when he left office. I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from here. You’re already on record that electoral politics is not capable of bringing about the necessary change in the world, so I have to imagine you’re trying to consider someone’s perspective other than yours in arguing what Democrats should do. So is this judgment about how horrible it is to mishandle documents *your* judgment? Or are you trying to imagine how others would/should feel? Or is this purely a strategic analysis of the Democrats’ position, divorced from your own feelings of what *should* happen in the world? Because it reads like you’re just looking for any reason to tear down Biden because you despise him, but even from that point of view I don’t know why you’d choose this. Start a sentence with “Joe Biden is a despicable person because…” and you could end that sentence a lot of ways that would have me nodding and saying “yeah, he’s got a point.” This just isn’t on the list, partly because I have trouble believing you mean it. I’d expect you to say “the US government’s secret-keeping is indefensible and Biden is despicable for not immediately declassifying everything” before you’d say “Joe Biden is despicable for doing a bad job keeping the US government’s secrets.” Yes, there were documents labeled Top Secret and with the designation of “sensitive compartmented information” that belonged in a SCIF. + Show Spoiler + We don't (and likely never will) know if there was anything illegal about them being there (that's why there's an ostensible investigation though), in part because Biden claims he didn't even know that he had documents marked Top Secret/SCI, which in itself meets any reasonable threshold for negligent or "improper" care for such documents (and other than for Trump, carries serious consequences). Without getting too into the weeds of it, we don't know that the three times classified documents have been found to be improperly in Biden's possession are or will be the only times/documents. We also don't know that all the documents (Biden allegedly didn't even know he had) remained in his possession (and likely can never fully know regardless of the investigation's results) since Biden wouldn't know if or what he purportedly doesn't remember taking was missing from the files he claims he didn't know he had. Beyond that, I'm clearly saying: Rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending it's no big deal (within the framework of sensitive information security this is really bad already, even with the best possible combination rationalizations and excuses) I'm suggesting Democrats embrace the opportunity and raise their bar to someone that hasn't mishandled Top Secret SCI documents lest they let Republicans beat them to it with a DeSantis that finds a deal with/outmaneuvers Trump.
There is still ostensibly going to be a Democratic primary, Democrats don't have to nominate someone they know going into it mishandled Top Secret SCI documents. Outrageously sad but predictable they'd be so resistant to setting what I think we'd all agree is a tragically low bar when only (in all US history afaict) Trump and Biden (and I guess Hillary Clinton?) don't clear it. I'm saying as lowly as I think of the Democratic party and electoral politics, surely some of their supporters have enough dignity to demand at least not having to nominate someone they know can't clear such a dismally low bar. Moreover, they probably have a responsibility strategically to not let themselves get flanked on this like the current strategy allows Republicans to do with DeSantis because he can clear that dreadfully low bar. So is the claim that it was improper to have them there in the first place? I don’t care about what an investigation *might* find because you’re not giving hypothetical prescriptions, you’re drawing conclusions here and now. I’m all in favor of qualified professionals determining exactly how the documents got there, why they weren’t returned, and whether there are any more floating around, but until they show something happened we’re not deciding against him in a primary on innuendo alone. Again, since when do you care about SCI procedure? The “low bar” high jump metaphor is obfuscating, rather than clarifying. Can you explain in your own words why people should care about this issue specifically? There’s lots of issues (the economy! climate change! the war in Ukraine!) that people might care about and like or dislike Biden’s performance on them. Do you really believe they should instead prioritize compliance with SCI procedures in their decision making, and if so, can you explain why? I know you don’t like Biden in other issues, too, but that’s not what you’re arguing here - you’re arguing that effectiveness at maintaining compliance with classified information and archival regulations should outweigh whatever other considerations people have. Why?
The fact as reported I'm pointing out is that he mishandled Top Secret/SCI documents that were in his possession. The investigation can't change that.
As I said, It's completely rational and sorta requisite to no longer give access to classified documents to someone that has demonstrably mishandled them.
I don't think people need to prioritize compliance with SCI procedures, but it should join a long list of disqualifying things. This just happens to be one they can use Biden's own take on the irresponsibility of being so careless with Top Secret documents to justify holding him accountable. As in it doesn't have to be the "rabid left" coming for him but simply his own party holding him to his own standard and replacing him with someone that can clear that bar (and plenty of others he can't) through the (ostensibly) democratic process of the Democrats party nomination.
So rather than go the Trumpian route of pretending mishandling Top Secret/SCI documents isn't a big deal for the national security crowd, just lean into his mishandling of Top Secret/SCI documents and use it (as well as all his other shortcomings and such) to raise the minimum expectations of their nominee however little they can muster.
So far it seems they can't even do that, and as I said, I find it outrageously sad but predictable
|
Compliance isn’t really a binary affair like that. I work in an industry with pretty rigorous documentation and record-keeping requirements. The purpose is different (maintaining scientific integrity of the data, maintaining confidentiality of PII) but the practices aren’t necessarily that different. I take compliance pretty seriously, because I really do think it’s important, but everybody knows it’s difficult and fiddly and time-consuming. When somebody doesn’t document something exactly the way they’re supposed to, or fails to follow an SOP or something, you investigate what happened, write up a deviation analyzing impact and maybe retrain them, depending what happened. Sure, if somebody falsified data or something they might lose their job and essentially get banned from industry, but there’s all sorts of minor ways to be non-compliant that should be corrected, but have little to no impact on data integrity.
In this case Biden presumably had a lot of classified information in his possession while VP, and most of it got returned when he left office but apparently a few documents weren’t. Nobody noticed their absence (maybe they were copies or something?) but at some point somebody that worked for him noticed it and informed the appropriate authorities to retrieve them. “Mishandled classified information” is a gigantic heading including all sorts of behavior ranging from horrible to benign, and this looks pretty benign to me. Very likely to be “no impact,” in deviation terms (although the investigation to determine that is ongoing). If you want to present an argument for why the impact is actually significant you’re welcome to, but you haven’t so far and I don’t think you actually want to.
Part of our job following politics is to determine which stories are genuinely important, and which are momentary distractions with no real importance. Focusing on what’s actually important is something I strive for (something I thought I had learned partly from you!). I think this story is unimportant, and never would have even gotten media attention if it weren’t for the Trump thing, which is facially similar but really a completely different story under the hood.
|
On January 15 2023 00:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 00:33 Sermokala wrote:On January 15 2023 00:12 JimmiC wrote:On January 14 2023 15:27 Sermokala wrote:On January 14 2023 09:52 JimmiC wrote:On January 14 2023 08:49 Sermokala wrote:
Yes we should accept that dems have to be held to a much higher standard and that republicans can break laws as much as they want and never face consequences. Thats a great way to run a country.
Gh doesn't give a shit about the documents he just wants to delegitimize organized government as much as possible. Its been his shtick for years and nothings changed. Yes voters should hold their politicans to a high standard regardless of if other political parties do not even remotely. Im clearly not suggesting they should vote republican since in this case it's even objectively way worse, just pick a better dem to lead them. That's not how reality works though. Holding politicians to a standard needs to be an equal standard or else you're just rewarding one side for having a lower standard. Why do republicans get to have such an advantage to you? What has taking the high road every time ever done for democrats in this nation other than losing elections? We don't get to pick our leaders we only get to pick between two. There isn't an endless supply of better politicians or else they would be the one we could have voted for in the first place. Im not convinced shooting yourself in the foot by having incompetent people is an advantage. This is ehy the redwave didnt happen. Maybe more people will jump sides the clearer that both sides are not the same. If you force Biden to retire at the end of his term over this you can pick a new better candidate, I see no down side. If he broke whayever rules there are significantly than he should be held accountable or the system does not work. It shouldnt matter whay colour jersy they wear. @micro I could never be in compliance, i often agree with the intent but many of the rules I deal with are so impractical (not nuclear secrets mind you). And then when you see high ups not follow them the instant reaction is, why would I? The higher you go the more you need the rules or whats the point? We both know this isn't true though. I do believe that it shouldn't matter which side you are on but reality tells us that it very clearly does and you say that it matters as well. It does hurt you to have a much higher standard than the other side when the other side can point to you and say that you're the real criminal, after all you're the one that decided that they needed to retire after committing a crime, not us we didn't have to do anything therefore our thing was much less worse. This is idealism overriding the reality that you see out your window. We don't live in a just or fair world we live in a cruel and despicable rat fight that decides that the ends don't justify the means, they demand the means. GH likes to stand over there like hes above everything without ever effecting anything. You only matter in US politics if you win, otherwise you just lose and no one cares what you think. The justice system should not hold people to a different standard, and it is fucked up that yours does and that you somewhat accept it and some completely accept it. I'm talking about the part you have a little say in, who represents you. If it comes out bad for biden I would 100% try to primary him. If he won, I would vote for him because he was also clearly the lesser of two evils. There is a large gulf between calling for a violent revolution and working for change within the system, even trying to make changes to the system. Yes its hard, yes it might now work.
You're the one advocating for the justice system to treat people differently. I'm the one they saying that they don't in reality. You're the one advocating that we ignore the justice system and embrace an arbitrary philosophy based on losing on purpose to keep a worthless moral high ground.
You don't have a say in who represents you in our democracy you have a say for what team you're going to vote for.
Trying to be a high road martyrs type of party only gets you beat in elections and ignored when it comes to getting anything done. Constantly hurting yourself for no reason does not make people like you or vote for you no matter what you tell them you're doing it for.
|
|
|
On January 15 2023 10:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2023 09:01 Sermokala wrote:On January 15 2023 00:47 JimmiC wrote:On January 15 2023 00:33 Sermokala wrote:On January 15 2023 00:12 JimmiC wrote:On January 14 2023 15:27 Sermokala wrote:On January 14 2023 09:52 JimmiC wrote:On January 14 2023 08:49 Sermokala wrote:
Yes we should accept that dems have to be held to a much higher standard and that republicans can break laws as much as they want and never face consequences. Thats a great way to run a country.
Gh doesn't give a shit about the documents he just wants to delegitimize organized government as much as possible. Its been his shtick for years and nothings changed. Yes voters should hold their politicans to a high standard regardless of if other political parties do not even remotely. Im clearly not suggesting they should vote republican since in this case it's even objectively way worse, just pick a better dem to lead them. That's not how reality works though. Holding politicians to a standard needs to be an equal standard or else you're just rewarding one side for having a lower standard. Why do republicans get to have such an advantage to you? What has taking the high road every time ever done for democrats in this nation other than losing elections? We don't get to pick our leaders we only get to pick between two. There isn't an endless supply of better politicians or else they would be the one we could have voted for in the first place. Im not convinced shooting yourself in the foot by having incompetent people is an advantage. This is ehy the redwave didnt happen. Maybe more people will jump sides the clearer that both sides are not the same. If you force Biden to retire at the end of his term over this you can pick a new better candidate, I see no down side. If he broke whayever rules there are significantly than he should be held accountable or the system does not work. It shouldnt matter whay colour jersy they wear. @micro I could never be in compliance, i often agree with the intent but many of the rules I deal with are so impractical (not nuclear secrets mind you). And then when you see high ups not follow them the instant reaction is, why would I? The higher you go the more you need the rules or whats the point? We both know this isn't true though. I do believe that it shouldn't matter which side you are on but reality tells us that it very clearly does and you say that it matters as well. It does hurt you to have a much higher standard than the other side when the other side can point to you and say that you're the real criminal, after all you're the one that decided that they needed to retire after committing a crime, not us we didn't have to do anything therefore our thing was much less worse. This is idealism overriding the reality that you see out your window. We don't live in a just or fair world we live in a cruel and despicable rat fight that decides that the ends don't justify the means, they demand the means. GH likes to stand over there like hes above everything without ever effecting anything. You only matter in US politics if you win, otherwise you just lose and no one cares what you think. The justice system should not hold people to a different standard, and it is fucked up that yours does and that you somewhat accept it and some completely accept it. I'm talking about the part you have a little say in, who represents you. If it comes out bad for biden I would 100% try to primary him. If he won, I would vote for him because he was also clearly the lesser of two evils. There is a large gulf between calling for a violent revolution and working for change within the system, even trying to make changes to the system. Yes its hard, yes it might now work. You're the one advocating for the justice system to treat people differently. I'm the one they saying that they don't in reality. You're the one advocating that we ignore the justice system and embrace an arbitrary philosophy based on losing on purpose to keep a worthless moral high ground. You don't have a say in who represents you in our democracy you have a say for what team you're going to vote for. Trying to be a high road martyrs type of party only gets you beat in elections and ignored when it comes to getting anything done. Constantly hurting yourself for no reason does not make people like you or vote for you no matter what you tell them you're doing it for. Nope never said the justice system should treat them differently, your assumption that I meant that and ive stated it is not. Do not strawman mean, just reread my posts or move on.
If you don't want to respond to me you don't have to respond to me, no one is saying you have to defend your positions or clarify what you ment by them. Do you think I'm going to magically come up with a different conclusion by rereading what you posted? I read them and that is what I think that you are proposing. You want Democrats to be judged at a different standard than republicans. If thats not exactly what you said doens't change my point being that is what I'm telling you you are proposing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
