Okay, this thread has been bad from Day 1, but it's starting to get out of hand. Settle down, folks.
"Pay for Play"
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
Hey, Goat, when're you going to post the minimally moderated Election Day* thread? I can't wait.
* A.k.a. attempt to wash the foul aftertaste of Donald Trump out of my system, if such a catharsis is conceivably possible.
* A.k.a. attempt to wash the foul aftertaste of Donald Trump out of my system, if such a catharsis is conceivably possible.
I'll have to check with Cajun and NPT, but my thinking was that it might be easier to just have one moderated thread Tuesday, and let everything else go wild.
luvin' itI'll have to check with Cajun and NPT, but my thinking was that it might be easier to just have one moderated thread Tuesday, and let everything else go wild.
Something like Futility Springs Eternal? Seems like a great day for you three to pocket the badge.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You're misinterpreting what I said. Navy propulsion information is CONFIDENTIAL...that's what I'm saying. Almost nothing is CONFIDENTIAL in the Army. It's all Secret or above.
Attending an army course is not serving in or understanding the Army, Aloha, anymore than me going on a tiger cruise means I know Navy. I'm saying that at the grunt level, we had jobs to do. Going balls out on handling classified, which is something we weren't trained on, was our 4th or 5th priority. It's not acceptable but it's reality. Again, I've seen SECRET being left out on the tables around uncleared folks. I'd catch it and make sure it was put away, chewed an ass, and then returned to mission. Nobody in jail.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Shorter IUCrazy2: I've never dealt with classified, but I know all about it...trust me ...bigly.
Look, in all seriousness, you guys need to listen to hear the message that people like me are trying to tell you. Speaking for myself, I think she was very cavalier in her handling of sensitive information and she did the wrong thing. I don't know anybody who disagrees with that statement, so stop talking about partisans (I'm not one - I'd love to return to the GOP once they get their act together) thinking she's without blame.
I'm here providing examples I've seen where people have been reckless and life goes on. If you want to find reasons not to vote for her that aren't policy driven, then rock on, vote like an emotional teenager.
Courts have determined that we can't restrict funding. I disagree with them, but I get it is the law. But here's an interesting idea. I spoke to someone in broadcasting, they are required to sell advertising at their lowest rate to political organizations. So we know the world is cool with government setting the price of advertising. If we all accept that, and we must, then let's require advertisers to sell time at 1000 times their highest rate to political campaigns, PACS, and super PACS. If we get the the time that $100 million of Koch or Soros money buys 30 seconds on WE TV at 1:47, than we have killed the influence of money on politics.
I didn't misrepresent what you said, I misunderstood what you said. What you said isn't correct though. Where are you getting this thing about Navy propulsion being Confidential? Lots of things get classified Confidential and very little of it is propulsion. Also, you might not have dealt with it, but lots of stuff in all the services is classified Confidential, because we all try not to overclassify information. I'm not understanding your point about that anyway.
No need to continue arguing. You're convinced by your personal experience that no one is ever even punished for mishandling classified information while I know from my personal experience that people are. That officer who lost his career for it that I mentioned early in this thread was my roommate on my first ship. He was only careless with his classified destruction records, the documents were never compromised. The issue was found during a required inspection for nuclear weapons capable ships. Protecting classified information is serious business in the military. That includes the Army even if it's not your personal experience. Besides CGSC, I worked with Army officers in my joint tour. I married into an Army family (father-in-law and brother-in-law were/are retired Colonels), I work with people that have retired from every service and my boss is a retired Colonel. When I say that every one I know believes they'd lose their clearance, jobs and probably face jail time for being as careless with highly classified information as HRC and her staffers, I'm including all the above.
We can just agree to disagree. Your experience is your experience and I have no beef with it.
How about those Hoosiers?!?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It's not that I think mishandling classified info shouldn't result in consequences...I never said that. I'm saying that the punishment should fit the action. If a private or a lieutenant left Secret out unguarded outside of a SCIF we'd ensure that corrections are made. We didn't chapter the kid out.I didn't misrepresent what you said, I misunderstood what you said. What you said isn't correct though. Where are you getting this thing about Navy propulsion being Confidential? Lots of things get classified Confidential and very little of it is propulsion. Also, you might not have dealt with it, but lots of stuff in all the services is classified Confidential, because we all try not to overclassify information. I'm not understanding your point about that anyway.
No need to continue arguing. You're convinced by your personal experience that no one is ever even punished for mishandling classified information while I know from my personal experience that people are. That officer who lost his career for it that I mentioned early in this thread was my roommate on my first ship. He was only careless with his classified destruction records, the documents were never compromised. The issue was found during a required inspection for nuclear weapons capable ships. Protecting classified information is serious business in the military. That includes the Army even if it's not your personal experience. Besides CGSC, I worked with Army officers in my joint tour. I married into an Army family (father-in-law and brother-in-law were/are retired Colonels), I work with people that have retired from every service and my boss is a retired Colonel. When I say that every one I know believes they'd lose their clearance, jobs and probably face jail time for being as careless with highly classified information as HRC and her staffers, I'm including all the above.
We can just agree to disagree. Your experience is your experience and I have no beef with it.
How about those Hoosiers?!?
At my contractor job, which was for the Navy by the way (and I must say that the navy was far more serious about protecting classified than I ever saw in the Army), if somebody failed to secure a safe or a file was inadvertently misclassified, or a CRD file hit the low side on accident, corrections were made. If it became a repeat offender or offense, that's a different story. Nobody went to jail. Nobody.
What was marked Confidential in the Army? I'm intellectually curious.
That's incorrect marv. Fish got this wrong. Obama also got it wrong when he scolded SCOTUS at that SOTU address. Campaign funding restrictions are alive and well. They are enforced all the time. In Citizens United, SCOTUS said congress couldn't stop me from spending my money to say what I think at any time including in close proximity to the election. This right includes me finding people who think like I do to help with that expense; which is a PAC.
Last edited:
The difference is the Kochs buy politicians who actually write laws. CO ignores this difference because Clinton
All sorts of information can be CONFIDENTIAL. It always depends on the level of damage to national interests could result from unauthorized disclosure. The Combatant Commands provide classification guides that apply to all forces in their AOR and CENTCOM's is here.
I don't think there is a huge difference. I have been a consistent and strong critic of the corrupt system we have. But even the corrupt system has rules such as limits in direct giving to campaigns and the wall of separation between a some PACs and a candidate. According to the Wikileaks material the Clinton campaign violated the wall of separation. The foundation is a whole different animal which the law hasn't dealt with. As I've said a few times Obama saw the conflict the foundation presented for Hillary and he requested agreements about that which agreements have been compromised by the Clintons
Ultimately, the system depends on the good faith and ethical standards of the participants. That is in short supply and Hillary is among the worst.
You are missing the single relevant point.
Comey used a "knew or should have known" standard to state at his July presser Clinton mishandled classified information. In this respect the Hillary facts and the sailor's and Berger's facts are indistinguishable.
Neither Berger nor the sailor were allowed to defend themselves by arguing they had neither a general nor specific intent to harm the United States. Comey used the lack of intent to allow Hillary to walk.
For all practical purposes the three cases are the same.
Last edited:
That's really just odd and laughable. It's like saying that all three have names that include the letter 's' (they don't, by the way), so ... yeah.
Comey absolutely didn't let Hillary off the hook for her missteps. Based on his July statements, it seems like he was correct to call her actions very sloppy and careless (about national security matters, no less). She deserves criticism and, as UncleMark said yesterday, it's odd that there was so little (or, maybe better said, not enough) contemporaneous second-guessing by security folks who should have known better.
But actively taking possession of something you shouldn't have had in the first place with full knowledge it's a no-no and then destroying information to cover your tracks are two seemingly huge distinguishing factors from Hillary's actions.
I have a big problem with "the higher you are, the more you can get away with." I have a big problem with unequal treatment in general. I know that Hillary was treated differently than how I would have been treated and I have a real problem with that. But it's over and I've made my peace with it. I've had to deal with double standards my whole life so what's one more? I'm a Democrat so I voted for her policies and not for her and I'm good with that. I will support her as President.
I'm not sure that Ohio is going for Trump for sure. I think there will be some split voting by my Republican friends because a lot of them hate Trump and have said Hillary is probably the lesser of two evils or that they'll vote for Johnson. I think many will vote for Hillary or Johnson and vote for Republicans after that. So I still have some hope that Hillary will win Ohio but I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it.
Two things
First, there is significant direct evidence that Hillary actively took possession of something she shouldn't have* and there is significant circumstantial evidence that she destroyed at least some of that information**.
Second Comey clearly declined to prosecute because of the issue about intent. I recognize some of the other differences in the three cases, but Comey washed those differences away by the manner in which he dealt with the element of intent.
*She deliberately diverted all of her email to a private server in her control and out the control of the state department. This is the functional equivalent of Berger putting classified information in his underwear and leaving the building. The only difference is that Hillary did not pick and chose classified info for mishandling, she just mishandled ALL of her emails. This only makes a difference if Hillary is allowed to argue that she never deals in classified information via email, which is ridiculous.
**She, or her agents and staff, ordered the Bleach Bit cleansing AFTER the issuance of the preservation letter from a congressional committee (or maybe a subpoena). This is obstruction.
1. You agree that everything she had in her possession on any server was properly in her possession, but that she 'took possession of something she shouldn't have' by putting all that stuff she properly had for work on the private server she used for everything? That's more than a stretch given the type of "took possession" we're speaking of with respect to Berger and the sailor.
2. Here's a link to factcheck.org. Your statement that 'she, or her agents and staff, ordered the Bleach Bit cleansing AFTER the issuance of the preservation letter' is incorrect. That 'preservation letter' came in early March 2015. Team Clinton parsed through the emails and turned over 'relevant' emails in December 2014 and made the decision to delete the 'personal' stuff in December 2014. An outside vendor failed to act on those directions until late March 2015. Why do you suppose that vendor failed to act timely? What's your evidence that Team Clinton was aware before late March 2015 of that purported screw-up and that vendor's decision to go ahead and belatedly follow instructions to delete the previously designated email batch? Unless you have critical facts that you're not sharing, your summary elides a lot of critical information in a way that's unfair and inaccurate.
Again, though, Clinton bungled it. She bungled it with her reckless decision to have a private server. She bungled it with her unwillingness (inability??) to plainly state to the American people what exactly happened. It's a great discredit to her that she so bunglingly bungled it.
On your first point, you can properly have access or "possession" of some items at work, that does not mean you are allowed to take them home with you. Putting private company info on a disk and loading it to your home computer without permission is theft. I could not do that when I worked for a private company either. There were instances when you could take a company computer home and use it but doing work from a non approved device or through non approved servers is a no-no.
On your second point, those guys had a meeting or phone call with Cheryl Mills (IIRC) right before they went all bleach bit on everything.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...r-stinkier-documents-destroyed-after-subpoena
Last edited:
I don't understand #1. Clinton taking all of her email correspondence to a private server outside the control of the government is improper. I don't now and have never agreed that everything she had on her private server was properly in her possession.
As for #2, the temporal relationship establishes that the preservation letter caused the Bleach Bit cleansing. The fact that Clinton ordered this cleansing previously and it wasn't done through oversight or through some other cause is irrelevant. The preservation letter should have stopped the cleansing even if it was in progress. As I recall you work has house counsel for a company. If you receive a preservation letter from the authorities you know damn well that letter takes precedence and previously established destruction policies or instructions go out the window.
Of course, but that doesn't establish anything. The whole point is her recklessness in establishing a private server. That's why she's fairly been scorned for her actions. But that doesn't at all establish a willful taking of information in the same vein as Berger or the sailor. They purposefully 'snuck' stuff they knew they shouldn't have 'snuck' and then destroyed evidence with the obvious and specific intent of staying out of trouble. That's not at all what's being reasonably discussed with Clinton.
1. What's your basis for saying that anything she had was improperly in her possession to begin with? As I said to Crazy, of course it was improper to use the private server. That's not really in dispute. But I've not read any official reporting that suggests that she was secretly secreting information to achieve some nefarious end. In contrast, that's clearly what happened with the sailor and with Berger.
2. How do you know this? How do you know that Clinton or her team were aware the deletion had not yet occurred when the 'preservation letter' was received?
You would have to take some big leaps in logic for it not to have been. She signed documents indicating how classified info should be handled. She knowingly violated that even to go so far as having her maid print out stuff for her when she was not at home.
She knew she would be getting classified info because she knew she got that at work. She knowingly decided to set up the home server to receive that information and those emails at a location not allowed by the agreement she signed. Then when she got caught she pleaded ignorance and had her staff destroy the info.
You must think her a dangerously stupid person to think this was not wilful.
1. We know that she violated FOIA and the Federal Records Act (or whatever it is called) We also know that the government had no access to her server, which is a violation of both of the above.
2. Mills and Kendall knew about the preservation letter. They called Platte River. Platte River ran the Bleach Bit program after the conference call. Connect the dots.
1. That doesn't get at the point I was making.
2. What's the basis for your unequivocal assertion that Kendall/Mills talked to Platte before Bleach Bit went to work?
Edit: This story suggests the Bleach Bit-er didn't tell Kendall/Mills on March 25 that he had as of yet failed to follow their instructions from months earlier and had his 'oh shit' moment later that week. I understand skepticism here, but that story doesn't strike me as implausible at all.
Last edited:
Most of what you say doesn't get to anyplace new or rebut what I said.
What's the basis for your unequivocal assertion that she had her staff destroy info in the way you suggest?
I don't understand.
Neither Berger, the sailor, nor Clinton intended to give our secreters to the enemy. All of them deliberately put secret information in places where it should not be.
Berger stuffed classified documents into his socks and pants before walking out of the archives and then lied about it to investigators.
The sailor had no legitimate reason to be taking photos of the sub's propulsion system and he destroyed evidence to cover it up.
Both Berger came into possession through wrongful motive and obstructed investigation.
Clinton, by all accounts I've read, was simply doing her job, but was excessively sloppy in doing so (i.e., using the private server, having a maid print stuff out for her, etc.)
That's night and day. Berger and the sailor were up to no good at every step. They weren't just careless/reckless in carrying out their typical responsibilities.
By the way, it must be a sign of the times: it feels weird to me that Clinton has a 'maid'. Shouldn't she/we use some other term? Is 'maid' still good if we're not talking about a hotel? In a big building with lots of rooms, 'maid' seems like a big job. When it's just one woman (or man) bossing around another, 'maid' seems off somehow. No?
CO. Hoosier is being obtuse. I can never quite figure out whether he does this because he's obfuscating or because he really is that stupid. But just to run a highlighter over it, he claims that Hillary Clinton using a non-government server to send and receive work emails she didn't think were classified is the "functional equivalent" of Sandy Berger stealing what he knew were classified documents from the National Archives. And then of course there's Berger's subsequent obstruction, which isn't merely a second offense, but also demonstrates guilty knowledge of the first offense.
It'd take a pretty dim bulb to miss these obvious differences. But on the other hand, Clinton.
Both of you are suspending disbelief
The only way your comments make any sense is to assume that Hillary thought she would never traffic in emails that contained classified information while she was in office. What kind of a secretary of state could ever believe that? For you to believe that stains credulity to the breaking point. Your only reason must be . . . .well . . . .Hillary. She swept all of her messages to a location outside of the state department, and stored all them at a location where only she or her agents had access. Then, she and her agents, in their sole, secret and unreviewable discretion decided what was government business and what wasn't. Then, she took the extraordinary measure of running a Bleach Bit program on all the material she decided to keep from all of is. All of this is the functional equivalent of Sandy Berger putting classified info in his pants and the sailer putting digital images on a chip.
State.gov email addresses aren't supposed to receive classified information. The SecState has to assume she will never receive classified information on her work email, regardless of whether or not the server is in her basement, because otherwise she can't use email. This is a key fact you keep ignoring, despite the fact it's been pointed out to you clearly about 4,500,000 times.
Now I see. You've misread reports about the sailor and Berger.
You heard that the sailor was actually the Secretary of Navy and a critical part of his job was taking photos of submarine propulsion systems and that he goofed by using his preferred Minolta instead of the Navy-provided Nikon and that because of all that the Secretary didn't really get in trouble as a result. That wasn't exactly what happened. Same thing with Sandy Berger. You understood that part of his job was to take classified documents out of the National Archives in his government-provided socks and Dockers and that by mistake he took them out in his preferred cords (i.e., a matter of the wrong trousers) and that as a result he didn't really get in much trouble. But that's not exactly what happened and the parts you misunderstood explain why those folks actually got in trouble.
Presumably all of them would believe that. Because even the state.gov email server isn't secure. State has an entirely separate system to transmit what is understood to be classified information. No one should be emailing anything that is classified, even on a state.gov server, so there's no reason to assume your work email will be chock full of secret stuff -- even if you're the Secretary of State.
When people work in an organization with a separate secure channel, everybody knows when something is or isn't sent secure, because it comes in on the separate secure system. Unlike regular email, it's a hassle to send or receive secure stuff. Since people know this, they work out ways to avoid sending secure stuff and only communicate securely when they have to. (You hassle me with secure emails that don't have to be secure, and I stop reading your emails.)
Your suppositions are all wrong.
You guys can't get past "but Hillary!!"
First, she used her private server to send all of her own emails, some of which were classified
Second, Comey said she received and stored classified material on her private server, and that only includes an FBI review of the emails Hillary permitted him to review.
Third, somebody in Clinton's staff physically transferred classified email from the classified government system to Hillary's private server. Somebody thought this was okay under rules the Secretary of State established.
Fourth, 5 people in Hillary's personal staff received immunity deals over the email issue. These people thought that they were at risk for criminal prosecution.
Fifth, Bleach Bit.
Sixth, Comey said she was extremely careless with classified info; all of which was on her private server.
Seventh, As Comey so carefully pointed out in his sworn congressional testimony, Hillary lied to the public about exculpatory matters concerning her server showing both knowledge of possible criminal activity and a culpable state of mind.
Eighth, Hillary had a sudden and debilitating case of CRS* when she gave the FBI interview and when she answered written questions under oath in the FOIA litigation.
Finally, all of you should not represent any clients where you need to review and comment on witness credibility. None of you are very good at it.
*Cant Remember Shit.
Last edited:
I LOL every time I see someone refer to this like it's some kind of arch evil hacker software.
I have Bleach Bit on this computer. It's freely available in the Debian repos and I'm sure there's a binary blob for Windows available too. If any of you want to experience the murky underworld of Hillary's server, start with Bleach Bit.
Similar threads
