Slashdot Mirror
Assange: Wikileaks Will Publish 'Enough Evidence' To Indict Hillary Clinton (rt.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via RT: Julian Assange says Wikileaks will have "a very big year" as it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her. In an ITV interview about the Democratic presidential candidate, Assange said, "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication." As it stands, about 32,000 emails from Clinton's private server have been leaked by Wikileaks. Assange has yet to comment on how many new emails will be released or when they will be published. While he thinks there will be enough to indict Clinton, he doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He does think "the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment." Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country." Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
Link to location for Publication
Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.
So Assange wants us to end up with Trump?
but she won't be indicted.
Clinton authorized drone strikes (i.e. assassinations) via email from her phone, which went through her personal server. Peoples were literally being marked for death through her insecure email server. That alone should be enough to put her in a federal prison, but now Assange is telling us that there's more to be learned? Let all mortal flesh keep silence.
The proof is in the pudding, princess. and my spoon is clean.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld overrode the Pentagon's concerns about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We were repeatedly told the war would be over very quickly, a matter of weeks, and that the Iraqis would pay for the reconstruction of their country through oil revenues. We were also told we would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi community.
Cheney continues to say he knows where the wmds are yet refuses to reveal their locations. Perhaps he should be waterboarded, since it's not torture, to reveal that information.
Still waiting on their indictments.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Even if 100% true making a choice to override military commanders is not an indictable offense (even if wrong in the end). Hell that's actually the exact reason why we have civilians in charge (to override commanders for non military reasons). If that statement is correctly attributed to him that's a shame on him. It is just a stupid statement.
What's even crazier is what he suggests will happen. He wants to give the FBI leverage over what is probably the next president, and he thinks that's a GOOD thing? Just what does he think they're going to do with that? In what world does he think they're not going to use that to make damn sure she doesn't do anything to rein in their abuses?
Hey, while we're at it, why not give the CIA information they can blackmail her on, too, so they can force her to authorize torture again. Give it to the NSA, too, so they can make her mandate sticking espionage chips in every orifice for everyone at birth.
#FEELTHEBERN!
So...he's holding onto them so that she gets into office, and the expects that the congress (which will not change hands) will not impeach (house) and convict (senate) with the actual emails/facts on the table? But he's announcing them now rather than a surprise reveal on January 2x? And why does he not think that Trump will win the White House, and what will his course of action be if he does? I don't get his motives here, except as some play for himself in some twisted logic game?
On the subject of the actual indictment...
the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Wait...so it's now illegal for the SoS to influence international policy (not illegal, afaik)? Or is it just that she was (presumably) wrong in pushing to remove Gaddafi because of the power vacuum it created (stupid, perhaps, but not illegal)? Or is it that emails on her server reveal the discussions about past operations within the government (again, unless classified, not illegal)?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'm no GOP supporter, but what exactly was wrong with them "sending letters trying to stop the Iran nuclear deal"? They were merely trying to reclaim a power that the Constitution gives to the Legislative branch but was snatched by the Executive branch.
"the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment."....?
Things aren't that black and white anymore. Our government has been usurped, and as such been infiltrated at the highest levels by people who wish to see America and all of Western Civilization as we know it taken down to the ground. This includes many high-level Democrats and Republicans. A majority of Trump and Sanders supporters see their candidate's success as the only way to have even a long shot at an outsider restoring the Republic back to some semblance of normalcy, of true justice and being a nation of laws. It's not anti-American glee when the system you're rooting against has become obviously and vehemently anti-American.
But it's OK, keep rooting for the occupied establishment if that's the side of history you want to be on. At this point the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Something has to be done to stop the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups from advancing further on Western Civilization, with which they are wholly incompatible. That won't be happening with any establishment candidate, as they are they ones encouraging more of the same. If you want about 10 more Orlandos, each bigger than the last, keep trying to spread your propaganda that being against Clinton is being for the KGB. I hope you can sleep at night afterwards.
I'm guessing that he wants to pressure the Democrats into picking a different candidate by announcing a different candidate, although it's difficult to imagine how they'd do that without looking stupid after Obama called her the 'most qualified candidate ever'. He perhaps hopes that the Democratic Party will tell her that if she does stand and win, then they'll vote along with the Republicans for impeachment as soon as she's elected and force her to hand over the Presidency to whoever she picks as her running mate.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They could release that Hillary is a serial killer with 50 people locked up in her basement, but if Obama is in office and pardons her, it's all for naught.
Supposedly the FBI is waiting for her to be President, or not be President, but as long as the current President has her back, any evidence against her can be signed away.
The FBI already have the leverage. This is more about the rest of us knowing about said leverage as it is being applied.
It does have the chance to alter the election odds, possibly enough to force the Democratic party to replace her at the convention.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
?
Hillay could murder at least a few people and still be allowed to run at this point.
Oh you did not just go there, did you?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
We need him trump is to extreme.
Actually, I think he's saying that the FBI already has leverage if Hillary is the next President. It's not like the FBI doesn't already have the information he's threatening to release to the public (where do you think the leaks came from?). What he's threatening is to show the public that the FBI has (and, presumably is using) some leverage they have over the Pres.
Mind you, he's wrong about that. If Hillary is elected, she can pardon herself quite legally, and there is ZERO chance of the Senate impeaching her. Hell, the Senate wouldn't impeach her if she visited the Senate to make a speech carrying Bill's severed head....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
He thinks her criminality will actually matter. That's so charming.
The narrative's already written, folks. (And the script has been WELL paid for.)
I heard an interview on NPR the other day about the triviality of the 'secret' emails found to have gone through her server. It seems to have been entirely forgotten that this is WHAT HER PEOPLE RELEASED - ie long after they'd scrubbed it clean of meaningful communications.
That some were left of 'somewhat' secret nature is due to incompetence or more likely a deliberate effort to leave "something to be found".
Nixon would have been impeached over 18.5 minutes of missing tape. Hilary with roll to the presidency despite deliberately criminal behavior.
-Styopa
Ah, an adult posting on Slashdot. What are you doing here?
I think this is less to do with the data and more do with Assange (TM) the self-professed iconoclast. WikiLeaks is/has become a political and politicised organisation, which it shouldn't be.
It isn't so much as wanting interference of a foreign body, it is about wanting the corruption to come to light. If Hillary hasn't done anything wrong, then she shouldn't have anything to fear and hide. Would you be less bothered if this was occurring to Trump perhaps? Personally if it happens to Obama, Trump or any politician, who has been behaving less than morally and arguably in direct violation of the Constitution it would be good for the country. The sooner people see that criminals in highest levels of the political spectrum are held unaccountable the better. People need to understand a criminal in your party of preference is no better than a criminal in the party you oppose. Let them be held accountable as the criminals they have become.
"[Assange] doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. "
Obama will not do anything to damage Hillary's chances of winning the election but there will be a limit to how much of a corrupt jackass Obama is willing to make himself look like to help here out. We already know, based on evidence released publicly, that Hillary is guilty and a crazy liar, so if Obama's justice department does not indict he goes down in history as the U.S. President more corrupt than Nixon.
A prediction: Obama has Lynch slow-walk the decision to indict until after Hillary is elected in November 2016, they they indict her. After Hillary takes office in January 2017, she pardons herself.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Negotiating treaties is the sole purview of the executive branch. The constitution gives the Senate the right to RATIFY a treaty with a 2/3rds vote but not the power to negotiate them.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
US Politics is a complete and total disaster, the US Govt is a mob of evil clowns, and Washington DC is their circus
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Showing glee at the downfall of that corrupt, lying, incompetent woman doesn't make one a Trump or Sanders supporter.
The regular population doesn't want a crook, but how are the parties and high-value donors supposed to control a politician who isn't a crook?
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Points here:
Mind you, that chance is close to zero if she is not indicted. And, as noted, she could kill children on live TV, and still waltz to the nomination.
Which is why I, increasingly, support the Sweet Meteor of Death for 2016.
Just end it, already. . . .
The regular population doesn't realize she is a crook. To the unwashed masses anything about their candidate is propaganda by the competing party to make them look bad, it "isn't a thing".
People want to be lied to.
You meant "Literal KGB espionage".
One: Everyone and his brother have apparently hacked the clintonemail.com server, and,
Two: The KGB hasn't existed for 21 years. It's been the FSB since 1995. . .
Isn't RT just a Russian propaganda rag, like Pravda? The equivalent of the UK's Daily Mail.
This should not be on the front page, at least not the RT link. As for the content, well, it should be main-page when and if such documents are leaked – not before.
Slashdot is for discussion of news, not speculation of what might be released, and what it might mean. Just wait for the wikileaks release, and then main-page it.
And hearing the Pentagon advising against a war... That does not happen very often.
If he released this dump of "evidence" in time it would lead to Sanders winning the democratic endorsement. All the polling data we've ever seen has shown Sanders very easily defeating Drumpf in a general election.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Did you miss the part where Russian intelligence intercepted the emails to be released? Yes I know it's called the FSB now but indications are that many of the same personnel and methods are still in play.
You're a True Believer if you think "revealing corruption" is the only criteria they'll use in selecting what to publish.
I think you're confusing Assange with Snowden.
It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.
Who's to say the three letter agencies don't already have such information? And for that matter, similar leverage over all the other potential candidates?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
True, the power to negotiate treaties belongs to the Executive and the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate.
Of course, the Senate is free to proclaim its intention to not ratify a treaty based on the information at hand. Plus, there's the whole notion that Obama knew damn well that the Senate would not ratify any such "treaty". So he just proclaimed that he was not negotiating a treaty, but instead working on a "non-binding agreement with some plans for enforcement" in a shallow attempt to bypass the ratification power of the Senate. It would seem to me that if he says he was not negotiating a treaty, then claiming the power to negotiate a treaty is moot.
As CNN put it at the time:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/...
If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?
According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.
That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.
"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."
The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.
It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.
The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.
Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.
That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed.
Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such."
E-mails are just text files, and can be easily forged. Anyone who's ever gotten a spam message from themselves should realize this.
Collecting forensics evidence from a hard drive so that it's admissible in courts is not the same as just dumping files. Last I knew, you have to preserve the data in the original format, and provide access to the defense.
Unless these E-mails are signed by a private key known to be Clinton's, I don't really see how they're going to be admissible.
What makes you think he wants to do something good, at least where the US presidency is concerned? After a few years confined to a room in an embassy I can't say I wouldn't be doing stuff just to watch the world burn.
Log in or piss off.
Evidence has a lot to do with it, and as yet, nobody has any evidence that she did anything illegal. None.
Maybe he was talking about Belarus or Transnistria - KGB still exists there. Besides, FSB would be the wrong intelligence agency in this case - they are responsible for internal security, so they are more like the FBI. SVR RF is the foreign intelligence counterpart. The mistake is pretty common because KGB used to be responsible for both federal crime investigation and also for foreign intelligence.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Perhaps that's what he means, but that didn't appear to be what he said. Furthermore, if he really wanted to release information to weaken her as a candidate, the window for doing that in any sort of constructive manner (i.e., in time to help someone else such as Sanders win the primary) has closed. Does he think Donald "I want to make it easier to go after the press for publishing things I don't like" Trump is going to be better?
Maybe he thinks that the only way to make things better is by making them absolutely terrible first in order to get people to be less complacent? If so, that's utterly idiotic and counterproductive. Things can get much, much worse.
She stored classified information on a non-approved device. That is illegal. What her aides did was also illegal, and all of them should be prosecuted.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
If he actually has evidence, publishing it is the farthest thing from anti-American. Americans should know as much as possible about their presidential candidates; making proof of wrongdoing publicly available is, IMO, patriotic.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
He would need a bunch more votes to get a shot at being president. He didn't, so he won't be president.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
You paraphrased Trump and your nickname is Cro Magnon.
This stuff writes itself.
It was Europe that wanted the invasion. Hillary backed the wrong pony. And massage thinks that is indictable? He needs to show that she did that for personal gain. Or that she lied to make for personal gains. While I opposed Libya's invasion, the fact that she backed it is not a criminal act.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You don't understand the law.
Send information that is required by law to be on secure communications and you have committed a crime.
Markings, intent, not classified at the time... all of that is immaterial.
If you do it, even "accidentally", you are usually in deep shit.
But not Hillary. Wonder why....
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Actually, it was illegal at the time.
First, the Clinton campaign tried to excuse the server by conflating retroactively marking documents classified with retroactively classifying documents. Problem is markings are not what makes a document classified.
Currently, the Clinton campaign is trying to push an argument that she lacked intent, and thus can not be indicted. The problem is the relevant statute does not require intent. She can be indicted based on either 1) intent or 2) gross negligence. And the email saying "we got hacked, so we turned the server off for a minute" demonstrates gross negligence pretty well.
Already did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st...
Stupid meteors... Coming to our planet and taking extinction level event causing jobs away from hard-working Earth-based calamities. Super Volcano would have the best eruptions. Fantastic. He's destroy the most people ever. He's getting tons of compliments for how much destruction he'd cause. He'll build a wall of smoke around the world and make us all pay for it... with our lives.
This November, Vote Super Volcano 2016!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I have to wonder why now? Why not earlier?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First Woman President? Big deal. First pre-indicted President.
Not like she hasn't already built a throne of children's skulls, and a platform of war crimes, on from which to rule.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
No, the Daily Mail has more journalistic integrity than RT.
Most people realize she's a crook. But they had no choice, the Democratic Party anointed her without any input from the general population.
The fact that it was horribly insecure was in fact illegal at the time. The only defense Hillary had was that there was no classified information which is known to be untrue. Whether or not there was intent or a cover-up determines how many crimes were committed and how harsh the penalties should be.
Who am I kidding, the sitting president has ordered the execution of US citizens without a trial and he hasn't even seen a courtroom about it. What does Hillary have to fear?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Two points. Hillary is corrupt and needs to be stopped. And the Iran deal is awful. Everything that could have been done, should have been done to stop it. People need to stop pretending that this president is gifted in the foreign policy department.
We know some of them have already gotten deals with prosecution so they will not face additional charges or possible jail time.
Ass or Angel?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Ok, when did the deal get submitted to the Senate for ratification?
Maybe you're right in that this stuff writes itself. Your nickname is Dr. Evil and by bashing a Trump supporter you take a position that's pro Slitherly Clinton.
I'll believe it when I see it.
You are a melodramatic fantasist.
The problem is, everything IS as dire as you portray - but it's not a Manichean fairytale of "high level conspirators against 'Western Civilization"."
This IS the natural fruit of your so-called "civilization". A cursory understanding of history of the "Western" world - from Phoenicia and Greece through Rome, all the Renaissance and "enlightenment" to today - all of it is hardly different from what is portrayed on "Game of Thrones". I can say that without hyperbole.
The idea of "Western Civilization" is just another chauvinism - another mythology by which you are crudely manipulated as a tool of those same forces you imagine to be in "betrayal".
No man in earth understands ANYTHING, until he has insightful awareness that EVERYTHING he knows is WRONG.
Then his eyes may see clearly. He has no solution, but surely understands the nature of things.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Snopes says not true, to at least most of those: FALSE: Clinton Body Count.
Nope. Working rockets, tanks filled with various gases(safe enough they moved them, stored them for a long time, then finally destroyed them), and tons of processed powdered concentrated uranium are just some of the things found. Others are known to have been sent off to other countries.
I agree 100% AC. My question to the American "patriots" is what happens when the ideal America you are patriotic about, is not the America you live in? When do you recognize that the name itself does not warrant patriotism, but rather the ideals for which it actively works?
Notice I didn't say the ideals it claims to stand for, because saying you are for freedom and democracy is very different from actually allowing people to be free and have a functioning system of democracy. It seems to me (as a non-American) that America has been slipping further and further away from what the patriots claim America represents.
You don't live in the post-war 50's with an American dream available to all. You live in a country where the dictators all follow their name with a trademark symbol, and aren't breaking laws because they get to buy them from your "democratically elected" government. I use quotations because it seems odd to have a system where you are stuck with 1 of 2 possiblities, both of whom seem to be picked by the parties themselves more than voting, based on super-PAC funding and donations from the corporations.
So again I ask: What are you patriotic towards, the America of today, or the ideal of America?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
All you have to do is avoid the cardinal sin: NEVER EVER steal from the rich. They don't like that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
After the election.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah, the old Nixon defense:
In the context of American national security, Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
If this is a true story, can't we have a link to a better source than RT, which is known to push conspiracy theories? In any event, if this story is true, I get the distinct impression that Assange doesn't have a clear idea of what U.S. laws actually prohibit.
Everything's a rightwing claptrap when you're hearing what you don't want to hear. I've been accused of using rightwing propaganda for siting the State Department Inspector General report. You know, the rightwing Obama administration State Department for which she was Secretary of State? Damned rightwing claptrap.
although it's difficult to imagine how they'd do that without looking stupid after Obama called her the 'most qualified candidate ever'.
With all the other stupid stuff he has said (57 states, ISIS is like a JV team, etc), people have got to be used to it or just not care.
That's basically part of the problem with all this. It's not to say that it wasn't a terrible idea that was horribly insecure, but none of it was per se illegal at the time.
First, it is highly illegal. (The "at the time qualifier" makes no sense... it's been illegal for a long, long time.)
Really the only thing that she could possibly be indicted/convicted on related to this is an attempt to cover up or destroy evidence - and even then, you'd pretty much have to get a smoking gun in this day and age, like catching her emailing her staffers with direct instructions to violate the law. Good luck finding anything like that.
Every paragraph of those documents would begin with a classification code. It's not like it's metadata that can be lost in a file transfer. She would have had to have someone print and re-type the documents to remove the codes. Unless that guy comes forward and falls on his sword, she has no defense. She willingly and deliberately circumvented the classification system, then put the documents on an insecure server. She has violated the law several times over, and it's probably killed several of our sources.
The DOJ has given the technician who set up the server immunity. They have on the order of 100 agents working the case. They have her. It's open and shut with testimony and evidence lined up. The could indict her at any time.
All it comes down to now is speculation about why they haven't. Is the President pressuring them to stay clear of his party's nominee (and presumptive nominee for months now - Sorry, Bernie)? Are they waiting to indict until after the election to avoid the appearance of bias? Are they waiting until after the election when Obama will no long be in office to pardon her? Are they waiting until after the election on the chance that she loses and she's left without anyone who will care enough to interfere? Are they holding onto the possibility of indictment to exchange politically for special treatment? Are they staying out because higher-ups recognize she will never actually serve time, so why bother to hurry?
There are a hundred scenarios that could play out, but All of them that based on her being innocent, unaware, or even just incompetent are in the rear view mirror.
An agreement has to be a treaty if the agreement includes actions or stipulations that would require the the president to make use powers that are either not granted by the constitution as executive powers, or have not previously been granted by congress to the executive. An agreement DOES NOT have to be a treaty if the only actions or stipulations in the agreement involve powers that are part of the executive. That's how it's always been. For example, if congress has granted the president the power to freeze and unfreeze the bank accounts of some country, and congress put no pertinent limitations upon this grant of power, then the president is free to exercise that power as he sees fit, including as part of an act of diplomacy with said country.
The state department has said that her mail server was never authorized and would not have been permitted had she asked:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/...
She disregarded the Freedom of Information Act by keeping her official State Department communications on her server and therefore unavailable for retrieval and archiving as per FOIA.
That's illegal - she broke the law simply by operating her own server.
Security and the hacking of her server is irrelevant. Clinton stripping classified headers off of documents is irrelevant. Those charges, if proven, will simply add to her punishment (if there is any at all).
In a just world, she would have already been convicted in a court of law. What we know she did, by her own admission, should be enough for criminal prosecution and should disqualify her from the presidency.
"The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.
Considering that Snowden revealed that the Good 'ol Boys at the NSA were using Government resources to check up on their Girl Friends, I'm sure there isn't much that they don't have on the Clintons; especially since the KGB and Wikileaks have it. The NSA has a computer security mission, I'm sure more than a few "unannounced security audits" on Clinton's Email server, and anything classified or potentially blackmail material was retrieved for further threat analysis.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This. Assange is making some terrible decisions here (shocking, I know). Worst-case scenario, he could end up putting Trump in the White House.
The Democrats should have a backup plan in case Hillary's baggage finally achieves critical mass.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Espionage act. Negligent disregard for securing state secrets is a federal crime. Obstruction of justice. Destroying protected information. Destroying evidence. That much is certain. Less certain is public corruption, also a federal crime. Taking money for delivering favors through your government position. It's obvious that she's done it, but it's unknown if her emails contain proof, though lesser figures have been jailed on patterns alone, and her patterns have many more data points.
First, that's not a real quote. It's one of many that people paraphrase or flat out make up. Which is strange because he says enough controversial stuff you would think people with have to make up stuff.
It's amazing the lengths that the press is going after Trump by flat out lying or at least playing word games.
This is one of my favorites 'You were born in a Taco Bell': Trump's rhetoric fuels school bullies across US If you read the article, you will see a few paragraphs in that Trump never used that phrase; it was one of the kids there.
And Obama is pretty restricting on the press. You don't hear about it as often because they put up with it since they support his policies.
https://cpj.org/reports/2013/1...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The FBI already have the leverage.
Yeah... [citation needed].
Mr. Putin prefers Trump to be the next president, as it may fragment NATO and other US alliances. This is his ultimate and most desirable goal, it will make him strongest bully in his yard.
He certainly has plenty of influence in the circles of people like Assange and can subtly manipulate them pushing to the right direction without them having a clue that they are manipulated and used.
All that is true, but isn't that already known without whatever Wikileaks has on tap? I didn't see anything in what Assange hinted about that would change the likelihood of an indictment.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
none of it was per se illegal
Copy-pasted from here:
Title 18 of the U.S. Code of the Espionage Act in sections 793, 798 and 1001
Section 793 applies to anyone who has been “entrusted” with information relating to the national defense. The law applies to a federal official who “through gross negligence permits” information “to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.”
Section 798 applies to any government official who “knowingly and willfully communicates” information “to an unauthorized person.” Section 1001 addresses giving “false statements.”
Clinton and her aides also could be charged under section 1924, which is a misdemeanor. This was the April, 2015, charge former CIA Director David Petraeus negotiated with prosecutors for sharing classified information with a mistress who also served as his biographer.
It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.
Yes, that would have helped Bernie Sanders, who would be a different candidate. I am guessing, that is not who they wanted to see picked. Even now the Democrats are headed to a technically open/contested convention. If Bernie would drop out (before) the convention, then we might see this kind of release of evidence to, "save the party." Without that concession, you run the risk of all the super delegates switching to Bernie and handing him the nomination. In most things timing is very important, politics is one of those things.
I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
and even then, you'd pretty much have to get a smoking gun in this day and age, like catching her emailing her staffers with direct instructions to violate the law. Good luck finding anything like that.
Already did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/
Why do people keep repeating this false talking point? Do you actually know why documents are classified and how they are supposed to be handled, or are you just parroting a line from a news source? Do you even know what a nonpaper is and why they are used?
Having talked to people who work in government with these types of documents, this instruction is certainly unusual. However it isn't per say mishandling of classified documents. It would depend on what the information was and who classified it, among other things. As an example, let me put together a hypothetical situation in which Clinton's request is perfectly reasonable:
Hypothetical: The State Department is considering the affects of legalizing marijuana across the nation, and is in discussions with other countries about how they would react. This is all done informally at this point as neither country wants to officially take a position. As such the State Department is having all the documents classified because it suggests a potential policy of the United States government.
Clinton wants to know the latest development for a briefing, but the secure fax systems is down. So she requests that her aide make it a "nonpaper" by stripping all of the country markings and information. This would be okay in terms of law as the document was originally classified by the State Department. This is even okay in theory, as the only reason the document is classified as it is associated with the State Department and suggests a policy direction; if you strip all that away it becomes one of countless other opinion pieces you can find on marijuana advocacy websites (and is indeed as non-authoritative as this posting by an AC on a website).
In this hypothetical situation, it is unusual for Clinton to request an aide to "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," but it violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the law in regard to classified documents. It probably violated State Department policy, but that is no more wrong than a CEO of a small company saying "I know I said we only use Blackberries, but you WILL find a way to get my iPhone to work with our email."
Now I do think that Clinton has violated both the spirit and the letter of the law in terms of records management. I also strongly suspect she has mishandled classified documents. But unless you have more context (e.g. the document she requested to have turned into a nonpaper had originally been classified by another agency rather than the State Department, and it indeed had been sent unclassified without that agency's approval), that "smoking gun" you and everybody keeps pointing to is more of a damp squib.
I'll also note as an afterthought that even in that article you listed, "State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent 'apparently by secure fax, after all,' and was never was sent to Clinton by email."
The web site Truth or Fiction says not true.
Stripping the classification markings off a document without proper review is a problem. Whether it breaks "the rules" or "the law" depends on a lot of details about the circumstances.
We don't know what was or was not actually classified, since that part was redacted....which you'd know by reading the article.
Since there are redactions, either there was classified information, or someone illegally redacted the document. It would be nice to know which.
Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
a) Guccifer exposed a handful of Clinton's emails by breaking into the email account of one of her friends and leaking the ones she sent him.
b) The email controversy came to light because the Republicans trying to lynch her for Benghazi realized she sent all her emails through the private server.
c) Guccifer's "hacking" involves guessing password reset questions and bragging about everything he finds. To think he not only "breached her personal server" but then kept his mouth shut about it and never dumped a thing is absurd.
This is a damn tech site, certainly people can show some basic critical thinking skills and not just repeat the wild-ass claims of every wannabe hacker looking for notoriety.
I stole this Sig
Golly....if only my post had directly addressed this "intent" bullshit.......
18 U.S. Code section 793, Subsection (f)
Yes. And I don't even have to talk to other people about it.
Stripping the portion marking and header/footer from a document without proper review is either against "the rules" or "the law". Which it breaks depends on a lot of details of the specific circumstances.
The relevant email was redacted when it was released under FOIA. So either it contained classified, or someone illegally redacted it.
It should be noted that the secure fax mentioned at the end of the article was a printout of an email. Just to avoid more confusion.
Yeah, where's Tailgunner Joe when we need him? Oh wait, he's dead, and he was pretty much a clinical study of paranoia, seeing Communists behind everything.
Let's go back to those days, I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong that didn't already go wrong.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Not just that, but RT is a mouthpiece for the Kremlin, and Putin and Trump seem relatively friendly.
I would be far from shocked if RT didn't have a directive to try and help Trump's campaign.
I stole this Sig
Yes, I think I did -- mostly because you appear to have invented it out of thin air. TFA doesn't even have the word "Russia" (or "FSB," or even "KGB") in it at all.
Besides, if Russian intelligence did intercept emails then that's just even more reason to indict Hillary! Her choice to use her own server makes it her fault if she got hacked.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
leaked data is always heavily politicized. Choices are made to publish the material. That in itself is a political act. Not controlling the information supplied to them, doesn't make them pro republican because they happen to get leaked data making a democrat look bad.
Yeah, no input at all. Aside from 16,000,000 democratic primary voters.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
One of the biggest facts that right-wingers AVOID is that the State Department server was NO MORE SECURE than a commercial/private server, and in fact the State Dept. server was (eventually) hacked.
One could argue that such messages should have been sent over the separate secure system (not email), but that's a DIFFERENT ISSUE than whether the "regular" office email system was more secure or not than her personal server.
They were BOTH Chevy's, not Lexuses.
Table-ized A.I.
... just as soon as I fabricate it.
Let's all rush to Google® and look up the definitions of "provenance," and the concept of, "chain of custody."
In court, defendants have a right to face their accusers.
Wikileaks promises that it will not reveal its sources.
We're all nerds here and some of you, like me, have hand-crafted emails that look perfectly real, including the header information.
Great prank material, but certainly not admissible in court.
NOTE: My interest is matters of digital law; not politics.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Trump is a Democrat, he's just running as a Republican because he's too much an old school Conservative Democrat to get any traction in today's Liberal-Progressive Democratic Party. JFK couldn't get nominated for Dog Catcher in today's Democratic Party.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Oh! I saw that movie! It was pretty cool the way Captain America took down Gary Shandling and Hydra.
"It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information." However, "Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown,..." So your theory is that the portions that are redacted by State are unclassified? Perhaps they contained unclassified talking points that are in the public? That's not how this works.
all of it is hardly different from what is portrayed on "Game of Thrones".
It's really hardly different from "The Godfather". There is a level of gangsterism that permeates.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm a Democrat, and I think there's been "enough evidence" available to indict her for quite some time.
Seriously, what do they need, HD video of her snickering, "They'll never find these classified emails now, ha ha ha!" while she presses the Delete key again and again?
If you or I had done this we'd already be serving time in a Federal prison.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"He wants to give the FBI leverage over what is probably the next president, and he thinks that's a GOOD thing?"
Oh he just doesn't want a criminal who has been known to circumvent laws, checks, and balances for her own convenience/gain.
Except it wasn't illegal at the time.
Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.
She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.
Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.
Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?
I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.
Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?
Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.
The number of people who have been murdered or committed suicide that were going to testify or being investigated in regards to a Clinton related investigation is astounding! 89 deaths, 59 in 12 Plane Crashes, 13 Murders , 10 Suicides, 4 Friendly Fire during the Waco Assault and 03 Accidents.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yeah, no input at all. Aside from 16,000,000 democratic primary voters.
Of which a significant amount voted not for her, but as a vote against Trump because they don't think Sanders could mount enough of a challenge. Whether that is right or wrong, that's the reality. But who cares about nuisance?
That is puzzling; maybe he was hoping he wouldn't have to intervene?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.
My thoughts exactly. To me, Assange is an asshole. If he has the goods, and if he really cares about truth, he should deliver them now without so much fanfare. Otherwise, he ought to STFU.
Fortunately for Assange, even Trump isn't crazy enough to declare war on Ecuador.
My response to the parent was intended to point out that members of congress sending letters to foreign leadership is most certainly illegal because congress does not have the authority to negotiate with foreign leaders. It wasn't intended to be a comment on the intellectual dishonesty of the Obama administration.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
I think this is a better cry for legal and prosecution reform. I agree there are laws that should always be prosecuted, but thats not the way this country works. From blue laws, to traffic laws, to tax laws, to immigration laws, no one wants all of them enforced. I submit we should agree on a subset, and take the rest off the books.
and yet, the vast majority of the GOP that fights against Obama, has no reason to do so. There are plenty of times in which they fight against him, even though, they back the idea. Why fight him? Purely because the GOP is composed of old racists who would rather destroy America, than allow a black to make policy.
And you obviously join that problem of so many racists in your party.
The Democrats should have a backup plan...
They do... Biden. Nice and neutral
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If ever there was an election to vote for a third party, it is this one. Keep an eye on Gary Johnson from the Libertarian party. While I don't agree with his stance on every issue, he seems really solid. Which I can't even fathom saying for anyone else in the running. Want to upset the current system? Don't let either side win. Maybe they will finally wake up.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
O pulled the same shit as the GOP does. Basically, he declared that it was not a treaty and set it up to by pass them. The exact same way that the GOP keeps one of their lackies sitting in 'CONgress', to keep it in session.
Personally, I think that both major parties are a bunch of losers, but esp the GOP for starting this BS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How is the Iran deal awful?
depends on what you are up to. If you support Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, etc and support their choice, which is Trump, then they just did this at the right time. Sanders will likely run as 3rd party due to this and that will give trump a chance that he never had.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Slashdot now posts Kremlin "news"? The wikileaks article is nowhere nearly as specific as RT, mainly known for having English language newscasters quit on air live over being ordered to report false stories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Gently reply
The only reasonable scenario would be to find a third alternative, but good luck getting enough people to agree on one.
Governor Gary Johnson is the only candidate in this election with experience in the executive branch.
People knew that Adolf Hitler was a violent demagogue (from his Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch in 1923), but they absolutely refused to vote for the alternatives because they thought they had done something worse.
Godwin's Law strike 1
There are plenty more strikes against Trump where that came from. See Adam Tod Brown's article "5 Ways Donald Trump Perfectly Mirrors Hitler's Rise To Power".
Right, and before the primaries it was a total question mark who the Democrats were going to nominate. Everyone just naturally assumed it was going to be Jim Webb, but then Hillary just came out of nowhere with hardly any support from the party!
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It's only an 'Imperial Presidency' when the party I hate does it.
The Senate doesn't impeach anyone. The House does. The Senate holds a trial to determine if the impeachment has merit and if it does it removes the offender from office.
5 Aviators 03/93 Plane Crash
Sweet Jesus, what are the odds that 5 aviators would die in a plane crash? Someone must answer for this!
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Of which a significant amount voted not for her, but as a vote against Trump because they don't think Sanders could mount enough of a challenge. Whether that is right or wrong, that's the reality. But who cares about nuisance?
It's like my mom always said, nuance is a real nuisance.
Pedantic correction: They can read newspaper stories about the documents, they can't read the documents themselves.
And if that was the only "problematic" email, that argument would work. It isn't the only "problematic" email.
When did the GOP do this?
The Senate basically never ratifies treaties per the Constitutional process. That isn't to say that the US doesn't make legal, Constitutionally-valid, treaties, just that we rarely use that process.
There are a few different kinds of international agreements/treaties we make:
1. Sole executive agreements. These are international agreements that the president makes on his/her own, without the involvement of Congress. They're perfectly legal as long as they only commit the US to things that are wholly within the authority of the president. A common example is "Status of Forces Agreements" (SOFA) which are agreements with host governments related to how the US military operates within their countries. Because the president is Commander in Chief, telling the military how to operate is entirely within his/her authority.
2. Congressional-executive agreements. These are agreements which the executive negotiates, committing the US to do various things which are beyond the scope of executive power, but they don't directly commit the country. Instead, they promise that Congress will enact laws that implement the terms of the treaty. They don't have any force until Congress does pass the relevant legislation by the normal majority of both houses plus the signature of the president, and thereafter are implemented as ordinary federal law.
3. Actual treaties. These are negotiated by the executive and ratified by two thirds of Senate, per the Treaty Clause of the US Constitution.
In practice, any agreement that can be implemented as a sole-executive agreement, is. Any agreement that goes beyond the authority of the executive is a congressional-executive agreement. In very rare cases the president might opt to go for an actual treaty, mostly if the House looks like it might not approve but 2/3 of the Senate will (which obviously isn't very common).
And, of course, the executive is also free to make whatever non-binding agreements it likes. The other parties to the agreement must understand, however, that non-binding agreements are exactly that -- non-binding.
The Republicans who are griping understand all of this, they're just using it to make political hay over an agreement they dislike (I'm not too sure about it myself, actually). Which is fine, though the disingenuousness is obnoxious.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I can bitch about R (and I bitched about W plenty) and D (so much to bitch about with Obama) all I want.
Lots of agreements don't get assented by the senate. And don't pretend the GOP is in the clear on this, why do you think they passed the "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015"? It basically gave the congress the right to review the agreement, vote on approval, and then have that disapproval vetoed by Obama.
My understanding is they never really cared to stop Obama from signing the agreement, they just wanted the maximum opportunity to demagogue against dealing with Iran.
I stole this Sig
Our UID 137's comment started out really well, with some provocative and fascinating points to ponder. Too bad it goes off the rails with the deranged overkill of western civilization and bogging down in an acid trip claiming "nobody understands anything".
Your logic is completely backwards. The FBI already has all of the information and, ostensibly all of the leverage. Both parties need to keep that information secret from the American people. The FBI to maintain the threat, and Clinton to avoid the repercussions. Therefore, if damning evidence exists, and if the public is kept in the dark about said damning information, then and only then will the FBI be able to use it as leverage.
If the information is released to the public there is no leverage, period. This is yet another reason leaks of information to the public are a good thing. It keeps people accountable to public scrutiny and the justice system, instead of having that accountability subverted by some group or person who holds the information as blackmail fodder.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Assange is a serious self-publicist. He may well have this information, but him saying so isn't going to convince me.
Just release the sodding data.
I agree to an extent. Laws that people are routinely not prosecuted under should probably go, but I don't think mandatory prosecution is a good idea either.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
The corporate and military support of Hillary stopped being an Illuminati Conspiracy once documents of financial support, and her vocal and political support for Bush Jr.'s foreign policy in the Middle East, happened.
The woman is too untrustworthy to hold a concise political position (she changed her politics since the 90's in a contradictory manner to fit with the "trend"),
she supports fucking Saudi Arabia with all her might despite it being a glaring contradictory violation of any and all feminist fartery to support such a nation (but it's fine, since what's important is that she is the 1st female president durrr!!!111!!);
she has shown a complete disregard of listening to advisory, having the patience to listen to her advisory's assessments of situations to pick up a concise rhetoric from that, and a lack of interest in educating herself in trending technology topics of importance (as evidenced by her idiotic moronic statement following the Paris attacks in regards to encryption).
For fuck's sake, she even supports Monsanto. Even the staunchest supporters of genetic engineering and the more heatedly debated sciences, regard Monsanto as the definition of a corporation without any semblance of Business Ethic, let alone general ethics.
I can't choose between who is worse in regards to the election. All i can say is a feeling, and the feeling is that Trump is enough of a clown that at least nobody will allow him to act on his idiocy if he gets in the position, while Hillary will actually have support and power for her evil shit.
Or to be more direct: Trump seems to exist as a tool to push Hillary through, since nobody in their right mind would vote Hillary if anyone other than Trump was in the opposing seat.
Either way, USA is fucked for the next presidency.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Supporting this _is_ causing serious injury to the USA.
Back at you.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Of course, that's why we have a civilian government. The Pentagon doesn't have the final say, the POTUS has the final say, as Commander-In-Chief, and relies on advice from his/her advisers one of which would be the SoS. Nothing here to prosecute, just some has-been news item trolling for another 15 minutes of fame because he's tired of Ecuadorean food.
The Russians surely have all her emails. But why would they release them? They would much rather continue to own her.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's much, much more complicated than that. Just as one little wrinkle -- as Secretary of State (an official part of the executive branch), Hillary had the power to classify information or to de-classify already classified information IF the classification originated with her office. So, if she sent something that was classified by the Secretary of State office (which would be many things dealing with foreign intelligence), she could actually de-classify it, transmit it, then re-classify it later on a whim.
It's very, very hard to know what was and was not classified at the time she sent or received information and whether or not she had the power to de-classify anything that might have been sent or stored improperly.
The reason she's special is that she's a cabinet member, not some junior officer out at an army base. She has plenary power granted by the presidency to classify and un-classify documents herself that originate with her office. It absolutely DOES matter whether or not something was classified at the time it was sent or received, and if it is classified, it matters which department classified it.
As an aside, many things are "classified" just so certain people can get all of their e-mail through their classified-only e-mail account b/c they're too lazy to check 2 separate e-mails. I'm sure somewhere, there's a classified document on what pizza toppings a general wants at their upcoming office birthday party... b/c laziness.... not national security.
Hillary used the private e-mail server to intentionally control what information was available by the FOIA and federal records act, and she may be criminally indicted for improperly sending/receiving/storing classified info (though I doubt it.) The relevant laws do actually require knowledge and intent, not just the action... so, unless the DOJ gets Hillary's former underlings to roll on her (and assuming they aren't immediately reported to have suspiciously committed suicide), it's going to be a very difficult case to build against her.
Just to complicate things, not only is it up to the person writing a document to ensure the information is properly marked -- a process that is bound to be error prone, I believe that the Sec of State is one of the very numerous people who can legally change the classification of a piece of information. Not only is "I didn't think THAT was classified" often a legitimate defense, "I didn't think that SHOULD be classified" may well be a legitimate defense for the SecofState.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
That makes the law harder on her, not easier.
Having original classification authority doesn't mean she can unilaterally declassify. It means if she sees something secret (e.g. full resolution spy satellite photos found on her server) she is required to mark it classified and start an investigation as to why it was in the open.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As an American, I find it a total disgrace that Margaret Thatcher could be elected PM. And that Charles could be next in line for the throne . . .
Actually, the authority to classify all information is derived from the Office of the President. Executive Order 13526 is what created the department to classify documents.... and its authority is derived and is an extended from the president's authority.... so, yeah... The President of the United States can at a whim decide what is and what is not classified at any moment without any input from anyone else.
So... that would be absolutely true that it is not illegal if the president sends classified info through whatever means he wishes since he's the one who determines what is and is not classified at any point in time. He can't, by definition, decide to send something at the exact same moment that the president has decided not to allow himself to send.
The idea of "Western Civilization" is just another chauvinism - another mythology by which you are crudely manipulated as a tool of those same forces you imagine to be in "betrayal".
No man in earth understands ANYTHING, until he has insightful awareness that EVERYTHING he knows is WRONG.
Then his eyes may see clearly. He has no solution, but surely understands the nature of things.
You come across as a propagandist who bought a low UID and is trying hard to sound sage. That would make you an employee of the destructive elites that GP was talking about.
On the off-chance you're spouting vague Eastern-sounding philosophy in all seriousness, you would never give up many of the fruits of western civilization, even if you're slumming it somewhere to try to build your 'cred.' Perhaps you ought to consider western civ might be worth preserving.
Beyond that, the "No one really knows anything" philosophy has been very well developed by a couple of defenders of western civilization- Hayek and Sowell. Trade-offs still have to be weighed and decisions made. You seem like you'd rather shrug your shoulders and go rake a zen sand box garden, opening the door for the destructive elites GP spoke of.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Agreed, but you applied the Presidential authority to the Secretary of State.
So you are saying the President authorized this personally?
Quite the bombshell.
Otherwise, your argument holds no meaning.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
You've been willfully ignorant for this long. Nobody expects you to change.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Edit: The presidential standard was applied by someone else, not you personally.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I wasnt suggesting mandatory prosecution. I was saying that if we arent going to prosecute, the law should be removed from the "books".
Tastycrats, Fingerlicans... NO DAMN DIFFERENCE. Both corporate whores, lock stock and barrelhead. Look behind the red meat and dog whistle curtains and see the same fake wizard blowing CEOs.
You mad, bro?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You don't know which 30,000 emails he has. He could have all the 'personal' ones hillary's staff deleted. That would be very bad for her.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Actually, the Democrats started the tradition of not going out of session when a hostile president has potential appointments to make - more than a century ago.
Every party has done it whenever they could. Getting upset about this use of the rules, and not about a blatant runaround of the Constitution, indicates that you are just another biased partisan hack.
He is a red.
Excuse me, but in which year are you living? Did you realise that the Cold War is over, and the Soviet Union fell? Like more than 20 years ago?
entropy happens
You should see how many associates of your grandparents are dead. What were they up to that was so dangerous?
If the classification originated with the Office of the Secretary of State, then Hillary would have been perfectly qualified to de-classify the classified documents before sending as well.
The power to classify documents in the first place originates from the presidency. As Secretary of State, her authority also originates with the presidency and she has plenary power (with the exception of the president's office itself) to classify and de-classify any documents that originate from her office as that power is an extension of the president's authority.
It works like this --> President's authority to classify/de-classify is delegated to the Original Classification Authority by Executive Order 13526, AND is also delegated to each cabinet member as it pertains to their department. Even if everything Hillary sent and received WAS classified at the time it was sent, so long as it was from and within her own department, she can claim she de-classified whatever information she wants on a whim as she pleased and then re-classified it immediately after (so long as it wasn't stored), and it would still be LEGAL. She has to actually have sent or received something from a different department to nail her to the wall for this.
That's why this is so hard to prosecute. You have to remember her entire office and position is an extension of the presidency. The president can do whatever he/she wants with classified information since the authority to even create a classification system and rules for it originates by executive order from his/her own damn office. Congress has no authority to stop the president from de-classifying anything at any moment on a whim -- or delegating that authority to the Secretary of State to de-classify documents that originate with that office either.
Classification rules and procedures are NOT part of the constitution, and while the DOJ can choose to prosecute under federal laws built up around the classification system, it's the president and the executive branch that control what IS and what IS NOT classified. As Secretary of State, if Hillary sent, received, stored anything unsecured that originated from her office, the only person who could countermand her statement that it was not classified is the president.
That's how it seems to me. On the other hand, people involved in politics have FAR more social contacts than others.
Stupid meteors... Coming to our planet and taking extinction level event causing jobs away from hard-working Earth-based calamities. Super Volcano would have the best eruptions. Fantastic. He's destroy the most people ever. He's getting tons of compliments for how much destruction he'd cause. He'll build a wall of smoke around the world and make us all pay for it... with our lives.
This November, Vote Super Volcano 2016!
Hey, I'm just glad the job is staying in the Solar System. Rogue Brown Dwarf wants to rip Earth from its orbit and send the extinction level event causing jobs to another part of the universe. Meteors are downright middle-of-the-road, politically speaking.
You might ask which ideal of America while you're at it.
The ideal of an America governed by a constitution that actually means what it meant when it was written, to be amended as needed? The ideal of an America where the constitution means only what it is convenient for it to mean today (the "living document" approach) where amendment is unworthy of the energy it would take and instead, the Supreme Court graciously redefines it on a moment-to-moment basis? The ideal of an America where everyone is (somehow, don't ask me how... genetics isn't that far along yet) is "created equal"? The ideal of a Christian America? The ideal of an America where personal liberty and informed, consensual choice form the basis for civilized behavior and law? The ideal of an America where "law and order" do, and should, reign supreme in a cascade from legislator to enforcement to retribution? The ideal of an America where immigrants are unwanted interlopers? The ideal of an America where immigrants are the foundation of highly desired diversity in thinking, action and resources? The ideal of an America where only its position in a global context mean anything good? The idea of an America where everyone is either rich, or a "temporarily disenfranchised millionaire"? Etc., etc., etc. I really could go on for a while. :)
This is part (and only part) of our problem. Depending on just whose Kool-aid one decides to consume, pretty much everyone thinks they believe in "the" ideal of America, with very few even giving lip service to the fact that there are many such ideals. It makes for chaotic and spectacularly obtuse public discourse, and the only surprise I experience in that is that anyone with two wet brain cells to run together might be surprised by this end result.
As for patriotism... a large number of people who I have discussed the matter with seem to be coming from a definite jingoist point of view, as opposed to a patriotic point of view. Most of them clearly think jingoism is patriotism. I find it appalling, personally, but it's just another "ideal of America" that has sunk it's roots in like an aggressive fungal infection.
Then there is the fact that the rich and powerful almost entirely control our government. Without getting into an argument about when that became actual fact, I can confidently assert that as of now, it is well entrenched and no way to undo it has made itself obvious to the segment of the population that has actually noticed what has happened.
I not only suspect chaos, I expect it. And what do you know, everywhere I look -- there it is. :/
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Until these documents Wikileaks claims to possess are released, we don't know what they actually prove.
Wikileaks needs to release those documents now so there is time to evaluate them before the Dem Party Convention.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
The SoS only has that power if the information first entered the government via the State Department.
If the information first entered the government via a different agency (DoD, DNI, etc) then the head of that agency is the one who gets to decide if it is classified. And the heads of the other agencies do not get to overrule that determination.
The Wikileaks documents do not matter. You can be prosecuted under 18 USC, even if no one else gets the information.
Yeah, and I agreed with that; if we aren't using the laws, why have them?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Cool. So he makes less grammatical mistakes than Bush.
How long is that going to be the bar for people?
The problem with Trump is that's all he is. Well that and the sociopathy.
Someone had to do it.
Good luck with this. You need to prove either 1) GROSS negligence (not just the regular kind - see legal texts for differences) or 2) or she delivered email to someone she did not trust. And then IF you can prove one of those things, She gets fined. Ooooh. Ahhh. Whatever.
If this is the statute they conspiracy theorists are pinning their hats on, it is pretty pathetic!
Please, if you're going to do it, just do it already, while we still have another candidate in the race. Sandbagging just means the (D) ticket is dead in the water.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Then Wikileaks is playing politics and if so I hope they finally get the prick. It goes totally against what they are supposedly out there to do and makes a mockery of all the retoric they have been on about with regards to freedom.
The regular population has been repeatedly told she is a crook, by people who lie like there was no tomorrow. Benghazi? There's still people who think she did something seriously wrong, despite the complete failure of the congressional witch-hunt.
One result is that I don't believe anything the Republicans say about her without good evidence. So far, I haven't seen good evidence of serious impropriety concerning her emails. I've read a lot of accusations, and don't believe them. Personally, I don't care if the little boy who cried wolf does get eaten anymore.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Work on your reading comprehension. GP said that Clinton had certain legitimate legal authority that she may have used. Things can be illegal because they aren't against the law, not because of who does them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm seeing a couple of hatchet pieces online from the NY Post and other tabloids, calling Bernie a Communist, and that's it.
So I've taken your bait and hope to stop others from wasting their time. You could always back up your statements with some references, of course. And I suggest not referring to the National Enquirer if you want to be taken seriously.
Voting for her because they think she stands the best chances of winning in the general election is voting for her. If you're voting for candidates in the primary who you expect can't be successful in the general election then you're doing it wrong.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Every campaign starts off with a candidates favored by party leadership, that should be obvious since the party is led by people with an interest in politics. Sometimes that candidate wins the primary (Clinton, 2016), and sometimes they don't (Clinton, 2008). That's called the general population giving their input.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The GOP has technically had CONgress in session since 2012. They have kept 1 CONgress critter at both the senate and the house so that O could not appoint judges, ppl. He did so, because he said that this was total BS (and he is correct). However, SCOTUS said that no, the constitution says that while in session, that president can NOT appoint. So, to date, that is the ONLY unconstitutional thing that O has done, even though the GOP regularly accuse him of numerous BS things. For example, he has the rights to do what he did with the illegals. Sadly, it is not the right thing to do. Instead, the fucking GOP should be doing their GD jobs and putting forward bills to solve this. And it will require a simple compromise.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
really? Please come up with a link that shows that. I have never heard of that before this time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, I think that this is all BS. I can not stand what the fucking GOP is doing, and what O is doing in return. This is destroying america. The GD GOP should be doing their jobs. As it is, the more control that they have had of CONgress, then worse things have gotten. That is why it is very likely that for the GD dems are going to have MAJOR control of DC for the next 4-8 years.
Though to be honest, if Assange has SOMETHING real, and not just the major lies that he comes up all the time, then it might give trump a chance.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When GP said "anointed her without any input", that happened before the primaries started.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I am not dense, I am just disbelieving based on what this Administration has done.
Show me the delegation that allows her to do what she did.
I mean, this is the most transparent administration ever, so it should be easy to find the Executive Order.
You won't because it did not happen, and it would have to be a written order because she signed paperwork saying she understood the law and how it worked when she was on-boarded as Sec of State.
BTW, even if you do find it, it still makes him responsible for her actions. He gets indicted instead of her, no passing the buck on National Security.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
What does that have to do with bypasses the Senate on treaty ratification?
And the GP is wrong. She wasn't anointed before the primaries started this year any more than she was the last time when she lost to Obama.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Fortunately for Assange, even Trump isn't crazy enough to declare war on Ecuador.
I don't think that's been conclusively proven. Just wait until $ecuadorean_leader writes a mean tweet about him.
Maybe, but it's Assange claiming to have this data, and a Russian propaganda rag covering it. At the very least this a story about a claim Julian Assange is making that will turn out to be true or false.
That Guccifer guy was just blowing smoke - he got some emails from a recipient's outside account, not from Clinton's server. If Assange thinks these are so incriminating, they should be released ASAP.
Have you read my blog lately?
(Posting as an AC because I hold a security clearance.)
Yes, Clinton had authority to classify and/or declassify documents, but not on a whim. She had authority to do it in accordance with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, executive orders of the President, and official policies of the Department of State. (The last she could change with the stroke of a pen, but she still has to officially sign the State order changing the policy, even if it's her intent to change it back fifteen minutes later.)
The only person who gets to classify or declassify documents without a paper trail is the President. Everyone else has to create a paper trail, so that the President may track what data is classified and by which agency.
If Clinton reclassified documents without completing the paperwork, she was leaving her department *and* the President twisting in the wind... and her "reclassifications" would be deemed null and void.
If a decade of life as a government contractor has taught me anything, it's that there's paperwork for every nontrivial decision at every level of government. You could accidentally order a drone strike on the Supreme Court and have it be forgiven if you filed the right paperwork, but take out the Islamic State's caliph without completing all the paperwork and you'll get thrown out on your ass.
How? It is working, and is decreasing the threat of Iran as a nuclear aggressor (even though that wasn't a real risk in the first place, so much that even the CIA, MI6 and Mossad all agree on that). But whatever gets you through the night - facts can be cold bedfellows.
Does Trump have a uniformed private army patrolling the streets and violently suppressing Democrat aligned organizations?
Replace "a uniformed" with "an uninformed" and the answer becomes yes. See "Donald Trump Encourages Violence At His Rallies. His Fans Are Listening." by Sam Stein and Dana Liebelson.
Well be careful - an indictment would be handed down by the Department of Justice. You could be right - that could be dealt with via political hackery, nepotism, etc.
However, once she's taken the Oath of Office, this kind of thing moves from DoJ to the US House of Representatives in a little process we call Articles of Impeachment, and a trial in the US Senate.
Good luck bottling that up if the information is out there in the sunlight.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If those deals lead to stronger cases against those that refuse to admit wrongdoing, I'm okay with that. Drag every single actor in this thing into the light, and let their punishment be known.
You already know that part of the 'deal' they are taking to be a cooperator involves a clause that they will never again have a security clearance, so they will be unable to damage the country in this way again.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You could have just left it at "nobody wants a crook."
The only difference between the candidates here is that one is already in civil court for fraud charges, and the other is waiting on criminal felony indictment resulting from a federal probe.
What a fantastic shit sandwich of an election we're having.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Julie A was crying about how Google is all-in for Hillary and now this? And nothing about Trump, who surely has a light year long trail of illicit activities that still haven't been reported? Methinks he's on the Donald's payroll.
Are you kidding? In the 50s that idea only applied to white males. Try to talk to someone who was an adult in the 50s..
...richie - It is a good day to code.
It depends on who classified it. If she gets something from the CIA/FBI/etc marked classified, she can't just decide it isn't - but anything that the State Department marked as such, she has full authority over.
I'd argue that torture is already prohibited by general bodily integrity rights, so no, we don't need them specifically.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
We don't need to bomb Iran.
The Sunnis will do it for us. We just need to maintain the stalemate.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
SS does not have the authority to declassify documents. She can start a formal process to do so, but it is not in her authority to do it.
She must by law classify things based on their content, not on her whim.
For example: She emailed out full resolution spy satellite photos. Those are always classified, even if they don't directly contain any information beyond the capability of the satellite. Open and shut. She's guilty.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No. She must classify based on content. Same as anybody else.
Anybody in state can start a formal process to declassify, but nobody can do it with the stroke of a pen.
This truly is 'the Nixon defense'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Many people, after watching the actions of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC in organizing the primaries and debates, would disagree with you. The contest was set up to provide as little resistance as possible to Hillary, and only when Sanders started to call the DNC on that did things start to change. Shultz is the current DNC chair, and she was the Clinton campaign co-chair in 2008, are you really trying to suggest that she was perfectly neutral in this entire process, and did not have her thumb on the scale for Clinton? If you want to claim that the DNC was unbiased in running the primaries, then you need to address issues like these (that list was written 6 months ago, by the way, it doesn't even include Nevada or other recent events).
Surely you're not trying to argue that the DNC did not formally and officially nominate Hillary before the primaries. If that's what you're arguing for, that's not the same argument that I'm having.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Enhanced interrogation techniques.
It's perfectly acceptable to send unclassified messages over SIPRNet or JWICS. There is a maximum level of classification authorized for every network; you can go lower, but you can't go higher.
Things do get overclassified sometimes, but not for the bogus reason you gave.
Regarding the notorious private server, even messages marked C (Confidential) were not authorized to be there.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Well, why would Clinton push the State Department to demand to access her own device? Or at least do so before she had a chance to delete any incriminating emails?
Hillary is the single most vetted candidate ever. Republicans have been offering millions of dollars to anyone who can convict her. Republicans have spent over 500 million dollars so far in investigating her.
Does anyone really think Hillary can hide illegal things so well that she can hide from that kind of search? Oh sure she isn't a nice person, but she can't do anything illegal. immoral maybe, greedy definitely, but not illegal.
wikileaks is well known for lying in sensational journalism . They have done it dozens of times, editing videos, editing documents to only show what they want, and the real videos and documents show a completely different story. It is why Snowden didn't go to wikileaks to reveal the truth, as wikileaks is assanges pet tabloid paper.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Do yourself, and the world, a favor: publish the Hillary-damning data ASAP - BEFORE the Democratic National Convention, with hopes that Hillary will not get selected as a candidate for president, so that we can get a far better leader into office (perhaps Bernie?!).
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Why are the FOIA lawsuits still going then?
The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
This article lays it out pretty well.