The war has most certainly begun in the US. There's open discussion about the possibility of eliminating larger bills already.
Well beyond that though, there are many cases of legitimate business that have had their assets seized under little known laws that state that a bank must disclose to government any cash deposit greater than $10,000. Banks must also report consistent cash deposits approaching $10,000. Either is considered evidence of potential elicit activity.
The cases being brought to public eye include grocery stores and a myriad other small businesses that do deposits to their business accounts that raise the mandatory federal requirement flags. It doesnt matter in the slightest if the cash is easily quantifiable within the records of the business, are reported to the IRS, appropriate taxes are paid, etc. People have lost their livelihoods, and in turn the people whom they employed have lost their jobs.The accounts associated with the assets are frozen and the capital seized, and even without any criminal charges even having been filed, let alone having been adjudicated. Businesses often find that they have to sue the federal government to have the funds returned, and often even fail in that endeavor.
Assuming what you're saying is accurate, perhaps one might ask why people feel the need to hide so much commerce from the government? If taxes and intrusions are so onerous that it makes business a royal pain in the ass, the predictable outcome is a percentage of commerce to occur in the shadows. Increasingly so as the pain to business increases. Is that not an indicator of heavy-handed government? Isnt the removal of cash to cease the activity a demonstration of more of the same?
AppNexus's spokesperson Joshua Zeitz told the BBC: "We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it.
But they're not concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups? Interesting.
The irony here being that you have accepted that the government has any place, or right, to tell anyone who they can marry.
You fight for recognition by bureaucrats who are pressured by populism, and many (most) don't particularly give a shit about your love-life one way or the other. You see it as a good fight to beg your government to deign to validate your love. You vote for the left in this case, because they have a history of greater involvement in the personal lives of citizens, rather than vote for candidates that fight to get government out of your personal life as much as possible. With your vote, you increase the involvement, you open doors for greater intrusions, and you pat yourself on the back for your accomplishments.
A true Constitutionalist, a true libertarian, would excise the government entirely from this topic as well as many others. They would abolish marriage licenses (that were originally established to prevent whites from marrying blacks...), and lift the chokehold government has established on you, with your help, and from anyone that chooses to make a promise to another. They would eliminate the absurd laws of taxing a person more or less, based on who they choose to share their heart with. And eliminate the archaic and ridiculous practices of defining what benefits a person can claim based on the same.
Your proposed "solution" is precisely the problem to begin with.
I'll copy and paste my reply the other other person that made this claim right before you:
One of the several laws that applies is 18 U.S. Code 793, section (f):
(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.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
One of the several laws that applies is 18 U.S. Code 793, section (f):
(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.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
I dont disagree. It's well past time to cleanse the cesspool of Washington DC and the federal government in general. If they can crawl up my ass with a microscope every couple of years at tax time and demand that I prove my innocence by providing 7 years of my records they can sure as well hold the people that I pay salaries for with my taxes to be held to an equal standard. Hell, It would be an improvement if these ass clowns could provide 2 or 3 years of records to prove they arent part of the corruption and laziness.
And this may come as a shock to you, but we're not getting the data from old backups. We're getting them from hacks of people that had correspondence with Hillary.
For intent, you're absolutely right. You can be tried for a more serious crime if you intended to do whatever it is you do. But that's not a factor unless you choose to prosecute for the greater crime. It doesnt mean that no crime was committed. It just means you can (and probably should) be tried for a lesser crime.
No one is talking about new emails in the context of emails newly created. We're talking about the emails that were subject to the Congressional subpoena that Hillary and the State Dept claim were handed over, but were not. They were emails created during the timeframe Hillary was Secretary of State and using her own personal email server. (A server that no longer exists because it was destroyed, along with all the mobile devices that Hillary was using...) They are emails that thru hacks, leaks and whistleblowing are now coming to light, and which Hillary and Co either deleted or chose not to hand over. We know that there was a technician directed to remove header information from emails. We know taht there are hundreds if not thousands of emails that originated from or were sent to Podesta who is Hillary's campaign manager from the time in question, for the email account of HIllary's in question, that we only know about because Podesta got hacked and they became public. We STILL wouldnt have them from Hillary or State if not for Podesta's personal email being hacked.
If people continue to find new, relevent emails from that period, then there's a pattern of ongoing deception to hide emails from a legal Congressional investigation. That's called obstruction.
So the Secretary of State was recieving TS-SAP information, marked as that mind you, from a person she at least should have known did not have clearance and took no action. That alone is a demonstration of gross negligence, which is also a violation of both policy and law. You're not helping her.
On other facets you're flat our wrong. Here's a transcript of the exchange between Comey and Congressman Trey Gowdy during the Congressional hearing after the investigation was initially closed:
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent, three seperate times in this exchange alone.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State tha
There's a huge leap from a spill (allowing classified data to make its way to an un-class storage), and removing TS+ data from secured facilities, and providing access to people who hold no level of clearance at all.
How about Kristian Saucier, was was sentenced to 1 year in prison for taking 6 photographs that were later classified "confidential" (the lowest possible classification besides FIUO), and the prosecution actually asked for 6 years sentence.
(http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/sailor-denied-clinton-deal-gets-1-year-in-prison-for-6-photos-of-sub)
How about Stephen Kim, who was sentance to 13 months in prison for sharing one classified report on North Korea with Fox News?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
How about Thomas Drake, a former NSA employee who blew the whistle on waste and abuse INTERNALLY to his agency which was eventually upheld by a DoD IG, and then he was prosecuted and convicted of leaking classified data, although he didnt serve any time?
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While there might be cases where people get a slap on the wrist, there are plenty of cases in which people have their careers ruined and go to jail for far less than Clinton is suspected of. She mishandled the highest possible levels of classified data that our nation holds, she lied about, she destoryed evidence, and she allowed action to be taken that made it nearly impossible to a complete investigation of. And then the FBI destroyed the relevant devices for her !
How you can argue that it's been "completely investigated" when new batches of emails are magically discovered on nearly a weekly basis?
Not to mention the fact that Commey and the FBI laid out every facet to convict, but stated that they didnt prosecute because they didnt think they could make a case that she intended to commit a crime. Intent is not a factor for conviction. An act (or lack of action) is a crime, or its not. Intent is a potential factor in sentencing, not in gaining a conviction. The FBI already laid out that she is unequivocally guilty. That ship has sailed.
It's strongly believed now that Commey (and Lynch and Obama) are being heavily pressured by whistleblowers within the FBI that there every criteria was already met to prosecute, and were going to come forward with the damning details if the FBI didnt reopen the case and treat it with equal justice under the law.
And dont forget that the case was dropped the first time after Clinton's husband, a former US President, met in private with the sitting Secratary of Justice, Loretta Lynch. If there's evidence now that the conversation was not in fact specific to yoga, and their kid, then the scope of the investigation could (and should) increase to whether or not there was prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, and corruption within the Dept of Justice, ALL under Obama.
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
Entertainment that is state-run does not. It is a propaganda tool by which the state defines the message it means to portray. And in a state in which the people have little to say on how things operate the message might have little to do with the predominant attitude toward killing. I use the word predominant specifically rather than dominant to illustrate that the dominant force (the state, and the minority) in the region might have very little to do with the predominant attitude (the people, and the majority) of the populace.
No one claims that Soviet Russia was a cute cuddly regime. And if you believe it to be so based on state-operated entertainment industry, then you perfectly illustrate the very thing I'm pointing out.
Are you honestly suggesting that the entertainment industry in the Soviet Union and the United States in the 70's accurately depicts the clandestine operations of their respective regions? Or any nationstate for that matter, in any era? You do realize is fiction, right?
That aside, are you suggesting that the state-run entertainment industry in the Soviet Union would have accurately reflected the barbarism of it's own operations?
It takes a pretty distorted sense of reality to propose either.
The reason FOX news has a problem is that it's biased. It has to coach its coverage because, as you point out, they like that this happened to the DNC. It proves they dont have (many) real journalist but do have an agenda.
And they arent at all unlike any other media outlet. They all have an agenda now, and they will all lie and manipulate and cherry pick the "news" in order to try to sway the public to one side or the other. The net result is that people unwilling to spend the necessary time to investigate for themselves and find the truth between all the lines of bullshit we are fed will regurgitate the lies in concise little tweets and bumber stickers and perpetuate the problem.
We have a nation that has been fully suckered into this us-vs-them shitstorm of seperationist politics and "news" is the willing lynchpin in the operation.
I'd agree with the basic premise here, but I'd argue that the current state is not due isolationism. It's in large part due to our currently policies of placation. We apologize for our indiscretions, we appease with kind words, we pretend that its possible to just hug it all out and everyone will go home with giant smiles about how much we've evolved. But the reality is that the Russian culture respects strength. They reject the kid-gloves approach as weakness and see it as an invitation to aggression.
This is why they were emboldened to retake Crimea as a test-bed to the world's reaction to rebuilding the former Soviet dominance of the region. The message they received, even after providing weapons that took a passenger airliner out of the sky and killing all on board (if the Russian military wasnt directly responsible themselves) resulting in absolutely no repercussions. Nothing. No one did a damn thing about any of it. They retook an a economically and militarily important area by force and the world didnt seem to care. They are simply continuing what appears to be a military campaign to gain power in more regions through proxy, as they did in Crimea, thumbing their nose at a global political movement that doesnt like their actions but wont do shit to stop it because the necessary action is to put a foot down as say it wont be tolerated.
This extends to their "meddling" in our elections through even more proxies. They dont even seem too concerned that we have noted it, pointed it out, and many are complaining about it, because they know that the weak administration and even many of the Republicans in Congress dont have the stones to push back.
He's also former KGB. I'm sure he'd love to return to the days of executing political dissidents rather than having them speak out vocally against his leadership. Wait, perhaps I should rephrase that. He'd like to return to the days of doing that openly rather than doing it quietly like he does now.
Apparenty when Hillary and Obama said they were going to hit the "reset button" with the Russian relationship, they meant resetting us to the Cold War era.
Ah. Meddling. So you were this outraged when the Obama administration donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to an Israeli campaign organization whose purpose was to prevent the re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, right?
So your reasoning is to cede power to a larger, less organized body so that we're less impacted? Isnt it equally true that a larger less organized body is less willing to address issues raised by those they impact, even if that impact is thru inaction to begin with?
Slashdot Mirror
And let's be honest. We have given up on our privacy a long time ago.
So because we have allowed irresponsible and self-destructive practices to become pervasive, we should just give up entirely and open the floodgates?
The war has most certainly begun in the US. There's open discussion about the possibility of eliminating larger bills already.
Well beyond that though, there are many cases of legitimate business that have had their assets seized under little known laws that state that a bank must disclose to government any cash deposit greater than $10,000. Banks must also report consistent cash deposits approaching $10,000. Either is considered evidence of potential elicit activity.
The cases being brought to public eye include grocery stores and a myriad other small businesses that do deposits to their business accounts that raise the mandatory federal requirement flags. It doesnt matter in the slightest if the cash is easily quantifiable within the records of the business, are reported to the IRS, appropriate taxes are paid, etc. People have lost their livelihoods, and in turn the people whom they employed have lost their jobs.The accounts associated with the assets are frozen and the capital seized, and even without any criminal charges even having been filed, let alone having been adjudicated. Businesses often find that they have to sue the federal government to have the funds returned, and often even fail in that endeavor.
Assuming what you're saying is accurate, perhaps one might ask why people feel the need to hide so much commerce from the government? If taxes and intrusions are so onerous that it makes business a royal pain in the ass, the predictable outcome is a percentage of commerce to occur in the shadows. Increasingly so as the pain to business increases. Is that not an indicator of heavy-handed government? Isnt the removal of cash to cease the activity a demonstration of more of the same?
Others have pointed out the obvious for you, but I'm compelled to ask if you're willfully missing the point.
And hence, there is a record of who bought the card, where they used that card, and what they purchased with it.
The point is not an argument against the convenience. The point is the trail it creates.
AppNexus's spokesperson Joshua Zeitz told the BBC: "We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it.
But they're not concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups? Interesting.
The irony here being that you have accepted that the government has any place, or right, to tell anyone who they can marry.
You fight for recognition by bureaucrats who are pressured by populism, and many (most) don't particularly give a shit about your love-life one way or the other. You see it as a good fight to beg your government to deign to validate your love. You vote for the left in this case, because they have a history of greater involvement in the personal lives of citizens, rather than vote for candidates that fight to get government out of your personal life as much as possible. With your vote, you increase the involvement, you open doors for greater intrusions, and you pat yourself on the back for your accomplishments.
A true Constitutionalist, a true libertarian, would excise the government entirely from this topic as well as many others. They would abolish marriage licenses (that were originally established to prevent whites from marrying blacks...), and lift the chokehold government has established on you, with your help, and from anyone that chooses to make a promise to another. They would eliminate the absurd laws of taxing a person more or less, based on who they choose to share their heart with. And eliminate the archaic and ridiculous practices of defining what benefits a person can claim based on the same.
Your proposed "solution" is precisely the problem to begin with.
One of the several laws that applies is 18 U.S. Code 793, section (f):
(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.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
(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.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
I dont disagree. It's well past time to cleanse the cesspool of Washington DC and the federal government in general. If they can crawl up my ass with a microscope every couple of years at tax time and demand that I prove my innocence by providing 7 years of my records they can sure as well hold the people that I pay salaries for with my taxes to be held to an equal standard. Hell, It would be an improvement if these ass clowns could provide 2 or 3 years of records to prove they arent part of the corruption and laziness.
And this may come as a shock to you, but we're not getting the data from old backups. We're getting them from hacks of people that had correspondence with Hillary.
For intent, you're absolutely right. You can be tried for a more serious crime if you intended to do whatever it is you do. But that's not a factor unless you choose to prosecute for the greater crime. It doesnt mean that no crime was committed. It just means you can (and probably should) be tried for a lesser crime.
No one is talking about new emails in the context of emails newly created. We're talking about the emails that were subject to the Congressional subpoena that Hillary and the State Dept claim were handed over, but were not. They were emails created during the timeframe Hillary was Secretary of State and using her own personal email server. (A server that no longer exists because it was destroyed, along with all the mobile devices that Hillary was using ...) They are emails that thru hacks, leaks and whistleblowing are now coming to light, and which Hillary and Co either deleted or chose not to hand over. We know that there was a technician directed to remove header information from emails. We know taht there are hundreds if not thousands of emails that originated from or were sent to Podesta who is Hillary's campaign manager from the time in question, for the email account of HIllary's in question, that we only know about because Podesta got hacked and they became public. We STILL wouldnt have them from Hillary or State if not for Podesta's personal email being hacked.
If people continue to find new, relevent emails from that period, then there's a pattern of ongoing deception to hide emails from a legal Congressional investigation. That's called obstruction.
On other facets you're flat our wrong. Here's a transcript of the exchange between Comey and Congressman Trey Gowdy during the Congressional hearing after the investigation was initially closed:
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent, three seperate times in this exchange alone.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State tha
There's a huge leap from a spill (allowing classified data to make its way to an un-class storage), and removing TS+ data from secured facilities, and providing access to people who hold no level of clearance at all.
How about Kristian Saucier, was was sentenced to 1 year in prison for taking 6 photographs that were later classified "confidential" (the lowest possible classification besides FIUO), and the prosecution actually asked for 6 years sentence.
(http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/sailor-denied-clinton-deal-gets-1-year-in-prison-for-6-photos-of-sub)
How about Stephen Kim, who was sentance to 13 months in prison for sharing one classified report on North Korea with Fox News? http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
How about Thomas Drake, a former NSA employee who blew the whistle on waste and abuse INTERNALLY to his agency which was eventually upheld by a DoD IG, and then he was prosecuted and convicted of leaking classified data, although he didnt serve any time?
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While there might be cases where people get a slap on the wrist, there are plenty of cases in which people have their careers ruined and go to jail for far less than Clinton is suspected of. She mishandled the highest possible levels of classified data that our nation holds, she lied about, she destoryed evidence, and she allowed action to be taken that made it nearly impossible to a complete investigation of. And then the FBI destroyed the relevant devices for her !
How you can argue that it's been "completely investigated" when new batches of emails are magically discovered on nearly a weekly basis?
Not to mention the fact that Commey and the FBI laid out every facet to convict, but stated that they didnt prosecute because they didnt think they could make a case that she intended to commit a crime. Intent is not a factor for conviction. An act (or lack of action) is a crime, or its not. Intent is a potential factor in sentencing, not in gaining a conviction. The FBI already laid out that she is unequivocally guilty. That ship has sailed.
It's strongly believed now that Commey (and Lynch and Obama) are being heavily pressured by whistleblowers within the FBI that there every criteria was already met to prosecute, and were going to come forward with the damning details if the FBI didnt reopen the case and treat it with equal justice under the law.
And dont forget that the case was dropped the first time after Clinton's husband, a former US President, met in private with the sitting Secratary of Justice, Loretta Lynch. If there's evidence now that the conversation was not in fact specific to yoga, and their kid, then the scope of the investigation could (and should) increase to whether or not there was prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, and corruption within the Dept of Justice, ALL under Obama.
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
Entertainment that is state-run does not. It is a propaganda tool by which the state defines the message it means to portray. And in a state in which the people have little to say on how things operate the message might have little to do with the predominant attitude toward killing. I use the word predominant specifically rather than dominant to illustrate that the dominant force (the state, and the minority) in the region might have very little to do with the predominant attitude (the people, and the majority) of the populace. No one claims that Soviet Russia was a cute cuddly regime. And if you believe it to be so based on state-operated entertainment industry, then you perfectly illustrate the very thing I'm pointing out.
Are you honestly suggesting that the entertainment industry in the Soviet Union and the United States in the 70's accurately depicts the clandestine operations of their respective regions? Or any nationstate for that matter, in any era? You do realize is fiction, right?
That aside, are you suggesting that the state-run entertainment industry in the Soviet Union would have accurately reflected the barbarism of it's own operations?
It takes a pretty distorted sense of reality to propose either.
And Hitler wasnt born when people were being put in gas chambers. To turn a phrase, what does one have to do with the other?
The reason FOX news has a problem is that it's biased. It has to coach its coverage because, as you point out, they like that this happened to the DNC. It proves they dont have (many) real journalist but do have an agenda.
And they arent at all unlike any other media outlet. They all have an agenda now, and they will all lie and manipulate and cherry pick the "news" in order to try to sway the public to one side or the other. The net result is that people unwilling to spend the necessary time to investigate for themselves and find the truth between all the lines of bullshit we are fed will regurgitate the lies in concise little tweets and bumber stickers and perpetuate the problem.
We have a nation that has been fully suckered into this us-vs-them shitstorm of seperationist politics and "news" is the willing lynchpin in the operation.
I'd agree with the basic premise here, but I'd argue that the current state is not due isolationism. It's in large part due to our currently policies of placation. We apologize for our indiscretions, we appease with kind words, we pretend that its possible to just hug it all out and everyone will go home with giant smiles about how much we've evolved. But the reality is that the Russian culture respects strength. They reject the kid-gloves approach as weakness and see it as an invitation to aggression.
This is why they were emboldened to retake Crimea as a test-bed to the world's reaction to rebuilding the former Soviet dominance of the region. The message they received, even after providing weapons that took a passenger airliner out of the sky and killing all on board (if the Russian military wasnt directly responsible themselves) resulting in absolutely no repercussions. Nothing. No one did a damn thing about any of it. They retook an a economically and militarily important area by force and the world didnt seem to care. They are simply continuing what appears to be a military campaign to gain power in more regions through proxy, as they did in Crimea, thumbing their nose at a global political movement that doesnt like their actions but wont do shit to stop it because the necessary action is to put a foot down as say it wont be tolerated.
This extends to their "meddling" in our elections through even more proxies. They dont even seem too concerned that we have noted it, pointed it out, and many are complaining about it, because they know that the weak administration and even many of the Republicans in Congress dont have the stones to push back.
He's also former KGB. I'm sure he'd love to return to the days of executing political dissidents rather than having them speak out vocally against his leadership. Wait, perhaps I should rephrase that. He'd like to return to the days of doing that openly rather than doing it quietly like he does now.
Apparenty when Hillary and Obama said they were going to hit the "reset button" with the Russian relationship, they meant resetting us to the Cold War era.
Ah. Meddling. So you were this outraged when the Obama administration donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to an Israeli campaign organization whose purpose was to prevent the re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, right?
So your reasoning is to cede power to a larger, less organized body so that we're less impacted? Isnt it equally true that a larger less organized body is less willing to address issues raised by those they impact, even if that impact is thru inaction to begin with?