Then you didnt read the article that your post is attached to. There are bad and/or crazy people in the world that wish to do random innocent strangers arm. There's nothing at all unreasonable about desiring the ability to defend yourself from said people.
That's a cultural response. But not necessarily a rational one. I'd rather know who's armed, but instead and in order to placate your insecurities we have concealed carriers distributed among us.
The only person who should ever feel intimidated by a legal and law-abiding open carry is a person who has the desire to intimidate or harm innocents and doesnt want to risk getting shot for it.
While it's possible to regulate a citizenry in a way to ensure that they cannot act in a way contrary to the collective good, few who are intellectually honest would argue it would be a pleasant place to live.
They were hired by the office of the Secretary of State, who is in fact a "layer of the government".
NO. They were NOT. The contract that they were hired under was private commercial from Bill and Hillary, probably thru their foundation, not government. from the article posted here (and as has been posted with more clarification at other places) : http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Bill and Hillary Clinton hired Platte River in 2013 to manage the email server after one originally built for her 2008 campaign broke down several times, people familiar with the email server told the Post.
Please note the word campaign, which suggests it was when she was running for President, before even being considered for SecState.
Correct, but I didn't say "removing the classification designator". I said "removing the classification" or "de-classifying". The law says you can't do so for political reasons, but let's face it, 90%+ of all classifications are for political reasons. And 100% of public declassifications are for political reasons. The rules are lip service that take a back seat to the political realities of our government.
While there is truth in this, the point is legally moot. You cant go to court and defend your theft of a car by saying that the guy who bought it did so with stolen money. Just because Hillary (in your example) would use a "it should never have been classified in the first place" defense is a weak and rather ridiculous argument. It doesnt really matter. Could it be considered as a mitigating factor in the punishment? Sure. But it doesnt mean that crimes were not committed.
When I was in the military working IT at HQMC in Quantico, VA, I had top secret clearance. I worked in a shop that was 50/50 Marines/Contractors. All of the contractors also had top secret clearance. So yeah, I would expect that Platte River Networks would have a vetted staff with clearance assigned to manage her email server.
Platte River wasn't hired by any layer of government! So there was no government security background check applied at all. Hillary (or more likely here non-government staff) likely have a contract with this company that says all kinds of things. But even if they did a background check privately it wouldnt allow access to many government records used by federal background investigations. I dont meant to imply that these people at Platte River arent 100% trustworthy. But I am saying taht they are not granted federal clearance at any security level, let alone top secret compartmented.
If the classification is removed, then it's not an issue. Even if it's post-hoc. Classifications aren't set in stone, they change over time as context changes.
Wrong. Removing the classification designator on a document is in itself a felony. Copying data from a classified source and putting into another unclassified document is a felony. The only way that classified data can be shared outside of controls is if the document is officially declassified. And even then it could still be considered sensitive and remain within govrnement unless officially cleared for public release. So no matter what else occurs here, whoever sent Hillary email with classified data in an unclassified format is guilty of a felony. That's entirely unambiguous and undeniable.
As for your heart warming story about the marine who was guilty of multiple abject failures out self-importance and laziness, that kind of stupid bullshit is exactly why we get 20 million governement employee profiles hacked and exposed. None of the changes you described should have been possible without being put before a change control board and approved. And anyone that thinks that they are more important than the controls specifically put into place to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts should be fired at minimum.
It's been almost 15 years since I got out of the military and left the DC corridor, but I would venture a guess that YES, her staff, including her IT staff, would have at a minimum secret if not top secret clearance.
I'm not talking about Hillary's State Dept staff. I'm talking about the IT company that the FBI has identified as the one that was managing her server/email. That company is Platte River Networks, and the account under which this service was being handled was private, not government.
So unless you're trying to convince us that Hillary Clinton required the staff of Platte River Networks to undergo a Top Secret Compartmentalized level (which is what at least one email is said to have contained, even though the classification appears to have been removed) security background investigation, then your argument falls short.
That part of your statements aside, there have been more than a few career federal employees who have lost their jobs, been fined and worse for exactly the kind of spill we're talking about here. Even if she didnt send anything and was only the recipient, she was negligent in producing a situation in which potential secret and higher communication had only this avenue of delivery, simply because she was too damn lazy and self-important to have 2 devices. Anyone's opinion of Hillary personally should be set aside, on both sides of the fence. If she broke the law, then she broke the law, period and end of story. She shouldn't' get a pass because she's a former First Lady, or because she's rich, or because she's a raging bitch, or bakes a kickass lasagna or can do a spinning slam dunk on a regulation net.
When did we become so complacent about a different set of rules for America's self-appointed royalty?
If it would have been ignored and we passed by it, then there would have been ANOTHER disservice to the American people. Any other non-politician/celebrity that did what she has done, even if they came out immediately and apologized, we have faced a range of repercussions ranging from termination to imprisonment. Why should Hillary be treated differently than any other average American?
That is totally false. You can mix classified and unclassified on the same device. You just cant allow a "spill" of classified information into a space that is unclassified AND which people not cleared to few it can get to it.
Which is an entirely different ball of shit that no one is talking about. If there's classified data on her server, then every person who managed that server likely had the ability to get to the information. Have they been cleared? If no, that's another level of security breach.
That's not how classification works. Stamp or no, if the information contained within is considered classified, the format that it exists in is classified. Providing Top Secret Compartmented information to the press who then prints it in the newspaper doesnt make the information unclassified. It makes the newspaper guilty of printing classified information.
These records management REQUIREMENTS are outlined in NARA (National Archive and Records Administration: http://www.archives.gov/about/...). Every federal employee is subject to these statutes. The only ambiguity could possibly be the interpretation of an official about what constitutes a federal record, and whether they can lawfully destroy the record. But I dont think any rational human being would consider a 2 month gap in the records of the for a Secretary of State, preceding an attack on an Embassy and assassination of an Ambassador, for instance, to be a coincidence. It is utter lunacy to argue that no important communication or decisions occurred by the Secretary in that period. Which means that (proven by the following LAWS) that the Secretary and the State Dept FAILED to properly retain official government records, punishable (as outlined and proven in the provided statutes) by law.
Records Management by Federal Agencies
44 U.S.C. Chapter 31
3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.
(My Notes: Please note the unambiguous "SHALL". It is not optional. It is not open to interpretation.This section alone is meant to ensure by law that no information that is/was integral to the course of government activity be destroyed. Period. End of story.)
3103. Transfer of records to records centers
When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.
(My notes: Not only may an agency not destroy the data, the agency MUST ensure that the records are provided to the National Archives for possible PERMANENT retention.)
3105. Safeguards
The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records the head of such agency determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency--
(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301-3314 of this title, and
(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records.
3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.
(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify th
Are you willfully this ignorant? Or just so fully in the bag for Hillary that you're willing to say anything at all to defend her, no matter how bad the situation gets? At what point will you admit that, at the very least, there are things here that don't look good for her?
We're not talking about placing blame for a fart in church here. We're talking about a Congressional investigation about the DEATH OF A U.S. AMBASADOR.
Yes. And that's why it is illegal to remove any facts associated with a warrant or subpoena. The subject of an investigation doesnt get to choose which facts he/she thinks are relevant and hide or destroy the rest. Law enforcement and the judge/court/CONGRESS that issues the warrant or subpoena do. And any act that appears to circumvent that process is in itself an act of deviance of the legal process.
And it's not supposed to matter if you're a former Secretary of State, or a Senator, or a janitor, or a former gang member with half a dozen felony convictions.
There's a phrase for this very process in government: Litigation Hold.
When Congress or a court litigating a lawsuit issues a warrant or a subpoena, the whole system in which the data exists is frozen. Period. Every document, email, memo, system eventlog down to when the machines were patched, and who last launched a web browser from them. And from that point forward any person who so much as logs in to the system to look has to be specifically and separately cataloged and the event recorded to ensure the highest levels of "chain of custody" which are then provided to the requesting body. This is to ensure that no evidence is being tampered with, and any data there is later determined to be relevant by the officials doing the data search. You often cant even add data to the machine after the fact, depending on the severity of the case.
.
And we're supposed to take whose word on that exactly? That's like saying that if the police have a warrant to search your house for some incriminating documents, and you are burning some in your fireplace as they come through the door they should be perfectly satisfied when you say, "Well, yes, but I only burned things you wouldnt be interested in.".
So which is it? The USDA and UN are just as unreliable as Stats Canada and the Daily caller, and the NYT is the pinnacle of non-partisan reporting, or...
It's less a comment about effectiveness, and more about integrity.
Hell, even if the Obama administration were to prosecute or less likely convict Clinton, Obama would probably pardon her. I dont know if that's more or less sad that that the media would dismiss it, and that millions of intellectually lazy would still be happy to vote for her.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you didnt read the article that your post is attached to. There are bad and/or crazy people in the world that wish to do random innocent strangers arm. There's nothing at all unreasonable about desiring the ability to defend yourself from said people.
That's a cultural response. But not necessarily a rational one. I'd rather know who's armed, but instead and in order to placate your insecurities we have concealed carriers distributed among us.
And yet even with such strict controls on firearms, people who want to commit murder somehow find a way to.
Anyone motivated enough will find a way. And often a spectacular way.
The only person who should ever feel intimidated by a legal and law-abiding open carry is a person who has the desire to intimidate or harm innocents and doesnt want to risk getting shot for it.
When the crime is murder, I'm pretty god damned comfortable drawing a black and white line between me and them.
While it's possible to regulate a citizenry in a way to ensure that they cannot act in a way contrary to the collective good, few who are intellectually honest would argue it would be a pleasant place to live.
They were hired by the office of the Secretary of State, who is in fact a "layer of the government".
NO. They were NOT. The contract that they were hired under was private commercial from Bill and Hillary, probably thru their foundation, not government. from the article posted here (and as has been posted with more clarification at other places) : http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Bill and Hillary Clinton hired Platte River in 2013 to manage the email server after one originally built for her 2008 campaign broke down several times, people familiar with the email server told the Post.
Please note the word campaign, which suggests it was when she was running for President, before even being considered for SecState.
Correct, but I didn't say "removing the classification designator". I said "removing the classification" or "de-classifying". The law says you can't do so for political reasons, but let's face it, 90%+ of all classifications are for political reasons. And 100% of public declassifications are for political reasons. The rules are lip service that take a back seat to the political realities of our government.
While there is truth in this, the point is legally moot. You cant go to court and defend your theft of a car by saying that the guy who bought it did so with stolen money. Just because Hillary (in your example) would use a "it should never have been classified in the first place" defense is a weak and rather ridiculous argument. It doesnt really matter. Could it be considered as a mitigating factor in the punishment? Sure. But it doesnt mean that crimes were not committed.
When I was in the military working IT at HQMC in Quantico, VA, I had top secret clearance. I worked in a shop that was 50/50 Marines/Contractors. All of the contractors also had top secret clearance. So yeah, I would expect that Platte River Networks would have a vetted staff with clearance assigned to manage her email server.
Platte River wasn't hired by any layer of government! So there was no government security background check applied at all. Hillary (or more likely here non-government staff) likely have a contract with this company that says all kinds of things. But even if they did a background check privately it wouldnt allow access to many government records used by federal background investigations. I dont meant to imply that these people at Platte River arent 100% trustworthy. But I am saying taht they are not granted federal clearance at any security level, let alone top secret compartmented.
If the classification is removed, then it's not an issue. Even if it's post-hoc. Classifications aren't set in stone, they change over time as context changes.
Wrong. Removing the classification designator on a document is in itself a felony. Copying data from a classified source and putting into another unclassified document is a felony. The only way that classified data can be shared outside of controls is if the document is officially declassified. And even then it could still be considered sensitive and remain within govrnement unless officially cleared for public release. So no matter what else occurs here, whoever sent Hillary email with classified data in an unclassified format is guilty of a felony. That's entirely unambiguous and undeniable.
As for your heart warming story about the marine who was guilty of multiple abject failures out self-importance and laziness, that kind of stupid bullshit is exactly why we get 20 million governement employee profiles hacked and exposed. None of the changes you described should have been possible without being put before a change control board and approved. And anyone that thinks that they are more important than the controls specifically put into place to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts should be fired at minimum.
It's been almost 15 years since I got out of the military and left the DC corridor, but I would venture a guess that YES, her staff, including her IT staff, would have at a minimum secret if not top secret clearance.
I'm not talking about Hillary's State Dept staff. I'm talking about the IT company that the FBI has identified as the one that was managing her server/email. That company is Platte River Networks, and the account under which this service was being handled was private, not government.
So unless you're trying to convince us that Hillary Clinton required the staff of Platte River Networks to undergo a Top Secret Compartmentalized level (which is what at least one email is said to have contained, even though the classification appears to have been removed) security background investigation, then your argument falls short.
That part of your statements aside, there have been more than a few career federal employees who have lost their jobs, been fined and worse for exactly the kind of spill we're talking about here. Even if she didnt send anything and was only the recipient, she was negligent in producing a situation in which potential secret and higher communication had only this avenue of delivery, simply because she was too damn lazy and self-important to have 2 devices. Anyone's opinion of Hillary personally should be set aside, on both sides of the fence. If she broke the law, then she broke the law, period and end of story. She shouldn't' get a pass because she's a former First Lady, or because she's rich, or because she's a raging bitch, or bakes a kickass lasagna or can do a spinning slam dunk on a regulation net.
When did we become so complacent about a different set of rules for America's self-appointed royalty?
Seriously? That's where you're drawing the line?
That's essentially what Jhon just said you fucking moron.
If it would have been ignored and we passed by it, then there would have been ANOTHER disservice to the American people. Any other non-politician/celebrity that did what she has done, even if they came out immediately and apologized, we have faced a range of repercussions ranging from termination to imprisonment. Why should Hillary be treated differently than any other average American?
That is totally false. You can mix classified and unclassified on the same device. You just cant allow a "spill" of classified information into a space that is unclassified AND which people not cleared to few it can get to it.
Which is an entirely different ball of shit that no one is talking about. If there's classified data on her server, then every person who managed that server likely had the ability to get to the information. Have they been cleared? If no, that's another level of security breach.
That's not how classification works. Stamp or no, if the information contained within is considered classified, the format that it exists in is classified. Providing Top Secret Compartmented information to the press who then prints it in the newspaper doesnt make the information unclassified. It makes the newspaper guilty of printing classified information.
So now you have nothing to say?
These records management REQUIREMENTS are outlined in NARA (National Archive and Records Administration: http://www.archives.gov/about/...). Every federal employee is subject to these statutes. The only ambiguity could possibly be the interpretation of an official about what constitutes a federal record, and whether they can lawfully destroy the record. But I dont think any rational human being would consider a 2 month gap in the records of the for a Secretary of State, preceding an attack on an Embassy and assassination of an Ambassador, for instance, to be a coincidence. It is utter lunacy to argue that no important communication or decisions occurred by the Secretary in that period. Which means that (proven by the following LAWS) that the Secretary and the State Dept FAILED to properly retain official government records, punishable (as outlined and proven in the provided statutes) by law.
Records Management by Federal Agencies
44 U.S.C. Chapter 31
3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.
(My Notes: Please note the unambiguous "SHALL". It is not optional. It is not open to interpretation.This section alone is meant to ensure by law that no information that is/was integral to the course of government activity be destroyed. Period. End of story.)
3103. Transfer of records to records centers
When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.
(My notes: Not only may an agency not destroy the data, the agency MUST ensure that the records are provided to the National Archives for possible PERMANENT retention.)
3105. Safeguards
The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records the head of such agency determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency--
(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301-3314 of this title, and
(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records. 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.
(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify th
Are you willfully this ignorant? Or just so fully in the bag for Hillary that you're willing to say anything at all to defend her, no matter how bad the situation gets? At what point will you admit that, at the very least, there are things here that don't look good for her?
We're not talking about placing blame for a fart in church here. We're talking about a Congressional investigation about the DEATH OF A U.S. AMBASADOR.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
Are you suggesting that she ACCIDENTALLY shut down and destroyed her mail server? It was just a huge "oopsie!"? AFTER she was subpoenad?
Yes. And that's why it is illegal to remove any facts associated with a warrant or subpoena. The subject of an investigation doesnt get to choose which facts he/she thinks are relevant and hide or destroy the rest. Law enforcement and the judge/court/CONGRESS that issues the warrant or subpoena do. And any act that appears to circumvent that process is in itself an act of deviance of the legal process.
And it's not supposed to matter if you're a former Secretary of State, or a Senator, or a janitor, or a former gang member with half a dozen felony convictions.
There's a phrase for this very process in government: Litigation Hold.
When Congress or a court litigating a lawsuit issues a warrant or a subpoena, the whole system in which the data exists is frozen. Period. Every document, email, memo, system eventlog down to when the machines were patched, and who last launched a web browser from them. And from that point forward any person who so much as logs in to the system to look has to be specifically and separately cataloged and the event recorded to ensure the highest levels of "chain of custody" which are then provided to the requesting body. This is to ensure that no evidence is being tampered with, and any data there is later determined to be relevant by the officials doing the data search. You often cant even add data to the machine after the fact, depending on the severity of the case. .
And we're supposed to take whose word on that exactly? That's like saying that if the police have a warrant to search your house for some incriminating documents, and you are burning some in your fireplace as they come through the door they should be perfectly satisfied when you say, "Well, yes, but I only burned things you wouldnt be interested in.".
Just like the United Nations and the United States Department of Agriculture?
Here's that link from the article again...
http://www.agprofessional.com/...
So which is it? The USDA and UN are just as unreliable as Stats Canada and the Daily caller, and the NYT is the pinnacle of non-partisan reporting, or...
I'm pretty sure that destroying data that has been subpoenaed by Congress is not a misdemeanor.
You should probably understand the topic before you blabber on any more.
It's less a comment about effectiveness, and more about integrity.
Hell, even if the Obama administration were to prosecute or less likely convict Clinton, Obama would probably pardon her. I dont know if that's more or less sad that that the media would dismiss it, and that millions of intellectually lazy would still be happy to vote for her.