Calling her "Clinton" is confusing so why bother with such ridiculous nitpicking?
Not in the context of the conversation.
And it's not false equivalency or a big deal
Yes, it remains a false equivalency, and your dismissing of the applicable laws further demonstrates it.
Apples, meet oranges.
- plus OF COURSE a State Governor had access to classified and other sensitive information.
Bullshit. What sort of *classified* (per federal law) information would Palin have had access to when governor of Alaska? Not sensitive mind you, but *classified*? Think you've got something? Is there any evidence of her mishandling that classified information? No? Then the false equivalency remains.
I seem to recall a newspaper asking it's readers to go through her emails to find incriminating bits... and ended up not finding much, so much for that scandal! On the other hand, the Inspector General at the State Department found oodles of classified information which lead to an FBI investigation.
Yup, same exact things!
Where did you put your brain today? Why bother replying when you are in such a state?
Physician, heal thy self.
There are bigger scandals and she is part of them.Get off your backside and leave the petty shit alone - there's plenty to show she's done a lot worse than Palin because she's done a lot more than the email thing.
Which, if you were paying attention you would realize the email scandal is a major part of as it is likely to be treasure trove pointing to other illegality & corruption.
I've got no idea why you didn't comprehend that much from my previous post when I even gave an example.
Funny how you didn't comprehend my response, which I had to echo above.
Prove to us that those student loans were not a waste of money - I'm sure you can do better.
I need not prove anything to you, the facts are there, you simply opt to ignore them.
I wasn't, I was replying to a comment of someone who was... and also citing a quote from the FBI director who currently has an investigation into the matter.
when there are real scandals like the Pfizer donations after Hillary decided to drop penalties and all the stuff about Hillary that came out with the Manning leak?
There are also the whole Clinton Cash allegations... and thanks to the FBI having her email server and having allegedly been able to recover all of the deleted emails, we may soon hear more about that just as soon as they interview her and wrap up their investigation.
Funny how the email was not a big deal with Palin but it is with Hillary
Nice false equivalency you've got there... or are you suggesting Palin not only had access to classified information, but allowed it to traverse her unsecured private account as we know Clinton did?
but it's still just being lazy instead of going after real scandals that are far worse.
Somehow, I imagine the FBI is able to walk & chew bubblegum at the same time, and given the # of agents that are on the case I am sure they have enough resource to investigate multiple directions related to Clinton's lawbreaking.
Can't "OK Google" automatically pick up the request while the screen is turned off (and charging?)?
The 17 people using Windows Phone have hands free "Hey Cortana."
In our homes we have always listening "Xbox, watch CNN" and "Alexa, add dish soap to my shopping list.
It is said that the 'wake word' is baked deep into these systems so they aren't 'really' listening & transcribing everything, but as you say, it's coming.
I can walk down the street with a friend and have a conversation that is not recorded, is never discoverable in the future.
Not exactly a fair comparison as recording the two of you takes a good bit more work, either someone near by auto-recording everything, or that PI or PD following you with a parabolic dish is being compared to ones where copying the contents of a conversation is trivial.
I've a 24/7 recording camera in my home which does both audio & video... and I turn it off from time to time when I'm going to have a conversation which I want to reduce the possibility of someone ever being able to overhear.
Clinton and her team have made a point of not describing the FBI's work as an "investigation," but alternately as a "security review" or "security inquiry." They've also noted that the issue was referred to the FBI not as a criminal matter but as an intelligence breach.
However, in response to a question Wednesday, Comey said he wasn't familiar with the term "security inquiry" that Clinton and her aides have used. The FBI chief said he considers the work agents are doing to be an "investigation."
"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry','" the director said.
That doesn't sound like he said 'scant' evidence (of which there is plenty under a gross negligence standard for the lowest charge), even when taken with the last line of the article:
However, he passed up the chance to repeat a reporter's characterization of it as a "criminal" probe.
If it wasn't a criminal probe, why would you give immunity to a key staffer?
Given I've got a remote start which I remember to use on occasion... I have engaged in most of the activities you specified without smelling anything (both with this vehicle, as well as a 2002 model from another make & model)... perhaps you need to get your particular unit into a mechanic to be checked out.
Granted I'm getting old and my eyes probably aren't working as well as they used to... when I'm driving at 60-80mph on the interstate... it's often hard to make out much of any 'dust' on the roads other than snow... which has this odd tendency to come down in significant volumes then be blown away.
Unless vehicles were putting off rather visible plumes of particulate matter when driving down the road, I would imagine nature would help keep the road clean given it's a narrow tract of land where it's deposited and the wind does tend to blow from time to time.
The conventional Spark weighs in around 2270 pounds. The EV? 3000 pounds. That's a 32% increase for basically the same passenger and cargo volume. Fair enough. But 3000 pounds isn't out of this world, and is in the ballpark of many upscale compact cars like the (conventional) Honda Civic.
Unless you are driving something on the order of a tank (and a super heavy one at that), there is always going to be a heavier vehicle you can compare to, just as you can always point to someone who is more out of shape/uglier/poorer/etc than you... it doesn't change your own actual position.
The point here I believe is that given electric cars are heavier than their non electric counterparts, their owners are not as green as they thought... and pointing to your neighbor driving a 188 ton faithful reproduction of the Panzer VIII Maus doesn't change the fact that the EV owner is putting off more brake/tire particulates than they would in a conventional auto.
Under what circumstances are you able to smell your own car... when I assume you are driving it?
I've a 'certified used' 2011 boring mini SUV which I discovered that often at stoplights when I had the fans blowing I could eventually smell exhaust in the vehicle... which turned out to be due to a cracked exhaust manifold (and the position of the air intake for the cabin), which when replaced things were fine again.
When a car drives down the road in front of my house I don't smell them, when I'm waiting at a cross walk I don't smell the cars near by puffing away.
On rare occasion I will be following a rather old vehicle which puts off a visible puff of exhaust and I may catch a whiff... but otherwise... not so much.
How do we know these apps are secure? How do we know the information isn't being leaked to opposing campaigns, to potentially unethical lobbyists, or even to foreign entities?
Because these apps aren't used for classified information? Most anytime a congress critter gets briefed on something classified, it happens in a SCIF (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility), a place where unrestricted internet access doesn't really exist.
Why would they spend the time? As far as they are concerned, Windows XP/Vista/7/8/8.1 are competitors to Windows 10 which costs them more to maintain and with fewer monetization/expansion options, why would they do anything but encourage you to move to the new great future they believe they have created?
Why would you right wing nutjobs care about this? George W Bush stole two elections in a similar manner.
I'm sorry you do not understand how the American electoral college system works.
The national popular vote simply doesn't matter, and under no constitutional process was Al Gore ever going to be elected President... however we could have seen a Bush/Lieberman administration for at least 2001-2005.
What she did goes well beyond just the simple 'mishandling' of a few classified bits, but thousands of them... I am unaware of a case of similar magnitude where there was no apparent intent to leak, so comparing to run of the mill cases (even Petraeus) isn't quite accurate.
Given the nature of the unprecedented steps she took to do so, even if it wasn't to deliberately mishandle, gross negligence will be an easy charge given the number of false statements she has made since the revelation... the FBI need only ask a few key questions and allow her be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 at a very minimum, which as Martha Stewart can tell you, isn't fun.
a slap on the wrist, but no indictment or jail time
How exactly do you get a 'slap on the wrist' without an indictment and conviction or plea? Being asked harsh questions? Being told they could charge you but are opting not to? Yes, such lax punishments!
Of course, we now have even more evidence that she failed to turn over all emails as requested and required... which actually adds a perjury charge or two to the mix, and given one of those charges relates to a case where Judge Sullivan has been less than sympathetic to the claims of the DoJ, how tolerant do you think he will be of this latest revelation?
Having her own email server was not illegal at the time, but sure, if you have to retroactively change the law to convict someone, go for it and feel proud.
I'm aware of no one who has said simply having or using a private server is illegal... so nice strawman you've got there. What is very illegal is mishandling classified information, a charge not difficult to prove.
Lets look at just one section of rather clear cut law, shall we? Specifically 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 officerâ" Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Are you or she going to claim that her private email server a "proper place of custody"? The CIA (the classifying agency) would disagree I'm sure.
More so, by handing over a thumb drive full of emails, including even a single classified satellite image to her lawyer, didn't she cause it to be "delivered to anyone in violation of his trust"?
Remember, only 'gross negligence' is required for this particular statute, and above I've shown just two different ways she can wind up with up to 10 years in prison for a single image.
Now how many other emails do we think contained info "relating to the national defense" that she treated similarly?
And this all assumes that the IT guy (who has received immunity) or an aid doesn't break down and give evidence that there was an overt attempt to skirt FOIA and other applicable laws to what content she saw & sent.
If I understand you correctly, the most clearly illegal thing she did was to give a backup copy of stuff to her lawyer.
Not being a lawyer I'm not going to go into which offenses committed by her is the 'most clearly illegal', but it does represent another consciously negligent act for which she can be charged.
This would be why non-idealogues don't take this case seriously.
Your attempts at mockery say otherwise.
People who intentionally leak the names of current spies to enemy countries are traitors and should be heavily punished.
Don't you ever get tired of "But... Bush!!!" ?
People who give a thumb drive full of 2 year old schedules of no-longer-secret diplomatic trips to their lawyer should probably not be treated the same way.
Except there was a whole bunch of classified info in there, which is why the FBI came asking for the thumb drive later and why so many emails released have had some level of redaction.
So by your logic, Obama can decide that something Trump tweeted last week is classified, so clearly Trump should be put in jail. Sigh.
That's a mighty big stretch, doubly so when Trump hasn't been authorized to receive classified information.
There are so many valid reasons to dislike Hillary; why do you have to make shit up to hate her?
Yes it does, which doesn't apply in this case as the markings on a classified document are only there as guidance, it's up to the sender/receiver to recognize the document as such and treat it accordingly... something Hillary agreed to early on in her SoS tenure: http://freebeacon.com/politics...
Slashdot Mirror
Not in the context of the conversation.
Yes, it remains a false equivalency, and your dismissing of the applicable laws further demonstrates it.
Apples, meet oranges.
Bullshit. What sort of *classified* (per federal law) information would Palin have had access to when governor of Alaska? Not sensitive mind you, but *classified*? Think you've got something? Is there any evidence of her mishandling that classified information? No? Then the false equivalency remains.
I seem to recall a newspaper asking it's readers to go through her emails to find incriminating bits... and ended up not finding much, so much for that scandal! On the other hand, the Inspector General at the State Department found oodles of classified information which lead to an FBI investigation.
Yup, same exact things!
Physician, heal thy self.
Which, if you were paying attention you would realize the email scandal is a major part of as it is likely to be treasure trove pointing to other illegality & corruption.
Funny how you didn't comprehend my response, which I had to echo above.
I need not prove anything to you, the facts are there, you simply opt to ignore them.
First... get with the times, calling her 'Hillary' is sexist.... doubly so when you only used last names of two other people.
I wasn't, I was replying to a comment of someone who was... and also citing a quote from the FBI director who currently has an investigation into the matter.
There are also the whole Clinton Cash allegations... and thanks to the FBI having her email server and having allegedly been able to recover all of the deleted emails, we may soon hear more about that just as soon as they interview her and wrap up their investigation.
Nice false equivalency you've got there... or are you suggesting Palin not only had access to classified information, but allowed it to traverse her unsecured private account as we know Clinton did?
The reason for Palin not being a scandal is probably for the same reason the Governor of Washington state admitting to using private email to conduct official business from time to time, and it's not just the matter of access to/misuse of classified information... but state vs federal law.
Somehow, I imagine the FBI is able to walk & chew bubblegum at the same time, and given the # of agents that are on the case I am sure they have enough resource to investigate multiple directions related to Clinton's lawbreaking.
What privacy button? Perhaps I should have been more clear: when I turn it off... I yank the power cord.
Can't "OK Google" automatically pick up the request while the screen is turned off (and charging?)?
The 17 people using Windows Phone have hands free "Hey Cortana."
In our homes we have always listening "Xbox, watch CNN" and "Alexa, add dish soap to my shopping list.
It is said that the 'wake word' is baked deep into these systems so they aren't 'really' listening & transcribing everything, but as you say, it's coming.
Not exactly a fair comparison as recording the two of you takes a good bit more work, either someone near by auto-recording everything, or that PI or PD following you with a parabolic dish is being compared to ones where copying the contents of a conversation is trivial.
I've a 24/7 recording camera in my home which does both audio & video... and I turn it off from time to time when I'm going to have a conversation which I want to reduce the possibility of someone ever being able to overhear.
Citation? Because that's not the news making it's way around the internet today, as he did just shoot a hole in the talking points of the Clinton campaign today:
That doesn't sound like he said 'scant' evidence (of which there is plenty under a gross negligence standard for the lowest charge), even when taken with the last line of the article:
If it wasn't a criminal probe, why would you give immunity to a key staffer?
Where you see a market for people wanting/needing uncompressed 4k video on a microsd card?
There are far better options for them.
Given that Top Gear UK returns this month, it's also quite plausible they (Grand Tour) opted to try to steal some of their thunder.
Given I've got a remote start which I remember to use on occasion... I have engaged in most of the activities you specified without smelling anything (both with this vehicle, as well as a 2002 model from another make & model) ... perhaps you need to get your particular unit into a mechanic to be checked out.
Granted I'm getting old and my eyes probably aren't working as well as they used to... when I'm driving at 60-80mph on the interstate... it's often hard to make out much of any 'dust' on the roads other than snow... which has this odd tendency to come down in significant volumes then be blown away.
Unless vehicles were putting off rather visible plumes of particulate matter when driving down the road, I would imagine nature would help keep the road clean given it's a narrow tract of land where it's deposited and the wind does tend to blow from time to time.
Unless you are driving something on the order of a tank (and a super heavy one at that), there is always going to be a heavier vehicle you can compare to, just as you can always point to someone who is more out of shape/uglier/poorer/etc than you... it doesn't change your own actual position.
The point here I believe is that given electric cars are heavier than their non electric counterparts, their owners are not as green as they thought... and pointing to your neighbor driving a 188 ton faithful reproduction of the Panzer VIII Maus doesn't change the fact that the EV owner is putting off more brake/tire particulates than they would in a conventional auto.
Under what circumstances are you able to smell your own car... when I assume you are driving it?
I've a 'certified used' 2011 boring mini SUV which I discovered that often at stoplights when I had the fans blowing I could eventually smell exhaust in the vehicle... which turned out to be due to a cracked exhaust manifold (and the position of the air intake for the cabin), which when replaced things were fine again.
When a car drives down the road in front of my house I don't smell them, when I'm waiting at a cross walk I don't smell the cars near by puffing away.
On rare occasion I will be following a rather old vehicle which puts off a visible puff of exhaust and I may catch a whiff... but otherwise... not so much.
And bizarrely, because of Microsoft and Windows 10.
Because these apps aren't used for classified information? Most anytime a congress critter gets briefed on something classified, it happens in a SCIF (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility), a place where unrestricted internet access doesn't really exist.
Always nice to see how "-1 Offtopic" to some is used as a form of "I disagree, but intellectually am unwilling/unable to engage to discuss it."
Citation?
And did they add this 'spyware' after the releases of later operating systems?
Why would they spend the time? As far as they are concerned, Windows XP/Vista/7/8/8.1 are competitors to Windows 10 which costs them more to maintain and with fewer monetization/expansion options, why would they do anything but encourage you to move to the new great future they believe they have created?
Is it really bricking when a tweak of the bios is required to recover?
You continue mock, yet do not see how your mockery of his name didn't matter in the slightest.
I can't stand the man myself, but I at least understood this.
I'm sorry you do not understand how the American electoral college system works.
The national popular vote simply doesn't matter, and under no constitutional process was Al Gore ever going to be elected President... however we could have seen a Bush/Lieberman administration for at least 2001-2005.
Adding missing link: http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...
What she did goes well beyond just the simple 'mishandling' of a few classified bits, but thousands of them... I am unaware of a case of similar magnitude where there was no apparent intent to leak, so comparing to run of the mill cases (even Petraeus) isn't quite accurate.
Given the nature of the unprecedented steps she took to do so, even if it wasn't to deliberately mishandle, gross negligence will be an easy charge given the number of false statements she has made since the revelation... the FBI need only ask a few key questions and allow her be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 at a very minimum, which as Martha Stewart can tell you, isn't fun.
How exactly do you get a 'slap on the wrist' without an indictment and conviction or plea? Being asked harsh questions? Being told they could charge you but are opting not to? Yes, such lax punishments!
Of course, we now have even more evidence that she failed to turn over all emails as requested and required... which actually adds a perjury charge or two to the mix, and given one of those charges relates to a case where Judge Sullivan has been less than sympathetic to the claims of the DoJ, how tolerant do you think he will be of this latest revelation?
I'm aware of no one who has said simply having or using a private server is illegal... so nice strawman you've got there. What is very illegal is mishandling classified information, a charge not difficult to prove.
Lets look at just one section of rather clear cut law, shall we? Specifically 18 U.S. Code  793 section f:
It is known that satellite imagery whose source was the CIA was found in her mailbox, and as SoS she would entrusted to lawful possession of such items... in a "proper place of custody".
Are you or she going to claim that her private email server a "proper place of custody"? The CIA (the classifying agency) would disagree I'm sure.
More so, by handing over a thumb drive full of emails, including even a single classified satellite image to her lawyer, didn't she cause it to be "delivered to anyone in violation of his trust"?
Remember, only 'gross negligence' is required for this particular statute, and above I've shown just two different ways she can wind up with up to 10 years in prison for a single image.
Now how many other emails do we think contained info "relating to the national defense" that she treated similarly?
And this all assumes that the IT guy (who has received immunity) or an aid doesn't break down and give evidence that there was an overt attempt to skirt FOIA and other applicable laws to what content she saw & sent.
Not being a lawyer I'm not going to go into which offenses committed by her is the 'most clearly illegal', but it does represent another consciously negligent act for which she can be charged.
Your attempts at mockery say otherwise.
Don't you ever get tired of "But... Bush!!!" ?
Except there was a whole bunch of classified info in there, which is why the FBI came asking for the thumb drive later and why so many emails released have had some level of redaction.
That's a mighty big stretch, doubly so when Trump hasn't been authorized to receive classified information.
Exactly what have I made up?
Yes it does, which doesn't apply in this case as the markings on a classified document are only there as guidance, it's up to the sender/receiver to recognize the document as such and treat it accordingly... something Hillary agreed to early on in her SoS tenure: http://freebeacon.com/politics...