No argument on the coffee, but likely they are riding on their parent's cell plan getting that unlimited data for $10-$15 bucks a month while Daddy pays the main fee.
The constitution says nothing about any right to impede the rights of others. It protects the right to peaceably assemble. Blocking traffic impedes the rights of others to move about their business and is not a peaceable action. The Constitution does not state at all that people are allowed to block public throughfares to protest.
A citizen's rights end when they negatively impact the rights of another citizen. You have the right to protest. I have the right to travel freely throughout this nation. When your protest impinges on my right, you have exceeded your rights.
Find a public square and hold your protest there. But a freeway or expressway is NOT a public square.
Cutting down or even eliminating a Federal Dept of Education which didn't even exist until 1978, is not defunding public education. Rather it's eliminating needless bureaucracy and returning the funding to where it belongs, the states. Which will result in more money getting into the classrooms, where it does the most good rather than funding ever more bureaocrats.
The Hobbit Trilogy failed because The Hobbit is a single book, but they greedily wanted a trilogy so they stretched the story out painfully to where the trilogy as it progressed, had less and less relevance to the iconic book it was supposedly pulled from.
The LOTR trilogy worked because although they had to change a lot to fit the three books into just three movies they still followed the progress of the basic plot line in time with the books. Thus while different it was what we expected and wanted to see. The Hobbit was not.
Depends on where you live. Live in an arid state (I live in Utah) and you will be strongly encouraged if not legally required to water during the night. In fact in many areas it's illegal to water between 10 am and 6 pm. If you are getting fungal growth you cut back on the amount or frequency, but still water at night.
We flippantly dismiss it, because anyone who has worked in the intel community knows that you either remove batteries from any phones or better remove any phones from the room when discussing sensitive information and that has been the rule for decades. Back in the days of the Nokia candy bar cell phones that was the policy because they could be remotely accessed and used to listen. That the CIA has active research to maintain and even expand these capabilities is not only not news, it is to be expected because the other side is certainly going to be trying to maintain that capability in light of device technology advances.
What would be surprising, (and disappointing) would be if they were not trying to do this. Now if the leak provides any proof of the Agency illegally tapping US Citizens then we have an issue. A big one. But having the capability for intelligence collection efforts and to understand how the opposition might be trying to do the same things to us, is not an issue.
You would gut the capabilities of our intel community to collect on our international opponents(friendly and hostile)?
She needs to face charges, because many experienced former prosecutors and plenty of people who have been prosecuted for just what Comey claimed was not prosecutable beg to differ. Failure to protect classified information, is a federal felony that has NO requirement of intent. If you are negligent in your handling of classified information, even once, you can be prosecuted and convicted.
I agree that just saying she should be locked up is wrong. She needs to face the charges and if she can beat them in a court of law, fine. But Comey outlined a clear and easily prosecuted case consisting of hundreds of felony counts (one for each email she sent containing classified information) and then magically waived it away claiming that no prosecutor would take the case, when many a case has been taken up and successfully prosecuted for far less egregious and far less extensive scope of counts. The fix was in from the Tarmac meeting just days before.
The GP statement about generating when they want to generate has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with the fact that they generate only when there is wind or sufficient light. You have a peak event and need more power in the winter at night you can't turn to your solar sources for power.
GP's comment had nothing to do with human choices or desires but all about the variability of nature and the direct impact it has on wind and solar.
The first time I used one of the McDonalds Kiosks was the first time in a long time they didn't mess up part of my order due to the cashier's weak English skills.
Your assertion that they were not put there by her is false. If true those who emailed her would be facing charges. And she would be facing charges for failure to report. That the emails were there was because she put the info into the emails. Most the emails were not retroactively classified. Comey addressed that, stating that a few were identified as such and those were excluded from consideration as she cannot be held responsible for information classified after the fact.
She sent the emails, thus she is being investigated. Anyone who sent classified information to her would be investigated and charged separately, she is not liable for other's violations, except that she would also be investigated and charged for failure to report the violations in a timely manner. There is no evidence of Mrs. Clinton reporting others for such, thus if your assertion is correct, she is liable for the crime of failure to report. Which falls under the same felony penalty as negligent failure to protect.
No, intent is not required. Many are prosecuted for negligence in correctly handling classified information. Well many people who don't have the last name of Clinton are successfully prosecuted for these crimes. When entrusted with classified information you don't get to be casual or negligent with it. The crimes of failure to protect, and failure to notify of compromise both contain specific wording stating that when such acts occur through negligence, they do not require criminal intent. The code found in the Espionage Act was passed after that case ruling and has stood multiple challenges. Intent is not required. Charges should have been filed.
The cited case dealt with another section of the Espionage act, determining as to whether the accused delivered classified information to a foreign power with intent to do harm. The ruling was based on whether the information transmitted was really of value in regards to national defense. And that was only a small aspect of that ruling.
The intent clause of the sections Hillary should be charged on do not assume any intent to do harm but rather any intent to cause or allow a compromise of security. Compromise through negligence is a crime that has no intent requirement. Allowing a compromise by failing to report it, also has no intent requirement. I posit should could also be charge with deliberate compromise, which does not deal with intent to cause harm but intent as to deliberately compromising classified information as a matter of convenience. There is no intent to cause harm there, but there is an intent to compromise security. It is the second intent which she would be prosecuted under.
Yes she did, there were emails containing classified information, obviously classified information. Whether she sent or received them the fact that they were in her email account, makes her a felon. Either for sending them and thus either deliberately compromising classified information, or through negligence and thus failing to protect classified information. The second charge has no requirement of intent. Or if she received said emails and failed to report the person who sent them, then she is again guilty of failing to protect classified information by not reporting the compromise.
She is guilty and needs to face charges. There is no two ways about it. You encounter classified information on an unclassified network and you have a clearance you had better be calling your Security officer to report it or you are in trouble. It's either your fault for putting the info on the unclass net or your fault for not reporting as soon as possible.
She wasn't prosecuted because Bill and Loretta worked out a fix on the Tarmac in AZ.
Where are the charges? That's what we've been asking since Dir Comey laid out a clear cut case but then refused to press charges on the bogus excuse that there was no intent. But I have repeatedly outlined that the crimes have no intent requirement. She needs to face charges. If she can beat them good on her, but she needs to face them in court.
But the fix was in after the meeting in Arizona between Sec Lynch and Bill Clinton. She does have protections a normal person would be in jail.
Now we are making things up to try to excuse her? Nowhere has it been stated that she only received emails with classified information as those would not be her fault, (though she would still be liable for criminal charges for not reporting the individuals who sent her the classified information, another felony that requires no intent). And if that was true where are the charges against those who sent her the unclassified information. In fact the information was placed into the emails by her.
Sent or received she's still guilty of felony charges that have no intent requirement. You don't mess around with classified information. You protect it, and you report those who don't so you don't get in trouble.
Except that the FBI conclusion flew in the face of the law. Comey laid out a clean cut case of over 100 counts of felony failure to protect classified information through negligence, then tried to excuse it by saying it couldn't be prosecuted because there was no criminal intent. The problem with that is the very crime he specified has no intent requirement. If you are entrusted with classified information and through your negligence allow it to be exposed to unauthorized access, you are guilty of a felony. And as moving Top Secret information (as Comey said was found in at least 8 emails) to an unclassified server from the physically separate TS network is always considered an intentional act she should have been prosecuted for Deliberate Security Compromise.
If you have access to Classified information you handle it carefully and keep it on the systems it is supposed to be on.
Hillary should have faced charges (hopefully she still will) for her criminal negligence with out nation's secrets. The outrage at Comey giving her a pass (days after AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in AZ) was not false it is fully justified.
Any illegality would fall on the DHS staffer who sent sensitive information to the Governor's private account. Hillary is not liable for classified emails sent to her account but for emails containing classified information sent by her to others.
I've read a few variations on this article now. And not one of them has indicated any wrong doing on his part. p.s. Sensitive does not equal classified.
What did he do wrong? He broke no law (unlike Hillary) He's hired an outside law firm to review all emails to ensure the state gets all relevant emails (as opposed to her firm trying to hide and destroy emails). Yes he was phished, but so far no evidence he transmitted classified information over this account.
In other words, it's not an issue because he didn't break the law. Catch him in an illegal act and then we can talk.
My view is just the opposite. Dating back to my first cell phone in 96, I have never sent a phone swimming. (Knock on wood). I have frequently extended the life of a phone by replacing a dying battery that won't hold a full charge anymore. Non-removable battery is a no-go. Water resistance is a gimmick.
WMD app on Android, similar apps on other devices. Hand over your phone, leave customs, borrow another phone, send a text and it's wiped. Also most phone carriers give you a web based service account that also includes a remote wipe function. Corporate Cell phone access and management tools also include this capability.
Actually the court was a balanced 4-4 with Kennedy swinging back and forth based on the case merits. Currently it's a 4-4ish tie but again Kennedy is likely to swing his vote based on the topic of the case. On social issues he's usually going to side with the left side of the court. On law enforcement type issues he leans to the right.
But don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame Shia for trying to fly his flag at the ammo dump.
No argument on the coffee, but likely they are riding on their parent's cell plan getting that unlimited data for $10-$15 bucks a month while Daddy pays the main fee.
I thought of Bill Bixby, as in Bruce Banner from the TV The Hulk. You don't want to make your phone mad, you won't like it when it's mad.
The constitution says nothing about any right to impede the rights of others. It protects the right to peaceably assemble. Blocking traffic impedes the rights of others to move about their business and is not a peaceable action. The Constitution does not state at all that people are allowed to block public throughfares to protest.
A citizen's rights end when they negatively impact the rights of another citizen. You have the right to protest. I have the right to travel freely throughout this nation. When your protest impinges on my right, you have exceeded your rights.
Find a public square and hold your protest there. But a freeway or expressway is NOT a public square.
Cutting down or even eliminating a Federal Dept of Education which didn't even exist until 1978, is not defunding public education. Rather it's eliminating needless bureaucracy and returning the funding to where it belongs, the states. Which will result in more money getting into the classrooms, where it does the most good rather than funding ever more bureaocrats.
The Hobbit Trilogy failed because The Hobbit is a single book, but they greedily wanted a trilogy so they stretched the story out painfully to where the trilogy as it progressed, had less and less relevance to the iconic book it was supposedly pulled from.
The LOTR trilogy worked because although they had to change a lot to fit the three books into just three movies they still followed the progress of the basic plot line in time with the books. Thus while different it was what we expected and wanted to see. The Hobbit was not.
Depends on where you live. Live in an arid state (I live in Utah) and you will be strongly encouraged if not legally required to water during the night. In fact in many areas it's illegal to water between 10 am and 6 pm. If you are getting fungal growth you cut back on the amount or frequency, but still water at night.
Funny, I always just politely refused and they just rang my purchases up.
We flippantly dismiss it, because anyone who has worked in the intel community knows that you either remove batteries from any phones or better remove any phones from the room when discussing sensitive information and that has been the rule for decades. Back in the days of the Nokia candy bar cell phones that was the policy because they could be remotely accessed and used to listen. That the CIA has active research to maintain and even expand these capabilities is not only not news, it is to be expected because the other side is certainly going to be trying to maintain that capability in light of device technology advances.
What would be surprising, (and disappointing) would be if they were not trying to do this. Now if the leak provides any proof of the Agency illegally tapping US Citizens then we have an issue. A big one. But having the capability for intelligence collection efforts and to understand how the opposition might be trying to do the same things to us, is not an issue.
You would gut the capabilities of our intel community to collect on our international opponents(friendly and hostile)?
She needs to face charges, because many experienced former prosecutors and plenty of people who have been prosecuted for just what Comey claimed was not prosecutable beg to differ. Failure to protect classified information, is a federal felony that has NO requirement of intent. If you are negligent in your handling of classified information, even once, you can be prosecuted and convicted.
I agree that just saying she should be locked up is wrong. She needs to face the charges and if she can beat them in a court of law, fine. But Comey outlined a clear and easily prosecuted case consisting of hundreds of felony counts (one for each email she sent containing classified information) and then magically waived it away claiming that no prosecutor would take the case, when many a case has been taken up and successfully prosecuted for far less egregious and far less extensive scope of counts. The fix was in from the Tarmac meeting just days before.
It's pronounced ways as in: It helps you find the fastest ways home.
The GP statement about generating when they want to generate has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with the fact that they generate only when there is wind or sufficient light. You have a peak event and need more power in the winter at night you can't turn to your solar sources for power.
GP's comment had nothing to do with human choices or desires but all about the variability of nature and the direct impact it has on wind and solar.
The first time I used one of the McDonalds Kiosks was the first time in a long time they didn't mess up part of my order due to the cashier's weak English skills.
Your assertion that they were not put there by her is false. If true those who emailed her would be facing charges. And she would be facing charges for failure to report. That the emails were there was because she put the info into the emails. Most the emails were not retroactively classified. Comey addressed that, stating that a few were identified as such and those were excluded from consideration as she cannot be held responsible for information classified after the fact.
She sent the emails, thus she is being investigated. Anyone who sent classified information to her would be investigated and charged separately, she is not liable for other's violations, except that she would also be investigated and charged for failure to report the violations in a timely manner. There is no evidence of Mrs. Clinton reporting others for such, thus if your assertion is correct, she is liable for the crime of failure to report. Which falls under the same felony penalty as negligent failure to protect.
No, intent is not required. Many are prosecuted for negligence in correctly handling classified information. Well many people who don't have the last name of Clinton are successfully prosecuted for these crimes. When entrusted with classified information you don't get to be casual or negligent with it. The crimes of failure to protect, and failure to notify of compromise both contain specific wording stating that when such acts occur through negligence, they do not require criminal intent. The code found in the Espionage Act was passed after that case ruling and has stood multiple challenges. Intent is not required. Charges should have been filed.
The cited case dealt with another section of the Espionage act, determining as to whether the accused delivered classified information to a foreign power with intent to do harm. The ruling was based on whether the information transmitted was really of value in regards to national defense. And that was only a small aspect of that ruling.
The intent clause of the sections Hillary should be charged on do not assume any intent to do harm but rather any intent to cause or allow a compromise of security. Compromise through negligence is a crime that has no intent requirement. Allowing a compromise by failing to report it, also has no intent requirement. I posit should could also be charge with deliberate compromise, which does not deal with intent to cause harm but intent as to deliberately compromising classified information as a matter of convenience. There is no intent to cause harm there, but there is an intent to compromise security. It is the second intent which she would be prosecuted under.
Comey and you are both wrong.
Yes she did, there were emails containing classified information, obviously classified information. Whether she sent or received them the fact that they were in her email account, makes her a felon. Either for sending them and thus either deliberately compromising classified information, or through negligence and thus failing to protect classified information. The second charge has no requirement of intent. Or if she received said emails and failed to report the person who sent them, then she is again guilty of failing to protect classified information by not reporting the compromise.
She is guilty and needs to face charges. There is no two ways about it. You encounter classified information on an unclassified network and you have a clearance you had better be calling your Security officer to report it or you are in trouble. It's either your fault for putting the info on the unclass net or your fault for not reporting as soon as possible.
She wasn't prosecuted because Bill and Loretta worked out a fix on the Tarmac in AZ.
Where are the charges? That's what we've been asking since Dir Comey laid out a clear cut case but then refused to press charges on the bogus excuse that there was no intent. But I have repeatedly outlined that the crimes have no intent requirement. She needs to face charges. If she can beat them good on her, but she needs to face them in court.
But the fix was in after the meeting in Arizona between Sec Lynch and Bill Clinton. She does have protections a normal person would be in jail.
Now we are making things up to try to excuse her?
Nowhere has it been stated that she only received emails with classified information as those would not be her fault, (though she would still be liable for criminal charges for not reporting the individuals who sent her the classified information, another felony that requires no intent). And if that was true where are the charges against those who sent her the unclassified information. In fact the information was placed into the emails by her.
Sent or received she's still guilty of felony charges that have no intent requirement. You don't mess around with classified information. You protect it, and you report those who don't so you don't get in trouble.
Except that the FBI conclusion flew in the face of the law. Comey laid out a clean cut case of over 100 counts of felony failure to protect classified information through negligence, then tried to excuse it by saying it couldn't be prosecuted because there was no criminal intent. The problem with that is the very crime he specified has no intent requirement. If you are entrusted with classified information and through your negligence allow it to be exposed to unauthorized access, you are guilty of a felony. And as moving Top Secret information (as Comey said was found in at least 8 emails) to an unclassified server from the physically separate TS network is always considered an intentional act she should have been prosecuted for Deliberate Security Compromise.
If you have access to Classified information you handle it carefully and keep it on the systems it is supposed to be on.
Hillary should have faced charges (hopefully she still will) for her criminal negligence with out nation's secrets. The outrage at Comey giving her a pass (days after AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in AZ) was not false it is fully justified.
Well he was using a commercial service with some degree of security rather than an unsecured server in a bathroom closet.
Any illegality would fall on the DHS staffer who sent sensitive information to the Governor's private account. Hillary is not liable for classified emails sent to her account but for emails containing classified information sent by her to others.
I've read a few variations on this article now. And not one of them has indicated any wrong doing on his part. p.s. Sensitive does not equal classified.
What did he do wrong? He broke no law (unlike Hillary) He's hired an outside law firm to review all emails to ensure the state gets all relevant emails (as opposed to her firm trying to hide and destroy emails). Yes he was phished, but so far no evidence he transmitted classified information over this account.
In other words, it's not an issue because he didn't break the law. Catch him in an illegal act and then we can talk.
My view is just the opposite. Dating back to my first cell phone in 96, I have never sent a phone swimming. (Knock on wood). I have frequently extended the life of a phone by replacing a dying battery that won't hold a full charge anymore. Non-removable battery is a no-go. Water resistance is a gimmick.
WMD app on Android, similar apps on other devices. Hand over your phone, leave customs, borrow another phone, send a text and it's wiped. Also most phone carriers give you a web based service account that also includes a remote wipe function. Corporate Cell phone access and management tools also include this capability.
Actually the court was a balanced 4-4 with Kennedy swinging back and forth based on the case merits. Currently it's a 4-4ish tie but again Kennedy is likely to swing his vote based on the topic of the case. On social issues he's usually going to side with the left side of the court. On law enforcement type issues he leans to the right.
But don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.