Yet Trump has yet to get any court nominations confirmed. All sitting Federal Judges are from prior Presidents, not Trump. The everything is his fault line just doesn't work this early in his administration.
And yes there is talk (but no action yet) of breaking up the 9th circuit into two circuits. Which makes sense for more reasons than the fact that it is by far the most overturned court in the nation.(80% of rulings in 2015 were overturned, that's a pathetic performance. It's also the most overworked with the largest population covered. The Idea is to split it to reduce the workload, nothing more. But if it improved their record that would be a bonus.
Legislation by Proposition or Initiative is a scourge on our Representative Republic and should be prohibited. When the legislature (national or state) proposes a law, the bill goes through debate and legal and financial reviews to determine the impacts and constitutionality. Now these reviews are not perfect but they usually do a decent job of making sure most bad laws don't become law.
With Proposition, if put forward by a well funded group, they advertise and convince the people the law will be good but most voters don't have the time or inclination to really look into the props to see if they are completely good or if they will run afoul of some constitutional issues or have some potential unexpected (or downplayed) negative consequences. Like the way Prop 13 has sincerely hamstrung the ability of CA to use property taxes effectively.
And with sufficiently loud supporters, those who do study the proposition and see the obvious problems are shouted down and silenced. We are not a Democracy, passing laws democratically for a Representative Republic is a sure way to undermine that Republic. Democracy is mob rule and the mob is easily swayed to support bad props that would never make it through the legislative process.
Plus the river will wash many down into Mead, making it shallower us raising the water levels to ensure that Las Vegas can still take out the water it needs.;)
Agreed, and is he suing the bar that served the drinks? Or perhaps the drink manufacturers themselves. After all if they hadn't made and sold the booze, she wouldn't have drank so much that she couldn't react safely to the wrong-way driver.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (paragraphs e and f) Marked or unmarked is irrelevant. As is intent. She signed a SF 312 Non-Disclosure agreement that outlined quite clearly her obligation to protect the classified information she was entrusted with due to her position. Your claims of alternate facts are the only thing Alternate. Everyone granted a security clearance signs the same NDR form and faces the same penalties for failure to comply. And as per 18 793 (f) intent does not matter, negligence is still a crime.
Others have addressed your falsehoods about deleting the emails.
Now that we have a new AG, I expect charges to come soon. Though the super citizen protections she seems to enjoy might still prevent them.
USC 18 793. Her crimes specifically fit sub paragraphs (e) or (f). If (e), it's often referred to as deliberate security compromise, if (f) it's failure to protect/mishandling of Classified Information. (f) is most likely to be charged as it requires no intent. You mishandle classified information, you have violated this law.
Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classified information originating from someone else, that person faces the same charge and she could face another count of (f) for failure to report a violation.
The law is clear the penalties are clear and those punished for such crimes? Many, some much more egregious as hers due to being intentional attempts to spy. But here is a list of some so prosecuted for violating this law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Soviet_spies.2C_late_20th_century If you continue from that point down to the 21st century you find Kenneth Wayne Ford, who never transmitted to an unauthorized person but simply retained classified information. I have a much more detailed list of individuals convicted at home but am at work currently.
Comey lied when he said that. Mishandling classified information via negligence is still a felony that has no intent requirement. The act of being negligent with classified information is a felony crime.
Please cite the actual ties to Russia that you claim Trump has. He's complimented Putin a few times for being a real leader as opposed to Obama. But I've seen no evidence of any actual ties.
What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"?
Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.
And Presidents don't plan raids and other tactical operations. At most they get advised that a raid is planned and ready to be executed on their approval, but the planning is all much lower. Any failures in the planning are at the tactical unit level and maybe as high as JSOC but not above that.
It depends, is it actually the administration? or is it the RNC or Trump Campaign? Both are private organizations not required to retain/release such info, and legally required to not use government IT resources. If the Administration then yes and as a staunch Republican I'll readily agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed to bring them in compliance. But if the RNC, or Trump Campaign then no it's not a concern, they are free to secure and destroy their communications.
Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.
Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.
There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will. Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.
Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).
Tell that to the Iranians working and studying here who were deported by Carter. He Retro-actively rewrote their visa's changing the end date to immediately.
And your last sentence proves you have zero reading comprehension. It is NOT a ban on Muslim refugees. It is a ban, or rather a delay on Refugees from seven nations (yes predominantly Muslim but not 100% Muslim). The Order affects all citizens of those nations regardless of their faith, including the heavily oppressed Christian and Yazidi minorities found in those nations (Yazidi are in Iraq and Syria not the other nations).
Actually re-entry is not even guaranteed for a Citizen. You have the right to travel out of the country. Your rights on attempt to re-enter are greatly reduced. And the Gov can and has banned re-entry by Citizens before trapping thousands outside the country around the world. (the week post 9/11, nobody was flying here, not even citizens.)
Just because the attackers were incompetent does not lesson the fact that in the last year two Somali refugees conducted two separate attacks resulting in multiple injuries. One in Minnesota resulting in 9 innocent victims stabbed (luckily none died) before the perp was shot and killed by an officer. And the Ohio State Car and knife attack, again luckily none of the victims died and a police officer was able to quickly respond and end the attack.
So nobody died. But terror attacks still happened, and the incompetence of the attacker does not diminish the attempt or the extensive injuries and trauma suffered by their victims.
Or do we have to let American Citizens be killed before we react?
You mean tripe like how the lying MSM continues to call it a "Muslim Ban". And pushes sob stories non-stop about it. Hell my local TV station is running an article about the last refugees for four months arriving an how the wife was set to come next month but is now banned for four months. The only problem, the family arriving is from Afghanistan, a country not on the list. So her delays are in no way related to the EO.
So move them to Microsoft offices in Egypt or other nations in the region. They don't have to come to the US to work for Microsoft. It is a Global company with Offices around the globe.
And this EO doesn't impact green card holders either. Yes some were impacted on the initial bungled implementation, but it actually says nothing about green card holders who are resident aliens not immigrants. Those initially impacted and detained should not have been. That was an error in application of the EO, not something actually contained in the EO.
25 years ago= 1992. The year before during the Gulf War I was helping families of my father's Guard Unit send emails to their soldiers in Kuwait via a 286 and modem dial-in. Check your facts. The internet was not as widely used because it was mostly still used by academia at that point, and the www had not yet been released on the world, but the internet was there. And Personal computers (Macs and PC's) were widely used and had been for years.
You are right about the change in technology, just your baseline is off.
Exactly, and this is why Snowden also fails to qualify for whistleblower protections. Had he kept his revelations to the NSA surveillance program, he would have been golden and fully worthy of Whistleblower status. But of course he didn't, he dumped a bunch more, compromising legitimate and legal collection efforts ongoing in and against foreign powers (friendly and hostile alike. In the spy game everybody spies on everybody). That ruined his claim to whistleblowing. And Manning never had any claim to such. Neither truly committed treason, just espionage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet Trump has yet to get any court nominations confirmed. All sitting Federal Judges are from prior Presidents, not Trump. The everything is his fault line just doesn't work this early in his administration.
And yes there is talk (but no action yet) of breaking up the 9th circuit into two circuits. Which makes sense for more reasons than the fact that it is by far the most overturned court in the nation.(80% of rulings in 2015 were overturned, that's a pathetic performance. It's also the most overworked with the largest population covered. The Idea is to split it to reduce the workload, nothing more. But if it improved their record that would be a bonus.
Your legal advice at the end is backwards. You should always refuse to provide information until you have spoken to an attorney.
Legislation by Proposition or Initiative is a scourge on our Representative Republic and should be prohibited. When the legislature (national or state) proposes a law, the bill goes through debate and legal and financial reviews to determine the impacts and constitutionality. Now these reviews are not perfect but they usually do a decent job of making sure most bad laws don't become law.
With Proposition, if put forward by a well funded group, they advertise and convince the people the law will be good but most voters don't have the time or inclination to really look into the props to see if they are completely good or if they will run afoul of some constitutional issues or have some potential unexpected (or downplayed) negative consequences. Like the way Prop 13 has sincerely hamstrung the ability of CA to use property taxes effectively.
And with sufficiently loud supporters, those who do study the proposition and see the obvious problems are shouted down and silenced. We are not a Democracy, passing laws democratically for a Representative Republic is a sure way to undermine that Republic. Democracy is mob rule and the mob is easily swayed to support bad props that would never make it through the legislative process.
Plus the river will wash many down into Mead, making it shallower us raising the water levels to ensure that Las Vegas can still take out the water it needs. ;)
Agreed, and is he suing the bar that served the drinks? Or perhaps the drink manufacturers themselves. After all if they hadn't made and sold the booze, she wouldn't have drank so much that she couldn't react safely to the wrong-way driver.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (paragraphs e and f) Marked or unmarked is irrelevant. As is intent. She signed a SF 312 Non-Disclosure agreement that outlined quite clearly her obligation to protect the classified information she was entrusted with due to her position. Your claims of alternate facts are the only thing Alternate. Everyone granted a security clearance signs the same NDR form and faces the same penalties for failure to comply. And as per 18 793 (f) intent does not matter, negligence is still a crime.
Others have addressed your falsehoods about deleting the emails.
Now that we have a new AG, I expect charges to come soon. Though the super citizen protections she seems to enjoy might still prevent them.
USC 18 793. Her crimes specifically fit sub paragraphs (e) or (f). If (e), it's often referred to as deliberate security compromise, if (f) it's failure to protect/mishandling of Classified Information. (f) is most likely to be charged as it requires no intent. You mishandle classified information, you have violated this law.
Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classified information originating from someone else, that person faces the same charge and she could face another count of (f) for failure to report a violation.
The law is clear the penalties are clear and those punished for such crimes? Many, some much more egregious as hers due to being intentional attempts to spy. But here is a list of some so prosecuted for violating this law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Soviet_spies.2C_late_20th_century
If you continue from that point down to the 21st century you find Kenneth Wayne Ford, who never transmitted to an unauthorized person but simply retained classified information. I have a much more detailed list of individuals convicted at home but am at work currently.
Comey lied when he said that. Mishandling classified information via negligence is still a felony that has no intent requirement. The act of being negligent with classified information is a felony crime.
Please cite the actual ties to Russia that you claim Trump has. He's complimented Putin a few times for being a real leader as opposed to Obama. But I've seen no evidence of any actual ties.
What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"?
Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.
And Presidents don't plan raids and other tactical operations. At most they get advised that a raid is planned and ready to be executed on their approval, but the planning is all much lower. Any failures in the planning are at the tactical unit level and maybe as high as JSOC but not above that.
It depends, is it actually the administration? or is it the RNC or Trump Campaign? Both are private organizations not required to retain/release such info, and legally required to not use government IT resources. If the Administration then yes and as a staunch Republican I'll readily agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed to bring them in compliance. But if the RNC, or Trump Campaign then no it's not a concern, they are free to secure and destroy their communications.
But calling for a coup is sedition and is a crime under federal law.
Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.
Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.
There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will. Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.
Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).
Tell that to the Iranians working and studying here who were deported by Carter. He Retro-actively rewrote their visa's changing the end date to immediately.
And your last sentence proves you have zero reading comprehension. It is NOT a ban on Muslim refugees. It is a ban, or rather a delay on Refugees from seven nations (yes predominantly Muslim but not 100% Muslim). The Order affects all citizens of those nations regardless of their faith, including the heavily oppressed Christian and Yazidi minorities found in those nations (Yazidi are in Iraq and Syria not the other nations).
Actually re-entry is not even guaranteed for a Citizen. You have the right to travel out of the country. Your rights on attempt to re-enter are greatly reduced. And the Gov can and has banned re-entry by Citizens before trapping thousands outside the country around the world. (the week post 9/11, nobody was flying here, not even citizens.)
Just because the attackers were incompetent does not lesson the fact that in the last year two Somali refugees conducted two separate attacks resulting in multiple injuries. One in Minnesota resulting in 9 innocent victims stabbed (luckily none died) before the perp was shot and killed by an officer. And the Ohio State Car and knife attack, again luckily none of the victims died and a police officer was able to quickly respond and end the attack.
So nobody died. But terror attacks still happened, and the incompetence of the attacker does not diminish the attempt or the extensive injuries and trauma suffered by their victims.
Or do we have to let American Citizens be killed before we react?
If she is an Australian citizen, she applies for a travel visa using that passport. She is fine to travel then.
You mean tripe like how the lying MSM continues to call it a "Muslim Ban". And pushes sob stories non-stop about it. Hell my local TV station is running an article about the last refugees for four months arriving an how the wife was set to come next month but is now banned for four months. The only problem, the family arriving is from Afghanistan, a country not on the list. So her delays are in no way related to the EO.
So move them to Microsoft offices in Egypt or other nations in the region. They don't have to come to the US to work for Microsoft. It is a Global company with Offices around the globe.
And this EO doesn't impact green card holders either. Yes some were impacted on the initial bungled implementation, but it actually says nothing about green card holders who are resident aliens not immigrants. Those initially impacted and detained should not have been. That was an error in application of the EO, not something actually contained in the EO.
None of them are blatant purveyors, such as when CNN picked up and ran with the Golden Showers article from 4Chan? Nope, no fake news there.
Unless you have a family member named Alex or Alexa.
25 years ago= 1992. The year before during the Gulf War I was helping families of my father's Guard Unit send emails to their soldiers in Kuwait via a 286 and modem dial-in. Check your facts. The internet was not as widely used because it was mostly still used by academia at that point, and the www had not yet been released on the world, but the internet was there. And Personal computers (Macs and PC's) were widely used and had been for years.
You are right about the change in technology, just your baseline is off.
Exactly, and this is why Snowden also fails to qualify for whistleblower protections. Had he kept his revelations to the NSA surveillance program, he would have been golden and fully worthy of Whistleblower status. But of course he didn't, he dumped a bunch more, compromising legitimate and legal collection efforts ongoing in and against foreign powers (friendly and hostile alike. In the spy game everybody spies on everybody). That ruined his claim to whistleblowing. And Manning never had any claim to such. Neither truly committed treason, just espionage.