You don't seem top be understanding my point. I don't know why it's not getting through. Let me try another angle:
Fact X can potentially come from two different sources: Source A and Source B. Source A may be a "regular" contact, such as the cop meeting scenario I already presented.
Source B may be a classified document/statement/system.
The existence of Fact X in a "regular" email by itself is NOT PROOF that Fact X came from Source B, because it may have come from Source A.
The existence of Fact A in Source B may make it technically "classified information", but that's not the same as Source B being the ONLY possible source of Fact X in a regular email because there are two possible sources.
Therefore, the existence of Fact X in the regular email is NOT evidence of having used Source B.
As far as classified markers themselves appearing in regular email, the markers themselves are not classified, it's the material that comes with it. We don't know if the material that came with it was also classified, those details were not given to us. The Director may have merely cited markers as evidence of sloppy document preparation and NOT the inclusion of secrets themselves (in the same document with markers left in).
The issue of markers leaking in and of classified info being in the documents could be two different things. We don't know because we don't have the details to study. Those details matter, and we don't have them.
How is a writer to know that Detail X from has been classified by some other persons or means independent of their work? You imply it's some magic global variable.
For example, If I talk to the local cop and he tells me there will be a meeting about special police dogs on the 7th, and I forward that info to Hillary.
In the meantime, some OTHER person(s) decides to classify the fact there will be a meeting about these police dogs. I cannot magically know that.
On your first point, "consciously disregard" indeed seems pretty much "intent". I got "-1" total points for saying intent is required, but the "damaging" reply is merely using different words for "intent". (Yes, I am griping about mod points).
Maybe there's somehow a legal difference, but it's probably subtle and may not make much difference for us non-legal muggles nor juries.
Google:
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care."
Clinton, on the other hand, had emails on her private server that contained information that was only available on the secure server.
That has not been established, as I wrote about in another reply. It has only been shown that it was also available on the secure system, not that it was exclusively available on such.
It's known that information found in the public (such as news) often winds up being classified for various reasons. The sender of a message could have gotten it from the press, for example, without any knowledge of the classified version. Surveying the world's press and all websites 5+ years back is probably not doable (baring maybe a trillion-dollar budget).
Merely being aware of the existence of her server was technically a violation of the statues if not reported
You seem to be confusing State Department policies and federal law. Federal law says nothing about using personal servers for work email. Two different issues.
The FBI was studying the issue of the handling of classified materials, not server policy itself.
Departments all have official policies, but most are not "law" in itself.
Secretary Powell is probably correct. But that's how the government works...Would anybody be standing up for some little guy if they broke those byzantine CYA rules, though?
I don't think it's so much that the little guy is given less leeway than a bigwig, but rather the bigwigs can afford better lawyers/representatives who poke enough "doubt holes" into the case to derail it. It's why OJ got off.
It's indeed a crazy system we have, but nobody's found a better alternative that has been proven in practice.
They had to sift roughly 30k messages for this investigation; that's a lot of stuff. To have inspectors and auditors check every message real-time would be super-expensive, and probably slow down work.
Perhaps Secretary Powell and Clinton both realized you have to stretch the rules to get anything productive done under the "byzantine CYA rules".
Facing the choice of not getting anything done versus the risk getting your wrist slapped in public, the second seemed the least evil.
Those who have a lot of experience in the gov't and big orgs probably realize it's a careful balancing and act those who strictly follow the rules don't get anywhere, similar to how purely honest politicians don't get anywhere.
I know some PHB's who got awards for "getting it done" on projects with horrid security, horrid backups, horrid accessibility, horrid scaling, and bunches of other maintenance risks. They get their award, get promoted, and then dump their mutant orphan onto us poor techie grunts. By the time anyone in power realizes the originators took a bunch of cheap shortcuts, they are off doing other things in other places. If cornered, they'll say, "you have to be brave and forceful to push things through this stagnant bureaucracy". Perhaps there is some truth to it, although it seems they could have found better balance.
I am willing to view this email thing in a more nuanced way than merely "good versus bad", as the press and politicians try to portray it. Nuanced stories don't sell as well as dramatized ones. One thing I find about political issues is that the more you dig into it, the more nuanced something is. We are usually only looking at the tip of a complex iceberg.
So you have inside knowledge that each and every email came from such a source? If not, charges are still valid.
Sorry, I'm not following. Here's an example of the kind of legal flow I'm suggesting:
Prosecution: "Mr. X, you included mention of fact A in document B while assisting Mrs. Clinton, correct?"
Mr. X: "Yes, that is true."
Proc: "Did you know fact A was classified information at the time of preparation of document B?"
X: "If I remember correctly, I got it from a foreign news source, not a classified document."
Proc: "Which foreign news source?"
X: "Sorry, I don't remember, that was 5 years ago. We monitored a lot of different sources. I merely forwarded fact A as something to keep an eye on; we didn't validate it beyond that."
Now it would be the prosecution's burden to show that not a SINGLE foreign news source or site ever carried such info, which is probably not practically possible.
Outright political corruption.
That's your personal interpretation. I can't say I really know; I'm not a lawyer and haven't seen all the relevant details.
Colin Powell, a Republican, said the classification system is unruly and abused out of CYA paranoia. That's a valid perspective to consider, being he's actually been in that position and has no reason to politically defend Mrs. Clinton. (Such statements were made before Trump was the clear GOP selection.)
It is rational to at least consider Mr. Powell's perspective, wouldn't you say?
I also meant those assisting in preparing documents and messages, such as perhaps Jake Sullivan.
By the way, didn't "server tech guy" cancel the immunity deal recently by deciding to take the 5th? (I get mixed interpretations of this from Googling; I'm not a lawyer.)
The entire USA, including both parties and voters (2004 election), are guilty of continued and highly-questionable meddling in the Middle East. Focusing on just Mrs. C is being narrow-minded. It's a nationalized bad habit. Mirroring the electorate is what democratic politicians are supposed to do.
only 'gross negligence' is required to convict her for multiple offenses...based on what is publicly available months ago would have been easy even for a country prosecutor.
Not really. For example, some information that was marked "classified" was also reported to be public knowledge at the time and available from foreign newspapers, TV, etc. already. One may be able to claim that they got the info from such sources rather than classified documents.
To comb the world publications/websites to rule that out could be a yuuuuge job, and perhaps impossible because not everything is saved, especially in the 3rd world. Good lawyers know how to inject such dead-ends into trials. I'm just giving one example of "outs".
Further, lower-level staff members are also guilty of carelessness according to the statements. If Clinton's "power" gets her out of prosecution, that should not apply to underlings, and they should also be up for prosecution.
You may argue that nobody cares enough about the underlings to prosecute them, but if that's the case, then Democrat's claim of political "witch hunting" rings true: Republicans only push to bust her because of her political position.
So, which is it? Too big to jail, or too small not to jail?
[Consider] Clinton's Ethics / Lying when you decide to vote for her.
Or Trump.
It's not a good election year in general for those who value honesty and integrity. If the GOP wanted to counter Clinton's (alleged) integrity problems, they selected a very poor counter match. Trump admitted to bribing politicians during the GOP debates. That is not "integrity" by any measure I know. (And include his other fibs and flippings).
People will have to decide on policy positions and personality, NOT integrity, because neither do well in that category.
Then again, most politicians are spinners and always have been clear back to antiquity. Our systems seem to filter out honesty. Humans.
Galileo served [the photographic] purpose for the Jovian system
Not really; Galileo's main antenna failed to open properly, greatly limiting practical bandwidth. Jupiter has yet to be visited by a photo-intensive mission.
For example, Galileo could not send frequent images of Jupiter's clouds so that weather changes could be monitored in detail for an (Earth) year or more. The other probes sent to Jupiter were merely flyby's (2 Pioneers, 2 Voyagers, 1 New Horizons).
But it appears they decided that studying the core (via gravity patterns) and polar radiation of Jupiter to be more scientifically useful at this time than general imaging. Hence Juno.
Juno's orbit is not well-suited for good imaging of the planet and its moons (except possibly the polar regions of Jupiter).
Maybe in the future, an image-intensive probe will be sent.
Yes, the FBI director basically said, "She probably broke laws, was definitely extremely careless, but no one in their right mind is going to want to prosecute *her*.
It appears most of the laws require "intent". Sloppiness slides below "intent". With Petraeus, they found clear intent.
Another thing, we know the FBI director is a Drama King based on his other security claims (iPhone back-doors etc.). Thus, why should we trust him on statements such as "extremely careless" with regard to email-gate?
There may be grey areas that he projects into black-or-white issues. The details have yet to be released, but the Director's words should be taken with a grain of salt just as much as Hillary's, based on his past.
We are gonna need big salt shakers this election...
If you get a Honda/Acura or Toyota, I bet the problems between say year 0 and 3 will be only slightly less than say year 4 to 8. Most of the early problems encountered are from manufacturing defects that affect the car anyhow, not wear and tear.
But if reliability is key to your line of work, then that small difference may matter enough. However, for most folks, it's not worth it. I'm looking at regular/typical usage, not special industries.
It's rare that Honda's and Toyota's outright stop working while driving; usually there's some warning via funny sound or engine light a day or more before failure (assuming you have a good battery). They've engineered out most of the "blunt failure" causes. We've had Honda's and Toyota's for a while, and the only outright stall was a broken water pump in a 10yr-old Civic.
The actual utility of the car does not drop that steeply (cost per mile), it's that people pay a premium for ego/sex-appeal. If you look at a car as a utility instead of a sex machine or decoration, then new cars are illogical.
You can even pay a bit extra to have used cars shined and cleaned. Thus, it may be somewhat out of style, but can still look nice.
Generally you should buy insurance only if you will not be able to cover the costs of repairs yourself. Insurance co's need to make a profit and cover overhead and marketing, so there is a markup on the service you buy on average compared to paying for repairs yourself.
True, sometimes big problems happen out of bad luck, but buying used will generally leave you with plenty of margin to cover rare but expensive repairs.
For example, a new car may be 30 grand while a used one 5 years old may be 18 grand. You have 12 grand extra if you buy the used car as personal insurance against an (unlikely) large repair bill. (Insurance is also higher for new cars.)
True, dealing with the repair shop more often is a bit of a hassle, but a 5 year old car typically shouldn't have that many problems (unless you buy a screwy brand).
Slashdot Mirror
They do briefly when they explode
You don't seem top be understanding my point. I don't know why it's not getting through. Let me try another angle:
Fact X can potentially come from two different sources: Source A and Source B. Source A may be a "regular" contact, such as the cop meeting scenario I already presented.
Source B may be a classified document/statement/system.
The existence of Fact X in a "regular" email by itself is NOT PROOF that Fact X came from Source B, because it may have come from Source A.
The existence of Fact A in Source B may make it technically "classified information", but that's not the same as Source B being the ONLY possible source of Fact X in a regular email because there are two possible sources.
Therefore, the existence of Fact X in the regular email is NOT evidence of having used Source B.
As far as classified markers themselves appearing in regular email, the markers themselves are not classified, it's the material that comes with it. We don't know if the material that came with it was also classified, those details were not given to us. The Director may have merely cited markers as evidence of sloppy document preparation and NOT the inclusion of secrets themselves (in the same document with markers left in).
The issue of markers leaking in and of classified info being in the documents could be two different things. We don't know because we don't have the details to study. Those details matter, and we don't have them.
How is a writer to know that Detail X from has been classified by some other persons or means independent of their work? You imply it's some magic global variable.
For example, If I talk to the local cop and he tells me there will be a meeting about special police dogs on the 7th, and I forward that info to Hillary.
In the meantime, some OTHER person(s) decides to classify the fact there will be a meeting about these police dogs. I cannot magically know that.
"In this segment, I will overthrow our totalitarian government, and install democracy..."
On your first point, "consciously disregard" indeed seems pretty much "intent". I got "-1" total points for saying intent is required, but the "damaging" reply is merely using different words for "intent". (Yes, I am griping about mod points).
Maybe there's somehow a legal difference, but it's probably subtle and may not make much difference for us non-legal muggles nor juries.
Google:
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care."
Or, maybe a wild-ass driver
Or hacked:
"What? Why's there a stripper in the right lane!? Not that it's a bad thing..."
Where did the statement say "with markings"?
Are you saying my Trump University history textbook is wrong?
Libertarians pretty much want the 1300's back. I'm not a fscking caveman.
That has not been established, as I wrote about in another reply. It has only been shown that it was also available on the secure system, not that it was exclusively available on such.
It's known that information found in the public (such as news) often winds up being classified for various reasons. The sender of a message could have gotten it from the press, for example, without any knowledge of the classified version. Surveying the world's press and all websites 5+ years back is probably not doable (baring maybe a trillion-dollar budget).
You seem to be confusing State Department policies and federal law. Federal law says nothing about using personal servers for work email. Two different issues.
The FBI was studying the issue of the handling of classified materials, not server policy itself.
Departments all have official policies, but most are not "law" in itself.
I don't think it's so much that the little guy is given less leeway than a bigwig, but rather the bigwigs can afford better lawyers/representatives who poke enough "doubt holes" into the case to derail it. It's why OJ got off.
It's indeed a crazy system we have, but nobody's found a better alternative that has been proven in practice.
They had to sift roughly 30k messages for this investigation; that's a lot of stuff. To have inspectors and auditors check every message real-time would be super-expensive, and probably slow down work.
Perhaps Secretary Powell and Clinton both realized you have to stretch the rules to get anything productive done under the "byzantine CYA rules".
Facing the choice of not getting anything done versus the risk getting your wrist slapped in public, the second seemed the least evil.
Those who have a lot of experience in the gov't and big orgs probably realize it's a careful balancing and act those who strictly follow the rules don't get anywhere, similar to how purely honest politicians don't get anywhere.
I know some PHB's who got awards for "getting it done" on projects with horrid security, horrid backups, horrid accessibility, horrid scaling, and bunches of other maintenance risks. They get their award, get promoted, and then dump their mutant orphan onto us poor techie grunts. By the time anyone in power realizes the originators took a bunch of cheap shortcuts, they are off doing other things in other places. If cornered, they'll say, "you have to be brave and forceful to push things through this stagnant bureaucracy". Perhaps there is some truth to it, although it seems they could have found better balance.
I am willing to view this email thing in a more nuanced way than merely "good versus bad", as the press and politicians try to portray it. Nuanced stories don't sell as well as dramatized ones. One thing I find about political issues is that the more you dig into it, the more nuanced something is. We are usually only looking at the tip of a complex iceberg.
Sorry, I'm not following. Here's an example of the kind of legal flow I'm suggesting:
Prosecution: "Mr. X, you included mention of fact A in document B while assisting Mrs. Clinton, correct?"
Mr. X: "Yes, that is true."
Proc: "Did you know fact A was classified information at the time of preparation of document B?"
X: "If I remember correctly, I got it from a foreign news source, not a classified document."
Proc: "Which foreign news source?"
X: "Sorry, I don't remember, that was 5 years ago. We monitored a lot of different sources. I merely forwarded fact A as something to keep an eye on; we didn't validate it beyond that."
Now it would be the prosecution's burden to show that not a SINGLE foreign news source or site ever carried such info, which is probably not practically possible.
That's your personal interpretation. I can't say I really know; I'm not a lawyer and haven't seen all the relevant details.
Colin Powell, a Republican, said the classification system is unruly and abused out of CYA paranoia. That's a valid perspective to consider, being he's actually been in that position and has no reason to politically defend Mrs. Clinton. (Such statements were made before Trump was the clear GOP selection.)
It is rational to at least consider Mr. Powell's perspective, wouldn't you say?
I also meant those assisting in preparing documents and messages, such as perhaps Jake Sullivan.
By the way, didn't "server tech guy" cancel the immunity deal recently by deciding to take the 5th? (I get mixed interpretations of this from Googling; I'm not a lawyer.)
The entire USA, including both parties and voters (2004 election), are guilty of continued and highly-questionable meddling in the Middle East. Focusing on just Mrs. C is being narrow-minded. It's a nationalized bad habit. Mirroring the electorate is what democratic politicians are supposed to do.
Not really. For example, some information that was marked "classified" was also reported to be public knowledge at the time and available from foreign newspapers, TV, etc. already. One may be able to claim that they got the info from such sources rather than classified documents.
To comb the world publications/websites to rule that out could be a yuuuuge job, and perhaps impossible because not everything is saved, especially in the 3rd world. Good lawyers know how to inject such dead-ends into trials. I'm just giving one example of "outs".
Further, lower-level staff members are also guilty of carelessness according to the statements. If Clinton's "power" gets her out of prosecution, that should not apply to underlings, and they should also be up for prosecution.
You may argue that nobody cares enough about the underlings to prosecute them, but if that's the case, then Democrat's claim of political "witch hunting" rings true: Republicans only push to bust her because of her political position.
So, which is it? Too big to jail, or too small not to jail?
It's not a good election year in general for those who value honesty and integrity. If the GOP wanted to counter Clinton's (alleged) integrity problems, they selected a very poor counter match. Trump admitted to bribing politicians during the GOP debates. That is not "integrity" by any measure I know. (And include his other fibs and flippings).
People will have to decide on policy positions and personality, NOT integrity, because neither do well in that category.
Then again, most politicians are spinners and always have been clear back to antiquity. Our systems seem to filter out honesty. Humans.
Not really; Galileo's main antenna failed to open properly, greatly limiting practical bandwidth. Jupiter has yet to be visited by a photo-intensive mission.
For example, Galileo could not send frequent images of Jupiter's clouds so that weather changes could be monitored in detail for an (Earth) year or more. The other probes sent to Jupiter were merely flyby's (2 Pioneers, 2 Voyagers, 1 New Horizons).
But it appears they decided that studying the core (via gravity patterns) and polar radiation of Jupiter to be more scientifically useful at this time than general imaging. Hence Juno.
Juno's orbit is not well-suited for good imaging of the planet and its moons (except possibly the polar regions of Jupiter).
Maybe in the future, an image-intensive probe will be sent.
There's a group in Syria that does that (and more); careful what you suggest.
It appears most of the laws require "intent". Sloppiness slides below "intent". With Petraeus, they found clear intent.
Another thing, we know the FBI director is a Drama King based on his other security claims (iPhone back-doors etc.). Thus, why should we trust him on statements such as "extremely careless" with regard to email-gate?
There may be grey areas that he projects into black-or-white issues. The details have yet to be released, but the Director's words should be taken with a grain of salt just as much as Hillary's, based on his past.
We are gonna need big salt shakers this election...
Sure, financing makes a new car "easy", but it really just spreads out the pain so that you don't feel it up front: sales psychology.
I'm a bit skeptical of that number, but even at $200/month, that's 24k saved in 10 years.
If you get a Honda/Acura or Toyota, I bet the problems between say year 0 and 3 will be only slightly less than say year 4 to 8. Most of the early problems encountered are from manufacturing defects that affect the car anyhow, not wear and tear.
But if reliability is key to your line of work, then that small difference may matter enough. However, for most folks, it's not worth it. I'm looking at regular/typical usage, not special industries.
It's rare that Honda's and Toyota's outright stop working while driving; usually there's some warning via funny sound or engine light a day or more before failure (assuming you have a good battery). They've engineered out most of the "blunt failure" causes. We've had Honda's and Toyota's for a while, and the only outright stall was a broken water pump in a 10yr-old Civic.
Here are some examples of the steep deprecation for the first few years of a car.
http://www.freeby50.com/2013/0...
The actual utility of the car does not drop that steeply (cost per mile), it's that people pay a premium for ego/sex-appeal. If you look at a car as a utility instead of a sex machine or decoration, then new cars are illogical.
You can even pay a bit extra to have used cars shined and cleaned. Thus, it may be somewhat out of style, but can still look nice.
Generally you should buy insurance only if you will not be able to cover the costs of repairs yourself. Insurance co's need to make a profit and cover overhead and marketing, so there is a markup on the service you buy on average compared to paying for repairs yourself.
True, sometimes big problems happen out of bad luck, but buying used will generally leave you with plenty of margin to cover rare but expensive repairs.
For example, a new car may be 30 grand while a used one 5 years old may be 18 grand. You have 12 grand extra if you buy the used car as personal insurance against an (unlikely) large repair bill. (Insurance is also higher for new cars.)
True, dealing with the repair shop more often is a bit of a hassle, but a 5 year old car typically shouldn't have that many problems (unless you buy a screwy brand).