Oh boy - I wondered what this whole Mar A Lago thing was about

[BPPLEE]

What "too"? He did it before Obama was on the scene. She was investigated, several times, while he got a free pass.

Yeah. Proves white privilege is a real big problem doesn't it?

 

[Belk]

I don't know what was in them. Doesn't seem like the whole world had access to Trump's basement. But a lot of people can access a private server. Isn't that what happened to the DNC? Emails published on Wikileaks?

Not generally, no. It was because they were hacked that the data was released.

 

[BPPLEE]

Not generally, no. It was because they were hacked that the data was released.

We don't know who saw Hillary's email.

 

[Belk]

We don't know who saw Hillary's email.

We don't but the server administrator does. It is not difficult to track in exchange.

 

[Hank77]

I don't know what was in them. Doesn't seem like the whole world had access to Trump's basement. But a lot of people can access a private server. Isn't that what happened to the DNC? Emails published on Wikileaks?

Let's just talk about Trump, OK, let's keep current. This "well Hillary" is a childish excuse.

It doesn't matter what is in them, they have been declassified according to Trump. Are you OK with the world having access to them?
How about MSNBC discussing them and posting them online, is that OK with you? It should be if they have been declassified by Trump.

 

[BPPLEE]

Let's just talk about Trump, OK, let's keep current. This "well Hillary" is a childish excuse.

It doesn't matter what is in them, they have been declassified according to Trump. Are you OK with the world having access to them?
How about MSNBC discussing them and posting them online, is that OK with you? It should be if they have been declassified by Trump.

It depends on what's in them. If they are documents about the Russia collusion investigation yeah, publish them.

 

[Hank77]

It depends on what's in them. If they are documents about the Russia collusion investigation yeah, publish them.

Please stop trying to play the diversion game.
Are you OK with them being published no matter what the content is?

 

[BPPLEE]

Please stop trying to play the diversion game.
Are you OK with them being published no matter what the content is?

I don't know what's in them so I can't say. Maybe with some information redacted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Presidential records are the property of the United States government

Right. We're talking about documents that were classified (and copied and seen by multiple people) or is there something else called a Presidential Record....like stuff the President was directly involved in?

and are administered by the National Archives. So, all presidential papers, materials and records in the custody of the National Archives, whether donated, seized or governed by the Presidential Records Act, are owned by the federal government.

Uh huh....what's a Presidential Paper exactly?

 

[RDKirk]

Right. We're talking about documents that were classified (and copied and seen by multiple people) or is there something else called a Presidential Record....like stuff the President was directly involved in?



Uh huh....what's a Presidential Paper exactly?

If documents originating out of the Oval Office are property of the federal government and not the office holder, do you think documents originating from elsewhere in the Executive Branch are not the property of the federal government instead of the office holder?

You are attempting to make a distinction that makes no difference.

 

[BPPLEE]

We don't but the server administrator does. It is not difficult to track in exchange.

Then why didn't they catch who hacked the DNC? Didn't the DNC claim it was Russia then refuse to cooperate with the FBI?

 

[DaisyDay]

Yeah. Proves white privilege is a real big problem doesn't it?

Doesn't overcome misogyny, apparently.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If documents originating.

@RDKirk I've never heard the term presidential papers before you mentioned it.

I've got no idea what they refer to.

I went through your posts regarding Hillary's emails in 2016 and later when AGs changed under Trump and various threads.

If I had to characterize them....you generally seemed to think there was little cause for concern and mere policy violations no reason to pursue conviction....even citing SCOTUS rulings from the 40s.

Here's an example of what I'd say is a typical post on the subject you have created...

First, that entire section is the "Espionage Act," and the Court ruled that "intent" to transfer was the "sense" of the act in toto.

Second, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the security of Clinton's server (and there was security) was "gross negligence" in the face of the fact government systems get hacked anyway. That was not by any means going to be a slam-dunk for the prosecution...and the defense would have been hammering the Supreme Court decision all the time.

Now, I had always thought Clinton was vulnerable to the Freedom of Information Act, but again, elements would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt with evidence again of intent that the prosecution doesn't actually have.

You might be satisfied with merely hassling Clinton in court, but Comey had to either win--decisively, against all appeals--or not do it at all.

You're stating what you see as pretty clear facts. I generally agree that without demonstrating an intent to disclose these documents....there's no point to prosecution.

I thought Hillary's obvious destruction of evidence regarding such an important matter was easily a cause for prosecution....but I didn't want it.

Because ultimately, these officials knowing information isn't the problem. They have access to it.

The problem is if they are sharing it or otherwise misusing it.

I didn't see any point where you called for her prosecution....but I didn't do a lot of searches, so maybe it's in there somewhere.

I don't think I'm being unfair here to say that your opinion seems to have changed rather significantly on the matter.

 

[Belk]

Then why didn't they catch who hacked the DNC? Didn't the DNC claim it was Russia then refuse to cooperate with the FBI?

Because hacking is different then viewing. I don't recall them refusing to deal with the FBI but I did not really pay attention. Frankly they were idiots and with such pathetic security practice I'm not surprised they had a breach.

 

[DaisyDay]

Then why didn't they catch who hacked the DNC? Didn't the DNC claim it was Russia then refuse to cooperate with the FBI?

The State Department's servers were also hacked. You know whose wasn't hacked?

 

[BPPLEE]

Doesn't overcome misogyny, apparently.

Good one! Touché

 

[RDKirk]

@RDKirk I've never heard the term presidential papers before you mentioned it.

I've got no idea what they refer to.

I went through your posts regarding Hillary's emails in 2016 and later when AGs changed under Trump and various threads.

If I had to characterize them....you generally seemed to think there was little cause for concern and mere policy violations no reason to pursue conviction....even citing SCOTUS rulings from the 40s.

Here's an example of what I'd say is a typical post on the subject you have created...



You're stating what you see as pretty clear facts. I generally agree that without demonstrating an intent to disclose these documents....there's no point to prosecution.

I thought Hillary's obvious destruction of evidence regarding such an important matter was easily a cause for prosecution....but I didn't want it.

Because ultimately, these officials knowing information isn't the problem. They have access to it.

The problem is if they are sharing it or otherwise misusing it.

I didn't see any point where you called for her prosecution....but I didn't do a lot of searches, so maybe it's in there somewhere.

I don't think I'm being unfair here to say that your opinion seems to have changed rather significantly on the matter.

I was arguing Comey's likely mindset, that he wouldn't win the case, not an opinion that Clinton should not be prosecuted.

I observed significant security risk even in things like the addressee lists of Clinton's emails that were revealed to the public. As an intelligence analyst, I could note the members of the permanent CIA, State, and DIA staffs CCed in emails between Clinton and other Secretaries.

That proves to enemy intelligence analysts that those people are important agency decision makers (they might not have even known those names otherwise) any other communications they encounter with those names on them have bona fide intelligence value.

 

[BPPLEE]

The State Department's servers were also hacked. You know whose wasn't hacked?

Trump's

 

[Belk]

The State Department's servers were also hacked. You know whose wasn't hacked?

As I recall, the RNC was hacked but not released.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was arguing Comey's likely mindset, that he wouldn't win the case, not an opinion that Clinton should not be prosecuted.

@RDKirk I picked one example of about a dozen posts I read that appeared to indicate your position on the matter.

The other posts don't substantially deviate from what I would describe as generally mild defense of Hillary and uninterest in her prosecution.

If I was trying to play "gotcha" there's other posts which would have been better.

I observed significant security risk even in things like the addressee lists of Clinton's emails that were revealed to the public. As an intelligence analyst, I could note the members of the permanent CIA, State, and DIA staffs CCed in emails between Clinton and other Secretaries.

Those aren't the issue here...classified information on classified documents isn't something remarkable.

That proves to enemy intelligence analysts that those people are important agency decision makers (they might not have even known those names otherwise) any other communications they encounter with those names on them have bona fide intelligence value.

At the time? Sure...but how about now? How much would you devalue that intel given the time that had passed between the dates and it being made public?

We're drifting off my point....you didn't seem to be in favor of Hillary being prosecuted. Hillary "took home" vast numbers of classified documents and information and then did her best to scrub the evidence of her crime. She didn't even have a choice in declassifying the information.

It appears to be an issue Trump simply dropped...to avoid any further division in the US. Unfortunately, he didn't know wayyy back then, division was the plan for the left for the next 4 years.

By her own words we could have charged Hillary with matters like....

1. Violation of government policy regarding the securing of classified information. It doesn't matter what personal security her private server had....it's not a government server.
2. Destruction of evidence during an official investigation of matters of national security. #1 would ensure she never holds office...#2 here should ensure prison time.
3. Dereliction of duty, violating her oath of office, impeding an official investigation, etc.

It's literally a laundry list...I wouldn't even have to interrogate her....I could just use her own statements.

And again, it's not because I think she should go to jail...I don't. I'm aware of how these things work. I'm aware that even Top Secret documents are getting balled up and chucked into the trash, and a garbage man who knew where to look could find them. The reason being no more significant than a shredder not working and not wanting to walk down the hall to one that does.

That's the reality of it.

That's why I'm saying it really really needs to be more than just procedural. It's gotta be that he was using it for nefarious deals or sharing or something.

That's the evidence they need....that's what they gotta show the public. If they don't, you know how this will look.