2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

CMOTDibbler

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Oh, that's grand so. I'll go knock over a bank but as long as I say I didn't intend to commit a crime, everything's kosher.

I'd be happier if the law and order people said I didn't commit a crime. Much more comforting.

Pro Hoc Vice

B0jangles wrote: »

Short analysis of the FBI report here:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary-clintons-email

Excellent link! Guy sure seems to know what he is talking about.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No that's not what they said, I used the term mens rea for a reason. Also in evidence the FBI said that there was only 3 e-mails out of 30,000 plus and also accepts that the 3 e-mails where incorrectly marked as classified in that they should have been headed classified but instead had at the bottom "(c)".

That's not an accurate statement. They stated that there were 113 emails identified that contain classified material, of which some 22 were considered to be Top Secret.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

CMOTDibbler

B0jangles wrote: »

Short analysis of the FBI report here:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary-clintons-email

Very useful. Explains quite well why the FBI weren't interested in taking it any further.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's not an accurate statement. They stated that there were 113 emails identified that contain classified material, of which some 22 were considered to be Top Secret.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-director-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-were-not-properly-marked-classified/

At a Congressional hearing Thursday morning, however, Comey admitted that the three emails to which he was referring were not, in fact, properly marked as classified, and that even a person with reasonable expertise in identifying classified material could make the “reasonable inference” that these emails were not classified:

From your own link

Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. FBI Director James Comey has said Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed.

113 contained classified information but 110 not marked while the remaing 3 incorrectly marked with (c) not classified.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-director-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-were-not-properly-marked-classified/

At a Congressional hearing Thursday morning, however, Comey admitted that the three emails to which he was referring were not, in fact, properly marked as classified, and that even a person with reasonable expertise in identifying classified material could make the “reasonable inference” that these emails were not classified:

That doesn't counter the earlier revelation with respect to the number of emails identified as containing classified materials.

Stop trying to obfuscate the two incidents.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That doesn't counter the earlier revelation with respect to the number of emails identified as containing classified materials.

Stop trying to obfuscate the two incidents.

Read your own link the matters are linked. 113 contained classified info. 110 not marked at all so difficult to prove intention or even the lower standard reckless the remaining 3 not marked "classified" but at the end of email "(c)" so very difficult to prove the person knew they did anything wrong.

Put another way nothing clearly marked classified was sent.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Read your own link the matters are linked. 113 contained classified info. 110 not marked at all so difficult to prove intention or even the lower standard reckless the remaining 3 not marked "classified" but at the end of email "(c)" so very difficult to prove the person knew they did anything wrong.

The fact there were incorrectly marked is hardly grounds for exoneration. It adds further evidence of Clinton (and her staff's) repeated mishandling of classified material. The larger issue, that you are attempting to ignore, is the high number of emails that contain classified materials, that were unmarked. Said material having been transferred from Secret networks onto open ones.

CMOTDibbler

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That doesn't counter the earlier revelation with respect to the number of emails identified as containing classified materials.

Stop trying to obfuscate the two incidents.

Conflate possibly?

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The fact there were incorrectly marked is hardly grounds for exoneration. It adds further evidence of Clinton (and her staff's) repeated mishandling of classified material. The larger issue, that you are attempting to ignore, is the high number of emails that contain classified materials, that were unmarked. Said material having been transferred from Secret networks onto open ones.

The emails are ones sent to her office and mislabelled by others not her. This is about proving a criminal charge do you really think the FBI would have accepted the excuse she did not label correctly. The idea of classified is that the creator marks it correctly not clintons fault if another department does not do so it's sloppy but not criminal.

AbusesToilets

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Conflate possibly?

Ah, that's the better term alright, merci. Should have said stop trying to use one incident to obfuscate the other.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Ah, that's the better term alright, merci. Should have said stop trying to use one incident to obfuscate the other.

They are the same incident. As was made clear under questioning by the house committee of the FBI.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The emails are ones sent to her office and mislabelled by others not her. This is about proving a criminal charge do you really think the FBI would have accepted the excuse she did not label correctly. The idea of classified is that the creator marks it correctly not clintons fault if another department does not do so it's sloppy but not criminal.

I'm not trying to be rude but you don't seem to be grasping what occurred here very well. Emails were sent by Clinton and her staff over an open network that contained classified material. Whether they were marked classified or not is a secondary issue, as such material should never have been present on an open network to begin with.

The creation of said emails required someone to have transcribed said information from a secure network onto an unsecured one. Such a step down is illegal and would land a regular Joe in serious trouble.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm not trying to be rude but you don't seem to be grasping what occurred here very well. Emails were sent by Clinton and her staff over an open network that contained classified material. Whether they were marked classified or not is a secondary issue, as such material should never have been present on an open network to begin with.

The creation of said emails required someone to have transcribed said information from a secure network onto an unsecured one. Such a step down is illegal and would land a regular Joe in serious trouble.

I grasp it totally it's you who do not. Have you heard of forward e-mail. Or do you really think when Clinton or her staff got a e-mail not marked as classified they transcribed it again and sent it on. It is more akin to staff in say defence being allowed to take files not marked as classified home to work on. A person in say another department who created the file did not stamp as classified how in such circumstances could a criminal charge be proved against the person who unknowing took such a file, or in this case forward a e-mail.

Calina

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The emails are ones sent to her office and mislabelled by others not her. This is about proving a criminal charge do you really think the FBI would have accepted the excuse she did not label correctly. The idea of classified is that the creator marks it correctly not clintons fault if another department does not do so it's sloppy but not criminal.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm not trying to be rude but you don't seem to be grasping what occurred here very well. Emails were sent by Clinton and her staff over an open network that contained classified material. Whether they were marked classified or not is a secondary issue, as such material should never have been present on an open network to begin with.

The creation of said emails required someone to have transcribed said information from a secure network onto an unsecured one. Such a step down is illegal and would land a regular Joe in serious trouble.

You can't both be right. Either they were sent to her or by her.

Pro Hoc Vice

Calina wrote: »

You can't both be right. Either they were sent to her or by her.

Forward e-mail? A e-mail can be both received by a person and later sent by that person.

CMOTDibbler

Calina wrote: »

You can't both be right. Either they were sent to her or by her.

They actually can. You can receive an email and forward it on. Some of the examples I've read about are that exact case.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I grasp it totally it's you who do not. Have you heard of forward e-mail. Or do you really think when Clinton or her staff got a e-mail not marked as classified they transcribed it again and sent it on. It is more akin to staff in say defence being allowed to take files not marked as classified home to work on. A person in say another department who created the file did not stamp as classified how in such circumstances could a criminal charge be proved against the person who unknowing took such a file, or in this case forward a e-mail.

Good God man. These emails should never have existed to begin with. Their creation was a crime in and of itself. Clinton and her staff actively participated in this. Clinton deliberated chose to forego using a secure laptop offered to her by the NSA, in favor of an unsecure Blackberry synced to her personal email server out of convenience.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/17/clinton-nsa-blackberry/#faTyRy6_Baqk

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Good God man. These emails should never have existed to begin with. Their creation was a crime in and of itself. Clinton and her staff actively participated in this. Clinton deliberated chose to forego using a secure laptop offered to her by the NSA, in favor of an unsecure Blackberry synced to her personal email server out of convenience.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/17/clinton-nsa-blackberry/#faTyRy6_Baqk

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/

And what evidence that she committed a crime after over a year of investigation no evidence. It's you I should say good god man. You are blind to any facts in your hope to tar Clinton with the criminal brush. Read the report of the FBI or the explanation already posted. If Clinyon is guilty of a crime for what she did then according to FBI so are 100's, including Powel who advised her he did it but made sure unlike her to destroy all personal communication.

Calina

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They actually can. You can receive an email and forward it on. Some of the examples I've read about are that exact case.

But not generally the originator of the email in that case, no?

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

And what evidence that she committed a crime after over a year of investigation no evidence. It's you I should say good god man. You are blind to any facts in your hope to tar Clinton with the criminal brush. Read the report of the FBI or the explanation already posted. If Clinyon is guilty of a crime for what she did then according to FBI so are 100's, including Powel who advised her he did it but made sure unlike her to destroy all personal communication.

Horses to water and all that. The FBI found 113 emails on Clinton's private, unsecured server that contain classified information. That is a crime. Plain and simple. She has repeated lied and tried to dodge responsibility for this.

Then there are all the other issues relating to the requirements of archiving official communications etc.

Pro Hoc Vice

Calina wrote: »

But not generally the originator of the email in that case, no?

Where is the evidence that Clinton was the creator of any of the 113 emails?

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Where is the evidence that Clinton was the creator of any of the 113 emails?

She was the Secretary of State. She is responsible for the actions of her staff, as well as being the ultimate authority for classification of materials under her remit. She knowingly established a private email server and utilised an unsecured Blackberry to transmit official communications.

There is no avenue of argument that stands to exonerate her here. It's not an acceptable excuse for someone in her position to claim ignorance of the law pertaining to the handling of such information. In addition, she has clearly encouraged and facilitated the violation of the law by her actions and example to her subordinates.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She was the Secretary of State. She is responsible for the actions of her staff, as well as being the ultimate authority for classification of materials under her remit. She knowingly established a private email server and utilised an unsecured Blackberry to transmit official communications.

There is no avenue of argument that stands to exonerate her here. It's not an acceptable excuse for someone in her position to claim ignorance of the law pertaining to the handling of such information. In addition, she has clearly encouraged and facilitated the violation of the law by her actions and example to her subordinates.

What law did Clinton break. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

That law only sets out how classified documents should be marked. My reading of the information is that the Clinyon server was unknowing used to send the incorrectly marked emails in 54 chains I have see no evidence that Clinton herself incorrectly marked the e-mails only that she responded to emails.

We are talking criminal responsibility of Clinton if a member of staff erred in not marking the e-mail how is she criminally liable.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What law did Clinton break. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

That law only sets out how classified documents should be marked. My reading of the information is that the Clinyon server was unknowing used to send the incorrectly marked emails in 54 chains I have see no evidence that Clinton herself incorrectly marked the e-mails only that she responded to emails.

We are talking criminal responsibility of Clinton if a member of staff erred in not marking the e-mail how is she criminally liable.

She established a private server, which was used by her and others to transmit classified information, which was transcribed illegally from a secure network. I can't state it any plainer than that.

http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She was the Secretary of State. She is responsible for the actions of her staff, as well as being the ultimate authority for classification of materials under her remit. She knowingly established a private email server and utilised an unsecured Blackberry to transmit official communications.

There is no avenue of argument that stands to exonerate her here. It's not an acceptable excuse for someone in her position to claim ignorance of the law pertaining to the handling of such information. In addition, she has clearly encouraged and facilitated the violation of the law by her actions and example to her subordinates.

Is Colin Powell equally culpable ?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Reagan was not aware of the diversion scheme. I was against his giving arms to Iran. My uncle almost lost his life in 1979 in Iran right before the embassy was taken over. His bank account was nationalized and he was firebombed while driving in his car. I remember the call he made to us to say goodbye. Luckily though, he got out on the last flight.

Reagan was aware of the scheme or incompetent.

Russia controls that company. I guess once could call one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the US ‘some’... If they wanted to mislead, that is. National security trumps the free market. That thinking doesn't make me Satan.

One fifth is some. Tell me, who controls the export of Uranium from the US? Can this Russian company export at will?

Rainman16

US election for Dummies

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She established a private server, which was used by her and others to transmit classified information, which was transcribed illegally from a secure network. I can't state it any plainer than that.

What law did SHE break. I can't make it any plainer than that. She established the server years before she took the office. Powel also used a private service as according to FBI did many.

AbusesToilets

marienbad wrote: »

Is Colin Powell equally culpable ?

If he transmitted classified information on an unsecure network, yes. If he violated laws pertaining to the archiving of official correspondence, yes.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What law did SHE break. I can't make it any plainer than that. She established the server years before she took the office. Powel also used a private service as according to FBI did many.

http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-fede...mail-accounts/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-fede...mail-accounts/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-g...intons-emails/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...ls-and-the-law

Second two links not working. In relation to the fist link may is the important word, the FBI has after investigation said she did not break the law. The executive order quoted sets out how classified matter be marked there is no evidence that Clinton knowingly breached that order. I ask again which criminal law did she break. Back to an important word mens rea.

In relation to the records act in fact Clinton ignored powels illegal advice and she kept all records.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If he transmitted classified information on an unsecure network, yes. If he violated laws pertaining to the archiving of official correspondence, yes.

He admitted that he did and Clinton ignored his advice and obeyed the law on keeping everything.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Second two links not working. In relation to the fist link may is the important word, the FBI has after investigation said she did not break the law. The executive order quoted sets out how classified matter be marked there is no evidence that Clinton knowingly breached that order. I ask again which criminal law did she break. Back to an important word mens rea.

In relation to the records act in fact Clinton ignored powels illegal advice and kept all records.

The links work for me. They lay out clearly the various laws she broke.

You continue to harp on about the markings of classified materials. The issue is that said material was present in her emails at all. That is the crime.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

He admitted that he did and Clinton ignored his advice and obeyed the law on keeping everything.

What's your point? Powell isn't running for the Presidency.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The links work for me. They lay out clearly the various laws she broke.

You continue to harp on about the markings of classified materials. The issue is that said material was present in her emails at all. That is the crime.

that is the point. If a person is not aware of the classified nature of the communication how can they be guilty of using an unsecured service to transmit it. As I said at the start mens rea. Look it up. The executive order sets out how the communication should be marked if she receives a email not marked as classified then to deal with the matter quickly uses her blackberry to respond or ask a question she can not be guilty of sending classified information using a non secured system because it can not be proven that the communication was classified as none of the 113 e-nails where correctly marked as classified. Only 3 carried at the end of the email (c) which is not correctly marked at the heading "classified" for exactly thes situations if it's clearly marked at the top it's hard to miss.

CMOTDibbler

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The links work for me. They lay out clearly the various laws she broke.

You continue to harp on about the markings of classified materials. The issue is that said material was present in her emails at all. That is the crime.

The first two work for me, the third gives a 'page not found'.

All I can see it that it was stated policy that secure servers be used. Nothing saying that it's a crime not to use them.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What's your point? Powell isn't running for the Presidency.

Why are you and the others calling for a criminal charge against him. This is not about running for office this is about being guilty of a crime. I personally do not think either could have a charge proved against them as I do not believe either would have knowingly sent classified information over insecure communications. The only thing we know from wikileaks none of USA systems totally secure.

AbusesToilets

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The first two work for me, the third gives a 'page not found'.

All I can see it that it was stated policy that secure servers be used. Nothing saying that it's a crime not to use them.

Here is a link to a relevant section of the legal code.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

that is the point. If a person is not aware of the classified nature of the communication how can they be guilty of using an unsecured service to transmit it. As I said at the start mens rea. Look it up. The executive order sets out how the communication should be marked if she receives a email not marked as classified then to deal with the matter quickly uses her blackberry to respond or ask a question she can not be guilty of sending classified information using a non secured system because it can not be proven that the communication was classified as none of the 113 e-nails where correctly marked as classified. Only 3 carried at the end of the email (c) which is not correctly marked at the heading "classified" for exactly thes situations if it's clearly marked at the top it's hard to miss.

First off, she has been party to classified materials for the better part of 20 years. To state that she would be ignorant of the nature of the information before her beggars belief.

Secondly, ignorance is no excuse, especially in her capacity as Secretary of State. She sets the example for her subordinates, which was clearly the case here, given the overall attitudes prevalent in the Department of State.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Here is a link to a relevant section of the legal code.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The important word is knowingly. That is what I have been going on about for the last time "mens rea" it is why it's important evidence if the e-mails marked as classified for a criminal prosecution do you understand now. You may think or even believe she is guilty but she is innocent until proven guilty and as it can not be shown she knowingly did any thing wrong she remains innocent.

Like you believe she is guilty I believe trump is guilty of spousal rape based on his first wife's claim under oath, but he is was never charged or found guilty so he remains innocent.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

First off, she has been party to classified materials for the better part of 20 years. To state that she would be ignorant of the nature of the information before her beggars belief.

Secondly, ignorance is no excuse, especially in her capacity as Secretary of State. She sets the example for her subordinates, which was clearly the case here, given the overall attitudes prevalent in the Department of State.

Yes she has being dealing with millions of classified communications and all that can be shown is she allowed 113 pieces of communications not marked as classified be transmitted over a insecure server.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The important word is knowingly. That is what I have been going on about for the last time "mens rea" it is why it's important evidence if the e-mails marked as classified for a criminal prosecution do you understand now. You may think or even believe she is guilty but she is innocent until proven guilty and as it can not be shown she knowingly did any thing wrong she remains innocent.

She knowingly established a private email server, and utilised an unsecured Blackberry to conduct official communications, which were going to be concerned with issues that warrant classification. She chose to forego the usage of a secure laptop offered by the NSA.

That fits the standard of "knowingly" as you put it.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Yes she has being dealing with millions of classified communications and all that can be shown is she allowed 113 pieces of communications not marked as classified be transmitted over a insecure server.

Which is a crime. Progress at last.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She knowingly established a private email server, and utilised an unsecured Blackberry to conduct official communications, which were going to be concerned with issues that warrant classification. She chose to forego the usage of a secure laptop offered by the NSA.

That fits the standard of "knowingly" as you put it.

No it's not you are mixing up two issues, no offence in setting up the private server only offence to knowingly sending classified material over such a system. She has the actus rea of the crime not the mens rea. Either you are ignoring that or do not understand.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Which is a crime. Progress at last.

KNOWINGLY. Why I said in my very first post MENS REA.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No it's not you are mixing up two issues, no offence in setting up the private server only offence to knowingly sending classified material over such a system. She has the actus rea of the crime not the mens rea. Either you are ignoring that or do not understand.

You can throw out as many Latin phrases as you like, it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Clinton established a private server, which she used to transmit classified information through.

She lied about her actions when questioned.

She likely violated rules pertaining to the archiving of official correspondences.

KNOWINGLY. Why I said in my very first post MENS REA.

She knowingly took the above actions.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You can throw out as many Latin phrases as you like, it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Clinton established a private server, which she used to transmit classified information through.

She lied about her actions when questioned.

She likely violated rules pertaining to the archiving of official correspondences.

We are talking about criminal law it is not just a Latin phrase it is the concept behind being guilty of a offence if you can't understand nor even learn why it's important then what ever you say is tainted. It's is not fair on other poster and reader for me to continue this discussion with a person who will not even accept basic legal principles in a discussion about criminal liability.

The server not illegal.
It can not be proved she lied as the mails not marked classified so again knowledge
No evidence she broke the rules about keeping info as it is more likely the earlier email deleted by a third party.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

We are talking about criminal law it is not just a Latin phrase it is the concept behind being guilty of a offence if you can't understand nor even learn why it's important then what ever you say is tainted. It's is not fair on other poster and reader for me to continue this discussion with a person who will not even accept basic legal principles in a discussion about criminal liability.

One, such as argument is wildly specious, given Clinton's experience and history. To claim she would be ignorant of the nature of official communications is not believable in the least.

Second, ignorance is no defense when it comes to the handling of classified material. Many people have been convicted and punished for less than what Clinton has done.

Thirdly, Clinton has lied about her actions, as was admitted by the head of the FBI to Congress.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

One, such as argument is wildly specious, given Clinton's experience and history. To claim she would be ignorant of the nature of official communications is not believable in the least.

Second, ignorance is no defense when it comes to the handling of classified material. Many people have been convicted and punished for less than what Clinton has done.

Thirdly, Clinton has lied about her actions, as was admitted by the head of the FBI to Congress.

Name one person convicted for sending Unmarked classified information?