(C) Purpose of Call: Joint Special Envoy (JSE) Kofi Annan has requested to speak with you. On August 2, UN Secretary- General Ban announced that Annan has decided not to renew his mandate after it expires August 31.
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.
On another note, wtf is this shit? http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609395/special-access-programs-involved
The Clinton e-mail scandal included information so classified that the government organization responsible for the information cannot even be named.
That is an absolutely textbook standard 'right hand doesn't know what the left is doing'. And typifies our system of plausible deniability. For someone so well versed in U.S. politics I'm surprised you didn't already know that.
Nice try.
The right hand (congress) doesn't know what the left hand (agency/ies in question) is doing.
Sounds correct to me.
Or to be more blunt, the Intelligence Community Inspector General didn't have adequate clearance to know about this information, again right hand knows not.
Yes, I believe that would be accurate here, don't you?
Clinton, March 10, 2015: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
Stuff that's TS/SCA is usually unmistakable in its sensitivity.
So either she lied about the lack of classified material, or she lied about being well aware of the classification requirements. You can make a (flimsy, IMHO) argument that the low-level classified stuff was easy to assume it wasn't classified. Stuff that's TS/SCA is usually unmistakable in its sensitivity.
A: Why did this escape the ameripol thread?
B: What about the other hundred or so "classified" emails that were mentioned by several sources including the FBI?
C: Is this irony? https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/29265 (https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/29265)
And if this is wikileaks can get, what can the Chinese or other able to secure?
I'm referring to the emails which couldn't be released to Congress due to their classification level, not the wikileaks dump.Stuff that's TS/SCA is usually unmistakable in its sensitivity.
Dude, you dont need to be vague. We have the emails. Show me the examples of what is unmistakable. Quote me something.
Obfuscation. Content isn't the issue here, it's policy. As I have said before, go violate security policy where you work, then try to use "hey no harm, no foul" as your defense.So either she lied about the lack of classified material, or she lied about being well aware of the classification requirements. You can make a (flimsy, IMHO) argument that the low-level classified stuff was easy to assume it wasn't classified. Stuff that's TS/SCA is usually unmistakable in its sensitivity.
She did not knowingly transmit any classified information. The closest anything came to being marked classified is the two emails in the OP. And that wasn't something she originated, that was just something in a quote pyramid that she sent.
This isn't "she gave the Reich blueprints to our 75mm cannon! Send her to rot!" This is "she mentioned a plan to make a phone call which wasn't yet public knowledge."
I'm not exactly shitting myself with fear that the Chinese had access to this information a few hours before it was included in the press release. We aren't talking about a FOMC statement.
At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the F.B.I.’s investigation.
Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return “thousands” of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as “negligent” — a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her.
The F.B.I. director repeatedly suggested that someone in the federal government who had done what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would probably be subject to administrative sanctions.
Asked whether those sanctions could include firing or the loss of security clearance, Mr. Comey said that they could. While an F.B.I. employee who mishandled classified evidence in the way that Mrs. Clinton did would not be prosecuted either, he said sternly, “they would face consequences for this.”
Republicans were not mollified, and they expressed particular frustration with Mr. Comey when he said that the F.B.I. did not examine Mrs. Clinton’s statements to Congress about her email server to determine whether she had perjured herself.
Mr. Comey said to do that would have required a formal request from Congress, known as a referral.
“You’ll have one in the next few hours,” responded Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who is the committee chairman. His office said later that the committee would probably issue the referral on Friday, a move that would ensure their scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton’s emails extends past the end of the criminal case.
The State Department is also reopening an internal review looking at possible disciplinary action against current employees who may have been involved in the handling of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
Obfuscation. Content isn't the issue here, it's policy. As I have said before, go violate security policy where you work, then try to use "hey no harm, no foul" as your defense.
Then what, pray tell, is the defense? You're explicitly stating thatObfuscation. Content isn't the issue here, it's policy. As I have said before, go violate security policy where you work, then try to use "hey no harm, no foul" as your defense.
And that is not the defense.
See the problem I have with you Redking is that you start out conversations politely but you quickly and inevitably resort to straw man arguments. This is a prime example of how you have invented a false position to argue against. Any attempt to discuss the actual merits of the case first have to wade through the conversational chaff.
I am going to ask that you leave the thread for this reason.
This isn't "she gave the Reich blueprints to our 75mm cannon! Send her to rot!" This is "she mentioned a plan to make a phone call which wasn't yet public knowledge."
Yes RedKing. You got me. I am James Comey. I am the one who is making legal judgements about whether what Clinton did was right or wrong. I didn't want to explain my true reasons to Congress but what I'm posting here on the Bay12 forums is actually my real motivations. This isn't me providing broader context, it is what I, as James Comey, secretly think.RedKing didn't say you were James Comey though
In the aftermath of FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation against charges for Hillary Clinton’s email server, typical Republican and left-wing anti-establishment outrage flooded the media. Clinton’s “extreme carelessness,” they said, was more damaging to American national security than Edward Snowden’s, David Petraeus’s, and Bradley Manning’s violations, and thus demanded a proportionate punishment. Though Snowden himself seems puzzled with the verdict, the Comey’s statement was well-reasoned on the issues of intent in the criminal prosecution of national security violations.So the lesson here is that Snowden, Petraeus and Manning should have incompetently leaked their files instead of deliberately leaking them
What differentiates Snowden’s, Petraeus’s, and Manning’s cases from Clinton’s was that the former three individuals intentionally distributed classified information to unauthorized individuals. Snowden turned over documents on the PRISM program, among other government operations, to The Guardian. Petraeus gave confidential information to Paula Broadwell, his biographer. Bradley Manning sent documents to WikiLeaks. It does not matter whether, in the end, any of these individuals’ actions were morally right or wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/explaining-snowden-petrae_b_10866318.html
He added: “If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the CIA … were sending details about the security of embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it.”
Edward Snowden (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-email-server)
If you don't want to answer the question, you can just say so.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
BTW: Snowden can take his salt and shove it up his self righteous ass. Because he clearly violates this standard in all regards. He clearly had intention, it was vast quantities, he showed disloyalty and he made no effort whatsoever to comply. A citizen can in good conscience decide that justice demands civic disobedience but he doesn't have a leg to stand on in pretending it's a double standard.He showed disloyalty? Made no effort to comply with people calling him a treasonous traitor? How can you be assured of a fair trial when the people who want you done in for being a traitor are doing things that would've got your job cut and you put in prison? He's got some pretty quality salt right there
Besides, criminality is not necessary to be censurable conduct.
Which is what I was talking about before you got immensely butthurt and accused me of changing the subject. So how about you answer the question I already asked.You're asking RedKing to sift through 50,000 pages of stuff to find the 110 Comey is talking about or some other crap
You have 94% of the emails available including all but one of the "confidential" emails. There is no particular reason to think the other 6% are any different (they probably just mention the existence of a "secret" drone program in Pakistan). So which of these emails is censurable. You have cared about this subject for years. The emails have been out there a long time. You have the whole internet at your disposal.
Which line of which email do you have a problem with? Give an exact quote. Put up or shut up.
It’s hard to read Comey’s statement as anything other than a wholesale rebuke of the story Clinton and her campaign team have been telling ever since the existence of her private email server came to light in spring 2015. She did send and receive classified emails. The setup did leave her — and the classified information on the server — subject to a possible foreign hack. She and her team did delete emails as personal that contained professional information.Pretty clear right there, earlier you called it in the now locked Murrican thread, bullshit spun up by a hatchet man IIRC
Those are facts, facts delivered by the Justice Department of a Democratic administration. And those facts run absolutely counter to the narrative put forth by the Clinton operation: that this whole thing was a Republican witch-hunt pushed by a bored and adversarial media.
It doesn't work like that. Policies are in place for a reason, and context and intent don't come into play when we're talking about administrative penalties.
Your meaning being...? Is it that they could get these emails? Yeah the Chinese can probably get emails that have been publicly declassified and published by the government.Mocking him for stating the blatantly obvious and his inability to into English.
True, but I no longer hold a Federal security clearance, nor would I have had a clearance in the right area in any case.
Are you saying then, that the WikiLeaks dump comprises the entirely of Clinton's server contents? That would seem highly unlikely given the statistics issued by the FBI investigation, and their own admission that Clinton's staff and/or lawyers deleted thousands of emails without reviewing their contents.
Moreover, as I have stated prior, content is irrelevant. Whether the 110 classified emails were regarding critical clandestine operations, or just a surprise birthday party, they are classified and there are strict policies in place regarding the handling of classified material, irregardless of content. You seem to be implying (and if I'm wrong, please explain why) that because the classified emails that have since been declassified and which are available to the public seem to have no strategic import, that no wrongdoing was committed. This is what I was referring to as the "no harm, no foul" defense.
It doesn't work like that. Policies are in place for a reason, and context and intent don't come into play when we're talking about administrative penalties. I'm not even sure they should be considered in criminal cases -- they certainly weren't in Snowden's case. Or in the case of Marine Maj. Jason Brezler (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/07/marines-defense-for-disseminating-classified-information-will-cite-hillary-clintons-case/), who was discharged from the Marines for using an unsecured Yahoo account to warn units in Afghanistan that the local police chief was corrupt (and was later proven correct when one of that's chief's lieutenants opened fire on a Marine squad). Brezler even self-reported the breach, and fully cooperated with investigation to determine its extent. Context and intent would certainly seem to clear Maj. Brezler, but that wasn't taken into account.
A Marine Corps officer who has been locked in a legal battle with his service after self-reporting that he improperly disseminated classified information will use Hillary Clinton’s email case to fight his involuntary separation from the service, his lawyer said.Ahahha, the madman! The madman!
An attorney for Brezler, Michael J. Bowe, said that he intends to cite the treatment of Clinton “as one of the many, and most egregious examples” of how severely Brezler was punished. FBI Director James B. Comey announced Tuesday that he would not recommend the U.S. government pursue federal charges against Clinton, but he rebuked her “extremely careless” use of a private, unclassified email server while serving as secretary of state. The FBI found that 110 of her emails contained classified information.That right there is how you demoralize everyone who works under you, it's a bit of a liberty when you can get away with thousands of counts worse than your rank and file
Supporters of Brezler have renewed the debate about his case since Comey’s announcement about Clinton. They argue that the case shows the discrepancy in how rank-and-file service members and their potential commander-in-chief are treated.That's depressing
I told you to put up or shut up and you dont want to put up.It doesn't work like that. Policies are in place for a reason, and context and intent don't come into play when we're talking about administrative penalties.
Okay then find me someone who doesn't satisfy one of Comey's standards who received even a fraction of the grief Clinton has.
And really this is just the same evasion. Which email deserves the sanctions. Put up or shut up.
Any and all of them. I'm not sure why you find this incomprehensible. CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT.
If, as is reported by the FBI, ~110 classified emails were found on this private server, then all 110 are a violation of Federal policies for the handling of classified material.
But then she should face administrative penalty
Spoken like a true Clintonista. "Who cares about the rules? Why should they apply to me?"Any and all of them. I'm not sure why you find this incomprehensible. CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT.
If, as is reported by the FBI, ~110 classified emails were found on this private server, then all 110 are a violation of Federal policies for the handling of classified material.
And I asked you to give me a single example of why we should treat these breaches of these policies like a big deal.
We learn about things through examining the most pertinent details, not falling back on generalities and gut feeling. GET SPECIFIC.
If everything is objectionable then just give me one example. You say that people have been fired for less. Give me one example of a person fired without any of these
-Active effort disseminate information to unauthorized persons
-Huge amounts of information
-extraordinarily sensitive information
-clear evidence of disloyalty to the US
You ask me to prove that all 30,000 are fine but you wont prove that even a single one of the 30,000 is a problem. Instead you just fall back on the same thing over and over and over again.I mean this in the nicest way possible, but -- please don't act like you have experience with how this actually works. You have not, to the best of my knowledge, held a Federal security clearance. I have. My half-brother has. My father has and still does.But then she should face administrative penalty
Again this is VAGUE. Be specific. Find me another example of someone you think is comparable. At any point in history going back to the XYZ affair. Or fuck even before the XYZ affair. If these administrative penalties are so freaking ubiquitous then why can't you name anyone comparable?
IMHO the administrative penalty that anyone else would get in this situation would be a harshly worded email from their boss and getting angrily told "dont get caught again".
1. Peter Van Buren
James HitselbergerThe information was clearly marked Secret, it was a great deal more information and it was very apparent that it was a violation. The nature of the information (gaps in US intelligence in the exact community it was in) made the consequences of the information getting lost a clear and present danger. Unlike for instance if the Russians learned the timing of Clinton's phone conversation with the president of Malawi.
Bryan NishimuraConfessed to holding and then destroying large amounts of classified information. (https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials) Said that he felt he had great representation so the confession presumably was merited. Thus when we compare it to the standards laid out by James Comey it is not equivalent. He both held a great deal more information and actively obstructed an investigation. You could argue that he tried to disseminate information but because it never went to a verdict AFAIK there is no legal precedent or standard to evaluate that by. And after all that, a fine and probation.
One of my co-workers and our manager at the time were dismissed for mishandling of sensitive (not even fully classified) information, even though the manager in question wasn't our manager at the time the initial breach occurred and had no knowledge of it. I was rather pissed at that one, but whaddya gonna do? Security gets compromised, heads gotta roll. At least as long as your head is below a certain pay grade.
You agree that it's troubling that the laws are not being applied consistently, but you're totes okay with that in this case because it means senpai is off the hook.
you're gonna nitpick
Yeah, we're done. Enjoy being undisputed king of your echo chamber.
Imma just leave this here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FjWe31S_0g)
Arguably, as a third party I'm more swayed by RedKing's argument than yours my good man. I can agree that most of the emails sent out aren't worth Republican's and layfolk shitting their pants about, but one does have to wonder about that percentage of documents we don't know about.
The only common factor as put forth by RedKing is that they classified documents shouldn't be unprotected. Period. End of discussion.
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
(a)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—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
Far more sensitive information, actively disseminating the information.Are you ok?
Wow, it's almost like you didn't even bother to compare this to the standard Comey laid out. How completely out of character for the rigorously fact driven LW who is always so careful in what he says.
stuff happening
I'd also appreciate it if the popcorn people would refrain, forever, from making posts like that in any thread. It further sours the atmosphere and makes moderating the forum more difficult.
Quotestuff happeninghttps://kiwifar.ms/attachments/jmtzv-gif.21465/
Ignore the popcorn, it's horrible stuff anyway, fake butter causes cancer.