Gbaji wrote:
Uh... That's a distinction without a difference.
Gbaji wrote:
And yet, semantic distinctions aside, that's exactly what will be claimed if it recommends indictment. Not necessarily that the FBI itself engaged in dirty tricks, but that the very choice to sic the FBI on Clinton for this, when <insert folks like Rice and Powell here> didn't get the same treatment, will be seen as political at the very least. Differences between those cases will largely be ignored in this context (as it appears to consistently be just among forum posters having the same conversation now).
Gbaji wrote:
Well. That's not exactly what was said. What was said was that you could measure the success of the hearings by looking at her polling numbers. You could certainly interpret that to mean that the entire purpose of the hearings was to hurt her poll numbers, or you could interpret it to mean that the information obtained and exposed during the hearings are important and do have meaning because her poll numbers are being affected. Let's not forget that the context of that comment was made in response to a question suggesting that there was no point to holding the hearings because it was just a rehash of old news and no one cared. If no one cared then her poll numbers should not have dropped and might even have gone up if the public perception was that she was being unfairly singled out.
Gbaji wrote:
And if you'd take the time to actually read the article, it quite clearly states that information that was already classified and would have been obtained via a SCIF, was found on her server. Meaning that someone took information out of a SCIF and transferred it in electronic form onto her server. Which is a felony.
And again, you're ignoring the fact that at the level she was operating, many things are not yet classified. And I'm not just talking about later FOIA classifications here.
Gbaji wrote:
Um... Wow. So some unnamed "Washington Lawyers" and an unnamed "former top government lawyer" (quite probably one of the same set mentioned earlier as "Washington Lawyers", so really just a meaningless bit of wordplay to make this look like a multi-sourced article) say she didn't do anything wrong. Well, I guess that settles it! The article repeats the same ridiculous idea that since the top secret information she had on her server wasn't yet classified as such when she handled it, she's free and clear. Except that's not true. It's true for people who aren't part of the process of information handling prior to classification. You, for example. Everything you handle has already been through multiple layers of processing, so you know exactly how to handle it. That's by design, since you aren't qualified nor in a position to handle anything prior to classification. Clinton, perhaps not by qualification, but certainly by job title, was. And she received training on how to manage such information (more or less "assume *everything* is top secret unless it's determined otherwise"). She knew this. She knew (or should have known unless the argument is that she's completely incompetent) that some portion of the information she was handling would be classified top secret and should not be handled outside of official government methods. She literally handled *everything* this way. All communications with her staff where through this server. Did she really think that nothing she'd do or say over a 4 year period working as Secretary of State would be sensitive and classified?
She may be dumb as a rock, but that's not an excuse for a violation of this magnitude. And it certainly should disqualify her for the office of President.
Oh. And you're also missing (and the article brushes this off), the question of "intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized locationâ€. What does anyone think she was doing here? The entire reason for operating this was was to keep those documents out of easy government oversight. The fact that initial FOIA inquiries turned up no documents is evidence of this fact. It was the scope of what wasn't available via FOIA that first tipped people off that she must have been using some outside source for communication, which lead to her private email server. It's hard to argue, especially with the history of the Clinton's and documents (anyone recall the documents "found" in the WH residence 5 years after they were initially sought?), that this was an accident. She clearly intended to keep those documents outside of official government locations, presumably to make it harder for future FOIA requests to obtain accurate information about her (so she could write her own history basically). Does anything think that if this investigation hadn't uncovered the server, that she would ever have at some future time handed the documents over? What do you think "intent to retain" means here? Cause it sure looks like that's exactly what she did.
She may be dumb as a rock, but that's not an excuse for a violation of this magnitude. And it certainly should disqualify her for the office of President.
Oh. And you're also missing (and the article brushes this off), the question of "intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized locationâ€. What does anyone think she was doing here? The entire reason for operating this was was to keep those documents out of easy government oversight. The fact that initial FOIA inquiries turned up no documents is evidence of this fact. It was the scope of what wasn't available via FOIA that first tipped people off that she must have been using some outside source for communication, which lead to her private email server. It's hard to argue, especially with the history of the Clinton's and documents (anyone recall the documents "found" in the WH residence 5 years after they were initially sought?), that this was an accident. She clearly intended to keep those documents outside of official government locations, presumably to make it harder for future FOIA requests to obtain accurate information about her (so she could write her own history basically). Does anything think that if this investigation hadn't uncovered the server, that she would ever have at some future time handed the documents over? What do you think "intent to retain" means here? Cause it sure looks like that's exactly what she did.
Gbaji wrote:
Except that's not true. It's true for people who aren't part of the process of information handling prior to classification. You, for example. Everything you handle has already been through multiple layers of processing, so you know exactly how to handle it. That's by design, since you aren't qualified nor in a position to handle anything prior to classification.