Re: OT: "Every American"...

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups	comp.sys.mac.system
Subject	Re: OT: "Every American"...
Date	2017-02-08 21:32 -0700
Message-ID	<D4C13EF8.8F311%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <050220171514507723%nospam@nospam.invalid> <o7bbd0$f3p$2@dont-email.me> <o7g698$kk0$2@gioia.aioe.org> <o7g9mc$isu$5@dont-email.me> <o7gk62$dvr$4@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/8/17, 7:31 PM, in article o7gk62$dvr$4@dont-email.me, "FPP"
<fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On 2017-02-08 17:32:10 -0500, "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> said:
>> 
>>> On 2/7/17 3:30 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> So find me someone, who didn't break a law, that was put in prison.
>>> 
>>> If you had ever had a security clearance, you would know that
>>> mishandling, regardless of intent, is breaking the law.

> DAVID PETRAEUS

He specifically talked about how this was different.

> The best-known recent prosecution involves the former CIA director who
> pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor count of unlawful removal and
> retention of classified materials. He was spared prison as part of his
> plea and was given two years' probation by a judge who faulted him for
> a "serious lapse in judgment."
> 
> JOHN DEUTCH
> 
> Deutch was CIA director from May 1995 until December 1996. He came
> under Justice Department investigation after his resignation when
> classified material was found on his home computer in Maryland.
> 
> An internal CIA investigation found that he stored and processed
> hundreds of files of highly classified material on unprotected home
> computers that he and family members also used to connect to the
> Internet, making the information potentially vulnerable to hackers.
> 
> A report by the Defense Department inspector general found that Deutch
> had failed to follow "the most basic security precautions" and faulted
> him for rejecting Pentagon requests that security systems be installed
> on his home computers.
> 
> Deutch apologized for his actions and was pardoned by President Bill
> Clinton before the Justice Department could file a misdemeanor plea
> deal for mishandling government secrets.

He admitted to his actions. Had Clinton things would have ended differently.

> SANDY BERGER
> 
> Berger was the national security adviser during Bill Clinton's second
> term. After leaving office, he found himself in trouble for destroying
> classified documents.
> 
> Berger, who died in December at age 70, pleaded guilty in 2005 to
> illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by
> stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his
> office and lied about it. The materials related to terror threats in
> the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.
> 
> He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of unauthorized removal and
> retention of classified material, and though he avoided prison time, he
> lost access to classified material for three years.

As you note, he admitted to his wrong doing. Clinton did not. Comey spoke
about that, too.

> BRYAN NISHIMURA
> 
> Nishimura, a former Naval reservist in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 and
> a regional engineer for the U.S. military, was investigated for
> downloading and storing classified information on his personal
> electronic devices.
> 
> Prosecutors say he carried the materials with him off-base in
> Afghanistan and took classified Army records to his home in Folsom,
> California, after his deployment ended.
> 
> FBI agents who searched his home found classified military records,
> both in hard copy and digital form. Nishimura also admitted to
> investigators that he had destroyed some of the information.
> 
> Nishimura pleaded guilty in July to unauthorized removal and retention
> of classified materials. A judge fined him $7,500, and he was ordered
> to surrender his security clearance.

Again you note he admitted to it.

In each case these people were MORE honest than Clinton... and legally that
did not go well for them.

So the big difference is Clinton refused to admit to her actions.

> http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-federal-case
> s-on-handling-classified-information

These are my full notes on the Comey testimony... note where it is clear she
got away with it because she did not admit to it:

After watching four and a half hours (plus!) of Comey's testimony before
congress, I believe the decision to NOT recommend indictment of Clinton is a
reasonable one BASED ON THE LAW. I see nothing to suggest Comey is anything
other than sincere, open, and honest, even though I do not like the outcome.

Comey made it clear that in such cases there is a very high standard that
must be met. Yes, Clinton:

* Mishandled sensitive information
* Knew she mishandled sensitive information
* Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy"
* Should have understood her actions were illegal
* Responded to "suspicious emails"
* Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]"
* Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt"
* Failed to follow internal policy
* Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act
* Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail
* Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure
* Showed poor understanding of technology in general

But that is not enough to convict.

And on this issue she lied to the American people repeatedly. Her lies
included:

* Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails
* Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine which
were work related
* Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information marked
classified (though such markings that existed were done incorrectly)
* Claiming she never sent / received classified information
* Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy
* Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act
* Claiming that her server was secure
* Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent usage
but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry in such a
way)
* Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured"
* Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so
* Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them
* Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation
* Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation

But that is not enough to convict.

Additionally, Clinton:
* Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified
information
* Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information
* Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know)

But that is not enough to convict.

Comey is unsure if Clinton understood what classification marks mean even
though before this case:
* Comey would have assumed any reasonable Secretary of State would know this
information
* A "reasonable person" would assume the Clinton would know this information
* Clinton, under sworn testimony, said a "reasonable person" would expect
her to know this information

But that is not enough to convict.

Comey made it clear that "gross negligence, frankly, is really not at the
center of [the decision to recommend to indict or not]." He also agrees that
"mishandling of classified information" in the way Clinton showed "bothers"
him personally. Comey also says he has worked "against the criminalization
of negligence" and that "should have known, must have known, had to know,
does not get you there."

None of the above, as bad as it might be, is enough to convict.

This leads to the question: If all that is not enough, what would be
required to recommend an indictment?  Comey said he would have to prove she
actually knew she was breaking the law... "that's the challenge." To have
this happen, Clinton would have had to admit to not just breaking the law
(which she did) but to knowing she broke the law (which she did not). Her
"get out of jail" card was to claim ignorance (real or feigned). And for
such a case this method is legal and effective.

Comey agreed that the standard would be less if dealing with environmental
or food and drug laws. Comey also agreed he is assuming the law implies the
idea of breaking the law "willfully" even though that is the common legal
term and it is NOT in the statute in question, but he does so because that
is the precedent which has been used for 99 years (with only one exception,
and that case never made it to court).

Part of the consideration for this comes from the weak standards found in
general in the Department of State. Confidential material, in general, is
not protected a the level the average person would assume it would be.

While not prosecuting her goes against common sense and reason, it does seem
to be the way the law works. I accept that and, again, think Comey has acted
honorably and reasonably.

While Comey says there should not be consequences through the court, he is
very clear that for an active government employees doing similar things
there would be a "robust disciplinary proceeding" leading to "severe
consequences" including "a security review and an adjudication of their
suitability." Such a person would likely get far more than just a reprimand.
Even without a criminal trial Comey says he can conclude such a person would
likely be ineligible to have any form of significant security clearance
though he would, of course, have to look at particulars on any given case.

Knowing all of this how can anyone say she is qualified to be president?

Keep in mind this case looked only at Clinton's handling of email. There are
other legal questions some might assume were considered in his investigation
but were not:

* Perjury charges where not investigated. Clinton's comments to the FBI were
not made under oath nor recorded in any way and the comments she did make
under oath elsewhere were not looked at with an eye on perjury. Comey does
that lying under oath has a penalty of "potentially years of prison."

* Clinton's intentions in terms of the Freedom of Information Act were not
considered in this investigation.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:16 -0500
  Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:48 +0100
    Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-05 13:12 -0500
      Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-05 13:29 -0800
        Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:29 -0500
          Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
            Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:40 -0800
            Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:30 -0500
    Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
      Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:30 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
          Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:31 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-08 23:32 +0100
          Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:32 -0500
            Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:31 -0500
              Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:32 -0700
                Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:21 -0500
            Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:09 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:11 -0500
    Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:21 -0500
    Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-10 11:30 -0500
      Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-10 12:05 -0500
      Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 16:59 -0800
        Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 03:25 -0500
          Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 02:00 -0800
            Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-13 12:23 +0100
            Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 17:49 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-14 10:11 +1100
  Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
    Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-05 13:30 -0800
    Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:34 -0500
      Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:39 -0800
          Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 19:57 -0700
            Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:33 -0500
              Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:36 -0700
                Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:33 -0500
                Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:11 -0700
        Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 14:52 +1100
          Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:00 -0500
            Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 20:02 -0800
            Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-09 10:05 +1100
            Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:34 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:32 -0500
    Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:36 -0500

csiph-web