Disco_Nav963

4 year thread bump... and two questions I'm 3 years out from having 20 good years, and a non-BRS High-36 IMA doing not much more than the minimum (~30 days of MPA on top of 24 IDTs and AT, just because I like the change of pace)... Will pin on O-5 next month at 7 YTIG, so to retire as an O-5 I gather I need to 3 (possibly good) more years on the RASL as an O-5? Is that years during which I'm on the RASL (i.e. my R/R years ending May 2024, 2025, and 2026) or I need to be an O-5 on the RASL for the 36 months after I pin on (so through September of 2026)? If the latter, do I just need to get my 50 points between May and September of '26 and put in the retirement paperwork, or would I need to be on the books (albeit being done participating) through May '27? Also, from your explanation it sounds like any good year counts as a full year for purposes of which part of the pay chart my High-36 is computed? So while at 20 years I'll have around 6100 points (/360 = 16.9 x 2.5) = ~42% for multiplier purposes, I'd be entering the gray zone as a 20-year O-5 and accumulate additional "years of service" the whole time I'm in the gray zone, yes? (You said that in plain language, but the OSD Military Pay website's language is so confusing I wanted to double check.) Now here's the rub: with reduced retirement pay age I can collect at 50 rather than 60, so theoretically I could min run in a participating status for another 8 years (until MSD for an O-5) and bypass the gray zone entirely. If I understand you right, that does not impact the part of the pay chart my high 36 is computed against, it just means I accumulate a few more points along the way... Doing my annual requirement only, it looks like that would get me to a ~45% multiplier against the same part of the pay chart? (Btw, I'm a WSO turned contractor, non-airline pilot, so I lose a little money when I participate but not nearly as much as many folks on this forum.) For me my Reserve experience doesn't totally suck and Tricare Reserve Select is the best bargain I can find on health insurance, so this seems potentially a good plan--am I missing anything? In other words, if I never make O-6, staying in another 8 years past retirement eligibility gets me an extra $3,900 per year in gross retirement pay based entirely on the difference between a 45% and a 42% multiplier against the same part of the pay chart. (And if I was the best of the available and made O-6—although I'm guessing O-6 jobs where you can min run participation are few and far between?—it looks like an additional $13K in gross annual retirement pay based on retiring at 28 years with the same 45% multiplier?) Trying to weigh the pros and cons of financial safety blanket + higher retirement pay + TRS availability vs. being a free American with the ability to get a really dumb haircut and smoke weed at the 69th Grateful Dead farewell tour.

Blanket "it depends" to "Do I trust the DOJ?," but in this instance I'm not trusting Comey's FBI or Loretta Lynch's DOJ, I'm trusting the DOJ IG Horowitz who is the reason we know about the doctored e-mail and the deficient FISA applications in the first place, and I'm drawing a logical conclusion that if there were evidence that (despite what Comey said in 2016 and what the IG report said in 2018) the DOJ had in its possession that did show intent, willfulness, direction, etc., etc., there is no reason why Jeff Sessions, Matt Whitaker, or Bill Barr wouldn't have made it very public. (Especially Barr.) You're assuming facts not in evidence. You're jumping to the conclusion that if classified information got into an email on an unclassified network, it had to be because someone retyped it from an email or document on a classified network. I still (and I keep asking for it) have yet to see anything that alleges that that happened in this case. I'm sure you have a basic understanding of the fact that if you were a dirtbag, you could take any number of pieces of classified information from your brain into Hotmail and click Send without having to look at a SIPR or JWICS machine first. And I assume you realize that inadvertent spillage happens... not infrequently... when people f**k up and commit classification by compilation, or put things in unclassified channels prematurely (e.g. before I was a staff weenie I'd hear about once a year about someone putting an ATO callsign on "unclass" paperwork prior to 0000z on execution day, at which point the callsign was still Confidential). Or that talking about things that have leaked into open-source is still spillage. That's exactly what the Politico article Lawman linked to says happened at least with some of the docs in this case: The Washington Post likewise talked to congressional staffers that had reviewed the email chains and they said something similar: And in the one instance where Confidential portion-marked data wound up in her inbox, it apparently was apparently unclassified at the time and incorrectly marked: Sen. Chuck Grassley released the State Department's Information Security office's (the people that did the spill analysis after the FBI criminal inquiry wrapped and assessed fault for individual security violations) final report in 2019, and they found: They ultimately found 497 security violations, of which 91 were attributable to 38 specific individuals: ... and of those, HRC herself was not deemed culpable for them: Occam's Razor: If she had verbatim transcribed something from high side to low side, or directed someone to do so, it would be very clear evidence of intent and you wouldn't have the words "no evidence" all over the DOJ IG report. It might say "some evidence," or "insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," or some such thing but it wouldn't say "no evidence." And again, even if you don't trust Comey or for some reason Horowitz on that, there's no reason Trump's AGs wouldn't have told the world. For that matter, the Statute of Limitations on 793 crimes is 10 years... If they'd had the evidence, they were remarkably lax about the "Lock her up!" thing. They didn't even reopen the investigation so far as we know. Likewise, if the State Department in its spill investigation had found she was culpable, Mike Pompeo would have had zero incentive to hide that from us. Concur 100% with your threat analysis... Just not with the unsupported assumption that she caused data to be moved from classified systems to unclassified systems.

That's not from a Reuters news story; that's from an op-ed by a former State Department employee that Reuters syndicated in 2016 shortly after the Comey press conference. The writer seems to have read "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received" and took a big leap on the jump to conclusions mat that 100 emails with classified information meant that classified documents were being verbatim transcribed (retyped) from one system to another. From the DOJ report, the actual number of emails that contained verbatim transcriptions of classified documents was 8, on 3 e-mail chains, all Confidential, all of them sent by Clinton aides who CC'ed her. The report does not say one way or the other whether the paragraphs were copied from classified e-mails or from printed documents they had at their disposal. So again, the actual number of classified documents deliberately moved (whether by re-typing or someone using removable media the wrong way) from classified network to unclassified network that we know about... as far as I've been able to find... is zero. Your op-ed seems to make much of the markings that were on the e-mails when they were sanitized/released to the general public by the State Department FOIA people, which if one were just reading the op-ed and didn't know better would make you think those markings were on a source document that the emails were quoting as opposed to applied retroactively. (Obviously neither a lack of marking nor a classified fact being in one's brain or communicated verbally before being written down--as opposed to copied from another written source--changes the obligation to appropriately protect that data. I'm simply pointing out that without them it's one less data point DOJ has to show willfulness/knowledge/intent.) I agree. Who did that, when, and how do we know it? I'm quoting a report that cites its sources written under the auspices of a bunch of Republican DOJ appointees that hammers the previous FBI director, also a Republican, for his missteps investigating Hillary and leading the Bureau, and was written by the same IG that hammered Bureau leadership for playing dirty going after Trump aides. It has no discernible reason to pull its punches on HRC. You're quoting an op-ed from a guy who was long gone from the USG and had no connection to the investigation or insider knowledge of the details, who doesn't show his receipts, who seems to have done some good work in his career but also left USG service with his own classified disclosure issues. (Not saying he was doing a hatchet job in his op-ed, just that it was a hot take based on the limited information available at the time and he got out over his skis a little bit.) 793(d) and (e), 1924, and 2071(a) require an element of intent. 793(f)(1) and (2) don't explicitly require intent but haven't historically been charged without it: Note that the only charge considered in the Clinton case that overlaps with the MAL docs case is 793(e), and in this instance the SC has Trump dead to rights on knowledge and intent (via audio and video tapes, text messages, and his lawyers records) to willfully retain. I definitely think she *could* have been charged on 793(f), but it would have been in an Alvin Bragg "You could make an argument that the statute works this way... It just hasn't been done before" kind of way... Not IAW DOJ charging guidelines that essentially require a guaranteed win. And I 100% agree with you that all of the staff flunkies should have lost their clearances and (like her) never sniffed the inside of a federal office building again.

The quotes are from the DOJ's IG Report. The link is in the post. Jesus. Once again, ClearedHot said "she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system." What is the evidence of that? (The Politico article you linked to does not say that.) I repeat myself, I am ready to admit my ignorance if there is something I wasn't previously tracking. If as you say this case was an outlier and a double standard, please name the other people the DOJ has charged under the relevant statutes for the same fact pattern. (Civilian officials charged under the U.S. Code, not servicemembers charged under UCMJ or who got Article 15s.) (If you're big mad that there is a double standard between mil and civilian or between federal criminal law and military law in this area, copy shot, I can agree. But I am under the impression you think there is a double standard between this case and the Mar-a-Lago docs case or earlier cases like Petraeus and Deutch.)

I'm well aware. I followed politics much more closely at the time than I do now. I ask my question because ClearedHot's statement assumes the truth of something I've occasionally heard people say (bros around the squadron and randos on Twitter), but have never actually seen alleged by any of the investigations into the server (DOJ, State IG, Congress, etc.) E.g. From the DOJ IG's Trump-era review of DOJ's handling of the case (same DOJ IG that uncovered the email doctoring used to justify the Carter Page FISA): One can rightly ask (as the DOJ IG did) whether the investigators used every tool at their disposal to look for evidence of intent or willful cross-pollenation of high side data to the unclass system. One can rightly be PO'ed at Hillary's arrogance. One can rightly think Jake Sullivan (who sent a lot of these emails) shouldn't have gotten to go on to lead the NSC. I still haven't actually seen anyone make a fact claim that, if accepted at face value, shows she intentionally transferred or caused the transfer of classified data to an unclass network. To me the Occam's Razor explanation is she set up a private server to circumvent record-keeping requirements and a bunch of arrogant 20-something political appointees and aides tried more or less hard and more or less successfully to talk around a range of sensitive topics including a bunch of classified, probably a lot of which was already widely known via open source which is something we understand is a thing but retards with Ivy League international studies degrees at their first USG job may not. The private server didn't cause that to happen. They were sending stuff from both their state.gov NIPR emails and in some cases their personal accounts (Sullivan was one), and they would have CC'ed hillary@state.gov instead of hillary@gmail.com had that been the account she used. Or as the IG Report says: None of that is defensible, none of that means I'd want to vote for those people (especially if they sell dumbass hats celebrating how arrogant and unrepentant they are) or invite them my birthday party, but it does mean they're not chargeable under the statutes Trump is charged under. But to my original question, because I'm open to correction, if there's an incident that shows the Witch of Chappaqua intentionally/knowingly committed or directed a CMI, I'd love to know about it.

Source?

The #MeToo Story That Wasn’t Me

Galaxy brain level genius here if he thinks this makes him look good and Kinzinger look bad... These people have worms in their brains.

You guys are all going to be shocked, but I have another rave review for Jon and the folks at Trident. My wife found the perfect place for her to live her dream of rehabbing a historic home in the historic district of our medium-sized military town (the other ATX), and when we put an offer in we found out why it had been on the market (in this market) for 6 months: the sellers had rejected three previous offers by buyers who were planning on using VA loans. Either they or their listing agent were sure that dealing with VA buyers was a nightmare and that the appraisal would come in 30% below comps and kill any deal. Jon spent a half hour on the phone sweet talking the listing agent—busting myths, explaining the process for getting a second opinion from VA staff appraisers, etc etc. Jon did more to make the deal happen than my buyer's agent did. They accepted our second offer and we closed yesterday... Interest rate 1.6% below current market rates (and about 0.5% below the market rate at the time we locked). Zero bureaucratic hassle with Jon's staff. Could not have gone smoother. (Unrelated: Appraised just fine.) With both the contract price and our interest rate, in this market, it feels like we made it onto the last chopper out of 'Nam. We can't thank Jon enough.

Probably you should post a photo or two of her so everyone can decide for themselves.

I would prefer you to get off this board and take a short walk off of a tall building.

Knew not one but two dudes in the BUFF who would share videos on Facebook about how it was a mistake for South Africa to end apartheid. And at Dyess we have someone working at the sim building with QAnon decals on his or her car (also a Texas A&M car ornament, naturally). The crazies are out there. Edit: I swore I posted this in the Extremism in the Military thread... Must have gone full stupid or weird computer things are happening.

Another two thumbs up to Jon, Elena, and the team at Trident... Got me from 3.75% to 2.25% on a rental property (bought with a VA loan, but haven't lived in it for a few years) with a lender credit and only a couple hundred bucks due at close, most of which was title company fees. Saving me about $250 a month on the mortgage payment, and minimal to no flail involved. 12/10, would go back to them again!

Matt Yglesias (liberal writer who can do math and isn't into bumper sticker solutions) wrote a lengthy column on exactly this point (more funding, not less): Fixing the police will take more funding, not less