The Next President is...

[uhhello]

I got 10,000 schrute bucks that Biden doesn't campaign/run to the end.  Just watching his head movements and gait.  No way.  

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by uhhello

[nsplayr]

57 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I agree 100%. When do we start? 

 

[kaputt]

45 minutes ago, uhhello said:

I got 10,000 schrute bucks that Biden doesn't campaign/run to the end.  Just watching his head movements and gait.  No way.  

 

If he is re-elected he will die in office, I feel fairly certain of that. 
 

What a travesty our electoral choices are these days. 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I agree 100%. When do we start? 

You tell me—the DOJ only appears to want to go after one major political leader.  I wonder why that is.

[Disco_Nav963]

11 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

when she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system.

Source?

[Lawman]

Source?

If you want to know why a whole lot of people are calling out this action as dubious given the political protection granted to Clinton, it’s probably got something to do with this almost forceful way that people dismiss Clinton and her actions from discussion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

Absolutely nobody paying attention at the time could see what Clinton was ignorant of what was found on the 2/3 of her server that were actually investigated (because a lot was destroyed intentionally before it was turned over). But nah… totally on the up and up there. Nothing to see… in fact we can’t even remember it happened….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Disco_Nav963]

41 minutes ago, Lawman said:

If you want to know why a whole lot of people are calling out this action as dubious given the political protection granted to Clinton, it’s probably got something to do with this almost forceful way that people dismiss Clinton and her actions from discussion.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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):

Quote

"Agent 2 told the OIG:
[F]rom like my level looking at it...you were hard-pressed to find the
intent of anyone to put classified information on that server. And
again, sloppy security practices, for sure. Right? But, and, and
preventable? Yes. But somebody intentionally putting classified on it,
we just never found clear-cut evidence of somebody intending to do
that." (p. 165)

Quote

"Baker told the OIG that he thought that the conduct of former Secretary
Clinton and her senior aides was “appalling with respect to how they handled the
classified information...[and] arrogant in terms of their knowledge and
understanding of these matters.” He stated that he was concerned about former
Secretary Clinton’s level of knowledge and intent, and thought that she should have
recognized the sensitivity of information in the emails sent to her. Baker said that
he “debated and argued” with Comey and the Midyear team about former Secretary
Clinton’s criminal liability, but ultimately came to the conclusion that declining
prosecution was the correct decision after reviewing a binder of her emails. Baker
said that he recognized there was a lack of evidence establishing knowledge or
criminal intent, and that based on “the volume of...communications coming at
[Clinton] at all times, day and night, given the heavy responsibilities that a
Secretary of State has, isn’t she entitled to rely on [the classification determinations
by] her folks?” Baker stated that he “did not like it.... I eventually agreed with it,
but I did not like it.” (p. 166)

 

Quote

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton
believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified
information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the
prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the
sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not
classified." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"The emails in question were sent to other government officials in
furtherance of the senders’ official duties. There was no evidence that
the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified
information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they
intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized
systems." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they
saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the
prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence
that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully
communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or
willfully retained the same." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"The senders used unclassified emails because of “operational tempo,”
that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department
officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified
systems. To accomplish this, senders often refrained from using
specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully
in an attempt to avoid transmitting classified information." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"There was no evidence that Clinton set up her servers or private email
account with the intent of communicating or retaining classified
information, or that she had knowledge that classified information
would be communicated or retained on it." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"All of the prosecutors and agents we asked told
us that they could not prove that Clinton had actual knowledge that the emails in
question were classified or that Clinton used private servers and a private email
account with the purpose or intent of receiving classified information on them." (p. 261)

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:

Quote

"According to Prosecutor 4, '[T]he problem was the State Department was so
screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to
prosecute Hillary Clinton, you would have had to prosecute 150 State Department
people.'"

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.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Disco_Nav963
added link to DOJ IG report

[Boomer6]

It’s hard for conservatives to find common ground with liberals when the latter refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing from a member of their own party. A few acknowledge the wrongdoing but then refuse to admit there is a double standard in the application of the law. The few liberal voices on this board often lament that conservatives keep mentioning civil war, despite the fact that the majority of the media institution in America has continuously demonized the other side of the aisle and cast them as enemies of the people for the last 6-9 years. If you’re a liberal and you don’t think Hilary was let off the hook due to the FBI playing politics then you’re no better than a conservative that argues Trump is without fault. 
 

The liberals that refuse to uphold their party to the same standards that they weigh the opposition party against are nothing more than hypocrites, and are just as responsible for the erosion of trust in America as the forever Trumpers.

[Lawman]

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.

Again, you are either willfully or just ignorantly trying to give her a pass.

You assumingely (by being on this site) know personally of instances of persons being crucified, livelihoods lost, careers ended, because of stuff far more benign and innocent than anything Hillary did. We threw guys to the wolves in SOCOM for far less. Yet you spent god knows what time on Reddit or wherever digging up a wall of reasons why it’s ok she didn’t face any repercussions for intentionally setting up an illegal server in her house that classified material just happens to make it onto.

And then you excuse her actions quoting a guy saying “well if you charged her all these other people would have to be charged.”

Yeah bro, a whole lot of people would be fine with Trumps indictment had a whole lot of other people ever been charged. Instead this is absolutely standing as proof that if you are connected and protected or not, your actions carry different consequences.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Disco_Nav963]

2 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Again, you are either willfully or just ignorantly trying to give her a pass.

You assumingely (by being on this site) know personally of instances of persons being crucified, livelihoods lost, careers ended, because of stuff far more benign and innocent than anything Hillary did. We threw guys to the wolves in SOCOM for far less. Yet you spent god knows what time on Reddit or wherever digging up a wall of reasons why it’s ok she didn’t face any repercussions for intentionally setting up an illegal server in her house that classified material just happens to make it onto.

And then you excuse her actions quoting a guy saying “well if you charged her all these other people would have to be charged.”

Yeah bro, a whole lot of people would be fine with Trumps indictment had a whole lot of other people ever been charged. Instead this is absolutely standing as proof that if you are connected and protected or not, your actions carry different consequences.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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.)

[Lawman]

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.)

Yeah and again….



Thats Reuters.

But we somehow can’t find “intent.” No reasonable person could understand that pulling classified markings of geospatial intelligence wasn’t an illegal action or whatever reason. We are saying the governmental agencies found a way to protect her and you’re quoting the same government agencies like it’s some sort of proof it was all on the up and up.

Also intent was never part of the US Code she violated and could be charged under. And you’ve completely avoided the deliberate destruction of her server entirely. Weird how that’s not just assumed as obstruction.


Again, the level of “oh she couldn’t possibly have been charged,” you and others seem to want to find a way to is just astounding. At the very least all of her staff flunkies at the time should have had their clearances pulled, and if you’d gotten on JPAS at the time you’d have seen that didn’t happen. Meanwhile over at USSOAC…. We’re crushing some E 4 for plugging a purple cable into a green printer. They could have thrown some weak toothless attempt at her and lost in court at least making the attempt at appearing to be an application of the justice system, but no, she never even faced indictment much less had to actually defend her actions in court.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[O Face]

11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

You’ve posted this face multiple times…In all seriousness, what the f@$k is it?  Also, I’ve been a member of this f&!?*ng forum since 2005 I think, you’re a mod right?  How long does a guy need to be a member here before he can drop some F-bombs, like the other kids??

Edited June 10, 2023 by O Face
Censorship

[Disco_Nav963]

4 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Yeah and again….



Thats Reuters.
 

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.)

Quote

No reasonable person could understand that pulling classified markings of geospatial intelligence wasn’t an illegal action or whatever reason.

I agree. Who did that, when, and how do we know it?

 

Quote

 

We are saying the governmental agencies found a way to protect her and you’re quoting the same government agencies like it’s some sort of proof it was all on the up and up.

 

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.)

 

Quote

Also intent was never part of the US Code she violated and could be charged under.

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:

Quote

We further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. [T]he prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems. The Midyear team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents.

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.
 

Quote

Again, the level of “oh she couldn’t possibly have been charged,” you and others seem to want to find a way to is just astounding. At the very least all of her staff flunkies at the time should have had their clearances pulled, and if you’d gotten on JPAS at the time you’d have seen that didn’t happen. Meanwhile over at USSOAC…. We’re crushing some E 4 for plugging a purple cable into a green printer.

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.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, O Face said:

You’ve posted this face multiple times…In all seriousness, what the f@$k is it?  Also, I’ve been a member of this f&!?*ng forum since 2005 I think, you’re a mod right?  How long does a guy need to be a member here before he can drop some F-bombs, like the other kids??

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-chad
 

It’s just a meme and a funnier way to say yes, forcefully. I’m only a mod on the CSO page that no one ever posts on lol & I have no fuckin idea how the swearing moderation works 😅

[slc]

17 hours ago, Prozac said:

When you see police lights in your rear view mirror, if you promptly pull over and speak to the officer politely, you at least have a chance of being let off with a warning. If you floor it, give the cop the bird, and tell him where he can shove it when he finally catches you, guess what? You’re gonna get that ticket & a whole lot more. 

 

[busdriver]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

Stuff

5 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Stuff

You two are making my brain hurt arguing about news sources.

Here's a link to fbi.gov and Comey's press statament.  https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

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):

****Multiple DOJ Report Quotes****

I hear what you are saying but a couple of notes and some logic should apply.

1.  Do you trust the DOJ and Comey?  It is sad we have to say it out loud but actions over the past 8 years have completely destroyed my faith in the DOJ and much of the FBI.  As you noted above they doctored FISA warrants to get to Trump.  Additionally, they knew the dossier was fake, the helped suppress the Hunter Laptop story when they knew it was real because they had a copy of it, and as the Durham report identified political interference at multiple levels which the FBI admits saying they have already put fixes in place to remedy. 

2.  Please tell me you have a basic understanding of how these classified information systems work...I am obviously not going to lay out our nations classified information structure on an unclassified forum, but it should be basic knowledge that the systems that handle TS/SCI SAR/SAP do NOT touch other systems, personal servers in particular.  It was a deliberate, purposeful and manual act to take that info and move it to Hillary's private server.  I listed the first point above because they very carefully parsed their words (just like Comey did when he made the announcement during the election), and outright lied in a few others, a few examples from your quotes:

a.  There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized
systems."

Given what you should know about these systems you and I both both know this is untrue.

b.  "There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not classified." (p. 255)

So again, you know it was purposeful to move that data but because they stripped the marking off in the process (you should be saying HOLY F*CK with your inside voice), that somehow adds to the sincerity of their statements of ignorance?  Seriously bro?

c.  "Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retained the same." (p. 255)

Oh so because they didn't willfully send it to a person without a clearance its all ok...even though the FBI acknowledges the contents of Hillary's serve ended up in the hands of a foreign power.

I am a simple dude and the bottomline for me is the deliberate act of taking info off those separate servers.  I can certainly see a scenario when Pence and Biden ended up with classified documents without malice and I believe punishment/prosecution should account for that.  Were the Pence documents exposed to a foreign power, likely no.  Were the Biden documents exposed to a foreign power, given they were in multiple locations including the Chinese funded Penn/Biden Center AND in the garage within reach of his crackhead son...I would raise that risk to medium.  Were the Trump documents exposed to a foreign power, prior to the indictment I would have said no since the Secret Service guards his home, but if reports of him showing items like the Iran CONOP to uncleared persons...I would also raise that risk to medium.

With Trump it certainly appears to be a willful purposeful act and he should be held accountable and I hold the exact same assessment of Hillary.  Again remember in Hillary's case it was a purposeful act to move that material and in the end it likely ended up in the hands of the Russians and Chinese and what was the impact of those actions.  Let me remind you, straight from U.S. Code on the State Department:

Title 22 - Foreign Relations

Volume: 1Date: 2004-04-01Original Date: 2004-04-01Title: Section 9.5 - Classification designations.Context: Title 22 - Foreign Relations. CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE. SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL. PART 9 - SECURITY INFORMATION REGULATIONS.

§ 9.5 Classification designations. (a) Only three (3) designations of classification are authorized: “Top Secret,” “Secret,” and “Confidential.”

(1) Top Secret. Information may be classified “Top Secret” if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. This classification should be used with the utmost restraint. Examples of “exceptionally grave damage” include armed hostilities against the United States or its allies; disruption of foreign relations vitally affecting the national security; the compromise of vital national defense plans or complex cryptologic and communications intelligence systems; the revelation of sensitive intelligence operations; and the disclosure of scientific or technological developments vital to national security.

[GrndPndr]

Meanwhile...

"This way Grandad"

https://twitter.com/alx/status/1667273048112734208?s=20

[O Face]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-chad
 

It’s just a meme and a funnier way to say yes, forcefully. I’m only a mod on the CSO page that no one ever posts on lol & I have no in idea how the swearing moderation works 😅

Ok. Thank you. Man, I’ve gotten old. 

“Now you kids with your loud music, and your Dan Fogleberg, your Zima, hula hoops and pac-man video games” 

-Ted Denslow

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-chad
 

It’s just a meme and a funnier way to say yes, forcefully. I’m only a mod on the CSO page that no one ever posts on lol & I have no fuckin idea how the swearing moderation works 😅

We have a CSO page...wow who knew...seems like a waste, kind of like an 18X page.

🥃

[uhhello]

9 hours ago, GrndPndr said:

Meanwhile...

"This way Grandad"

https://twitter.com/alx/status/1667273048112734208?s=20

You're late to post grandpop 🙂

[Disco_Nav963]

16 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I hear what you are saying but a couple of notes and some logic should apply.

1.  Do you trust the DOJ and Comey?  It is sad we have to say it out loud but actions over the past 8 years have completely destroyed my faith in the DOJ and much of the FBI.  As you noted above they doctored FISA warrants to get to Trump.  Additionally, they knew the dossier was fake, the helped suppress the Hunter Laptop story when they knew it was real because they had a copy of it, and as the Durham report identified political interference at multiple levels which the FBI admits saying they have already put fixes in place to remedy. 

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.)
 

Quote

2.  Please tell me you have a basic understanding of how these classified information systems work...I am obviously not going to lay out our nations classified information structure on an unclassified forum, but it should be basic knowledge that the systems that handle TS/SCI SAR/SAP do NOT touch other systems, personal servers in particular.  It was a deliberate, purposeful and manual act to take that info and move it to Hillary's private server.

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:

Quote

 

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.

However, State is set to acquiesce in the determinations regarding classified programs like drone strikes because there is a longstanding, government-wide consensus that such information must be treated as classified even if it leaks or becomes apparent from events on the ground, the official added.

 

The Washington Post likewise talked to congressional staffers that had reviewed the email chains and they said something similar:

Quote

 

[I]t is not possible to “cut and paste” from the classified system into the unclassified system. Instead, one would have to extract the information from the classified system and then reenter it manually into the unclassified system. Thus far, no one has alleged that happened.

Instead, congressional aides say, the concern centers on the fact that secret information was revealed as part of an email exchange. In at least one case, the discussion started with an aide forwarding a newspaper article; then in subsequent exchanges, aides revealed sensitive details as they discussed (for instance) the shortcomings of that public report. Ultimately the email chain ended up in Clinton’s email box. If the email chain was released, some intelligence officials believe, it would confirm aspects of a secret program.

 

 
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:

Quote

The emails concerned proposed talking points for Clinton when she called a foreign leader. The State Department later said the (C) markings should have been removed as a matter of course once Clinton decided to place the call but through “human error,” they had not been deleted.

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:

Quote

They ultimately found 497 security violations, of which 91 were attributable to 38 specific individuals:

Quote

 

... and of those, HRC herself was not deemed culpable for them:

Quote

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.
 

Quote

I am a simple dude and the bottomline for me is the deliberate act of taking info off those separate servers.  I can certainly see a scenario when Pence and Biden ended up with classified documents without malice and I believe punishment/prosecution should account for that.  Were the Pence documents exposed to a foreign power, likely no.  Were the Biden documents exposed to a foreign power, given they were in multiple locations including the Chinese funded Penn/Biden Center AND in the garage within reach of his crackhead son...I would raise that risk to medium.  Were the Trump documents exposed to a foreign power, prior to the indictment I would have said no since the Secret Service guards his home, but if reports of him showing items like the Iran CONOP to uncleared persons...I would also raise that risk to medium.

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.

[ClearedHot]

 

5 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

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.

Well, then I guess there was no reason for Hillary have her staff get rid of her phones with a hammer...

[busdriver]

I'm positive CH knows this, but DIsco did you watch Comey's testimony to congress?  HRC somehow convinced investigators that she may not have understood portion markings.  Let that sink in.  An original classification authority, read into TS/SAP/SAR that had worked in government for decades including being the first lady (package deal).   It's an absurdity.

Reference #9&10, from Politico, Link.  

Simple truth:  the rules are different for the elected/appointed.  For fuck's sake, Sandy Berger got probation and a fine for straight up steeling classified documents.

I am 100% positive that Trump is some kind of weird narcissistic classified document hoarder.   And if there was any actual fairness, all of the schmucks would have been judged by the same standard that Kristian Saucier was held to.  But that isn't reality.

But the double standard is obvious.

[nsplayr]

I’m just laughing how Hillary Clinton still lives rent free in so many heads. Screw her, she’s gone and never holding office of any kind ever again! If you wanna charge her and are able to do so, be my guest!

Meanwhile right now the leading contender for the GOP nomination just got indicted for 38 felony counts and is on tape basically saying he did exactly what he is charged with!

The best time to start doing the right thing was the day you were born, the second best time is right freaking now.

Trump’s actions are not defendable, are inexplicable for any legitimate purpose, and IMHO are pretty clearly criminal. Regardless of what happened in the past, which we cannot change, we should move forward with appropriate justice.

If anyone on the right is big mad today and then at some point in the future is able to convene a grand jury to charge a Democratic Party leader, staffer, etc. for crimes this egregious, I will say it again in non-meme form: your terms are acceptable.

No one is above the law.

Edited June 12, 2023 by nsplayr