Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some Agency, likely the CIA, says a particular discussion is classified. The SofS and her staff say it is not. I don't think either the SofS or CIA are lacking in intelligence or loyalty. So we have likely a sharp argument about the nature of certain discussions. I know of no way to resolve such a discussion without the subject being known. Note the Comey did not decide the issue. He simply defers to the other agency.
I do not defend Clintons use of the private server. It was dumb. And she was quite wrong when she said she had permission though she likely believed it was true. And there was resistance to her server in the State Dept but it was well removed from Clinton's level. And her staff did not let that sort of problem get to her. Which would have been OK if the staff had well handled them. I would also doubt it was less secure than .gov or a commercial site. The simple fact of having only a half dozen users makes it much more secure than a major site.
So the actual issue is not which server...any server you have the same problem. It is whether unsuitable subjects were discussed on a non secure system.
The State Dept investigation will be interesting as they almost certainly won't agree with Comey. Turf issue. But they may well bring a different look at the situation.
You really, really, really need to read up on how classified information is deemed classified and how it is supposed to be stored, transmitted, and dealt with before commenting on Clinton's practices. Because it's obvious you do not understand our classification system or how it is supposed to be contained.
Several people have told you how it works but you seem to either brush them off or not believe them. Thus, do some research and you can see what's wrong with your statements above. That's the only thing I can suggest at this point because it's clear from the your comments above that you do not get it.
She would not be indicted under nor would anyone else under the same circumstances, she may have been fired, lost security clearance but she was not going to jail.
They did a lousy investigation because the fix was in.. Comey never looked at Hillary's lying under oath.. Hillary is dirty.
...What credentials do Comey and his team have in determining the proper classification of the work product of the State Dept. The answer of course is none. That is why they consulted other agencies to determine appropriate classification. So given he lacks the ability to make the decision, and that it is very likely the State Dept will not agree with the classification, and he has no authority in the situation what right has Comey to make his views public.
This is particularly bad as Clinton's only defense is to deny it is true. And Comey can in no way prove it nor can Clinton disprove it.
And the voters have not received information. They have received non knowledgeable opinion. And under a guise that suggest it is more than that.
Comey should be censured if not removed. He has created an insolvable political situation because he felt like it. That is a crime against good government. Not legally but ethically.
LV, your first sentence is sets the premise for your argument, and it is factually inaccurate.
It wasn't DOS work product. It was intel gathered by an asset that another agency owned. As we discussed in our hypothetical example the other day, DOS has nothing to say about it. Once the owning agency confirms to the Bureau that it is classified at [the whatever] level, the Bureau pursues it at that level. At that point, DOS is little more than an interested bystander. If you disagree based on a law or regulation, please provide the legal or regulatory cite that supports your position.
The beauty of being an agency director is you get to say whatever you want in public. That's why you get the big bucks. He did not betray any secrets, violate anyone's privacy or otherwise break the law. The policies that prohibit the rest of us from talking about individual cases all state, "Anyone beneath the level of a director may not..." That's why I can't see him being censured.
I would encourage you to compare what Clinton has released to the public and what Comey has released to the public. Which one provided more cold, hard facts?
I acknowledge you think Comey committed what you think is an ethical violation against good government. You and I disagree on the point. All makes for good government, yes?
Some Agency, likely the CIA, says a particular discussion is classified. The SofS and her staff say it is not. I don't think either the SofS or CIA are lacking in intelligence or loyalty. So we have likely a sharp argument about the nature of certain discussions. I know of no way to resolve such a discussion without the subject being known. Note the Comey did not decide the issue. He simply defers to the other agency.
I do not defend Clintons use of the private server. It was dumb. And she was quite wrong when she said she had permission though she likely believed it was true. And there was resistance to her server in the State Dept but it was well removed from Clinton's level. And her staff did not let that sort of problem get to her. Which would have been OK if the staff had well handled them. I would also doubt it was less secure than .gov or a commercial site. The simple fact of having only a half dozen users makes it much more secure than a major site.
So the actual issue is not which server...any server you have the same problem. It is whether unsuitable subjects were discussed on a non secure system.
The State Dept investigation will be interesting as they almost certainly won't agree with Comey. Turf issue. But they may well bring a different look at the situation.
I would further observe there is a consistent problem at the State Dept. Clinton was not probably pushed to comply with necessary protocols. The lack of copies of official emails during her term is a classsical example. It is not that anyone was in a position to actually beat on Clinton to comply...but the administrative channels should have been beating on her staff and even snitching to WH house staff about her not being in compliance.
And there is the years old problem that the Feds had no real policy or system on emails and still don't have a very good one. The IRS issues showed this as well.
Under it all it says the Feds don't run a very well structured or organized shop.
It's been solved, other agencies cannot change what another agency has deemed classified.
You've been defending it this entire thread and others.
Top Secret was discussed on a non-secure system, period. comey stated this.
So as I read it, it is the fact that because Hillary is running for president, she gets a get out of jail free card. If Hillary wasn't on the ticket,she would be Indicted .
One set of rules for the connected.
Hillary's intent to have an illegal server could have been to hide her dealings with her so called charity. She erased those e mails for a reason and many were not recovered. She could have sold secrets and had the payoff put into her charity slush fund. So above the law, no one has the guts to dig deeper.
No, because Hillary is running for president, the Director of the FBI aired her dirty laundry in public. That way, at least the voting public could make a more informed decision.
The Justice Department wasn't going to indict anyone with the case that hers presented, whether it was a code clerk in a comm center or a presidential candidate. But we never heard about the code clerk, did we?
(Read David Crawford's book, "Volunteers." It's in there.)
You don't test a 99 year-old untested law based on these facts. You just don't.
I fully agree that the reason Hillary was on a private server was to hide her private dealings. I personally believe her charity is deeply involved. So does the Bureau. And I would bet you the rest of my pension they are looking into that. Be patient.
...Security Clearances are granted by the authority of the President. Basically they exist becomes the President wills it. Therefore the thought of the President having clearance problems is simply absurd. And that extends to the President's cabinet.
Authority of the President? Ummm, nope. None of mine were, anyway.
Security clearances are granted based on (a) need to have access, and (b) the regulations that promulgate the laws that establish that some of the information that the United States government possesses constitutes 'state secrets' and are thus 'classified.' (Heck, if it were left solely to the president, no one in congress would have a clearance.)
You are exactly correct that by virtue of becoming president, you get to see all 'state secrets.' Obama is the perfect example of that. The admissions he made in his two autobiographies alone would have disqualified him from even a secret clearance, let alone anything higher.
His cabinet, on the other hand, is another story. You may recall how rocky the Clinton administration's start was back in 1993. That happened because all of his staff and aides thought they were the newly anointed and could see anything. Their access was held up for weeks and months because they didn't think they had to go through the ajudication process.
It is a bad word in England I think...used as a substitute for a word containing an A &H where that is not allowed. There is a well known English poll of the same name that gets ****d.
Thanks - I had no idea. (And I used to live there!)
LV, your first sentence is sets the premise for your argument, and it is factually inaccurate.
It wasn't DOS work product. It was intel gathered by an asset that another agency owned. As we discussed in our hypothetical example the other day, DOS has nothing to say about it. Once the owning agency confirms to the Bureau that it is classified at [the whatever] level, the Bureau pursues it at that level. At that point, DOS is little more than an interested bystander. If you disagree based on a law or regulation, please provide the legal or regulatory cite that supports your position.
The beauty of being an agency director is you get to say whatever you want in public. That's why you get the big bucks. He did not betray any secrets, violate anyone's privacy or otherwise break the law. The policies that prohibit the rest of us from talking about individual cases all state, "Anyone beneath the level of a director may not..." That's why I can't see him being censured.
I would encourage you to compare what Clinton has released to the public and what Comey has released to the public. Which one provided more cold, hard facts?
I acknowledge you think Comey committed what you think is an ethical violation against good government. You and I disagree on the point. All makes for good government, yes?
That of course is a fact situation. I have followed the discussion quite closely and am sure you cannot find confirmation of your theory. I am not sure I can do any better. And it could well be the truth is in the middle. We do know that some email was in fact written by Clinton...who is very unlikely to be using material from some external briefing.
But again it was all written by State people. And Comey would be in no position to referee what was in fact information from another agency versus State. I would also suggest strongly that State would insist that any writing of a State employee even if using information from another agency would still be a State work product. Wait for the State Dept investigation and I think you may well see that position taken. And the truth of course is somewhere between the two views. Certainly a State Dept writing that includes direct data from an agency must classify at least that data as the originating agency did. But on the other hand a view formed by a State Dept operative based on personal knowledge, briefings by multiple agencies and personal speculation would be a State Dept work product. And that is where we reach the stand off.
And of course he can be censured. He has entered into the forbidden area of politics if he wishes to remain the apolitical public official he just blew it. And I am sure he is in his last year of FBI Director unless Trump pulls it out.
And if you really want to appreciate just what a mess this is read the EO on classification authority. Enough room in their to fight bureaucratic WW 3.
Do not care. Even this doesn't convince me Trump has more integrity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
