Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 1) 434

You are really missing the point.

You keep saying that, yet you cannot cite a specific thing I have said that is demonstrably wrong. Again, CITE SOMETHING SPECIFIC I have said and then CITE SOMETHING SPECIFIC from reported media that contradicts it. I dare you. I double dare you. Or must we really take this to the physical challenge?

Yes, it was, and, as far as we know, she did.

I am not aware of that, nor am I aware that she signed the usually required separation paperwork to certify that she did. In fact as mentioned above, it appears she did NOT sign the normally customary separation paperwork.

There has been no proof to the contrary, just claims like yours.

Aside from the fact that you appear to keep assuming that this is not a strict liability sort of laws, you keep forgetting how the system works. It's rare you have a smoking gun in hand when the police arrive which is coupled with a confession there and later at the station, instead law enforcement tends to build a case based on other evidence over time.

There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information... which hopefully will be investigated and with any luck a prosecutor will bring charges for it (though the current DoJ is not so honest).

Furthermore, as time goes on and the Hillary documents complete being scrubbed by state, if they cannot locate even one of the 15 missing Blumenthal, that in of itself doesn't prove that she didn't hand them over, but does set the state for a another potential criminal trial where it is again up to her to prove that she did in fact turn over everything.

In a 'she said' vs 'they said'... based on what else is known... who is more credible?

Alas the current AG is demonstrating herself to be nearly as corrupt as the previous... so such charges are not likely to come... something you will no doubt see as further proof of a lack of proof of criminal wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 1) 434

You keep proving my point.

Repeating the same falsehood over and over again doesn't actually make it true you know.

The State Department cannot locate them. That does not mean Ms. Clinton did not turn them over.

Remember the old days when we mailed a check to a bank to pay the monthly mortgage or credit card statement? Ever have one 'get lost in the mail' or somehow not get it into their hands before the due date through no fault of your own? Do you recall what happens? Usually late charges as it was your responsibility (not theirs) to make sure that your payment arrived on time. Same actually can be seen in the terms & conditions of many online banks & payment systems today.

What does this have to do with Hillary? It was HER responsibility to turn over all documents, not that of the State Department to make sure they gather it all. It's why usually when on the way out of federal service you sign an OF-109, certifying under penalty of perjury that amongst other things:

1. I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession, and I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof, including any diaries, memorandums of conversation, or other documents of a personal nature that contain classified or administratively controlled information.

2. I have surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department or USIA.

Such terms would seem to apply to even the SoS right? Oddly enough, (despite it being the norm).

Even without signing the document, the requirements to turn over all official documents still exists, the paperwork is just a reminder with a legal threat attach to drive the point home.

Coupled with the fact that certain documents which are known to have been created and/or received during her time in office which do not appear to be part of what she handed over to State upon her departure, we have really only 4 options:

1. She did not turn over the missing document
2. Somehow the documents became permanently lost during delivery
3. Somehow the documents became permanently lost after delivery
4. Somehow the documents became temporarily lost after delivery and will turn up eventually... say in a different box.

You seem to be pushing for #4 as a possible reason as to why the documents are not currently discoverable, yet as time goes on we will know if that is true or not (once the rest of the emails have been examined)... while certainly possible, given other false statements (only used one device, never sent/received classified information, etc), we have a pattern of dishonesty emerge that while it doesn't prove #1, does start to make it a more likely scenario, doubly so when this isn't the first time documents she was required to turn over mysteriously disappeared (though in the 90's case, reappeared)..

There is a reason federal employees use federal email systems and not personal ones, that way the burden on the employee to archive all documentation is far far less. By opting for her own system she made compliance that much harder, and legally any failure to comply is on her... hence the investigations.

Clearly you have a belief of what happened and are trying to make reality fit that belief. Good luck with that.

Hello projection, you are awful thick this evening!

You will notice a difference between our two line of arguments... we both believe what we are saying, however one of us has repeatedly provided supporting material as well as referenced specific information... the other has only made textual arguments based on nothing but their own words.

If you wish to continue to discuss this, I highly suggest you brush up on the additional information I have provided and find a flaw with it, rather than keep with your current line of *fingers in ears* "blah blah blah, I can't hear you but you are still proving my point".

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 1) 434

This is hilarious, it was quite obvious that you only read the first paragraph article you cited... and now you didn't even read the first paragraph of what I last cited, allow me to demonstrate. You claim:

State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department.

Except that's not what the State Department has said, to quote the last article I cited (and the first paragraph no less):

The State Department said Thursday that it could not locate “all or part” of 15 e-mails provided last week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi by Sidney Blumenthal from his exchanges with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still not convinced? Why not consult a whole number of articles from various sources which report the same thing?

http://news.yahoo.com/state-de...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/15...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/26...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sta...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...

Noticing a trend yet?

Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.

So you are calling the professionals at the State Department and national archives incompetent because they cannot adequately locate these documents they may or may not have? Riiight. Occam's Razor would seem to apply.

You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential.

On the contrary, I understand it quite well (as unlike you I've spent some time reading on this subject. Failing to set the 'classified' flag on an email doesn't change whether it is actually classified or not, it simply flags it for filtering & handling... not unlike putting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED" in a subject line of an email. It's the content that matters, not the subject of flags.

It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.

Again... that's not what the IGs (two of them) have said. Though even your use of the term 'proof' is laughable. The intelligence agencies do not deal in proof the way the rest of us do, but in terms of probability. And the IGs have determined it is very probable that classified information that Hillary had access to is not in the control of the government due to her. That's the first step to opening a criminal investigation which will hopefully lead to a trial and proof that even you would accept.

Say hi to President Sanders for me.

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 1) 434

Even if the Blumenthal emails meet the subpoena requirements, we don't know if the State Department has them or not.

You are forgetting that it wasn't the State Department that turned over the Blumenthal emails... it was Blumenthal.

How do we know this? The State Department said so!

So much for turning over all documents...

I think you only read the opening paragraph, which like any story about someone accused of a crime involves them pleading their innocence... however the article gets far worse the more it goes on for Hillary:

In a joint statement, the two inspectors general who made the referral said that it was "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes." But, they added, they found that a sample of 40 of Clinton's emails from Clinton's server contained four with classified information that should "never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."

Clinton said in March that "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."

Mishandling of classified information is a rather serious crime... just act David Petraeus.

Comment Re:Was it before or after the State Department.... (Score 2) 434

Um:

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

DID YOU READ?
RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED!
means she committed no crime at all.

Actually no... it means that some emails were retroactively classified, others have been determined to have been classified at the time of sending:

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Do try to keep up.

Another desperate attempt to stop the inevitable.

Yes, all hail President Sanders!

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 2) 434

She claims that she deleted only e-mails of a personal nature and handed over all of the "requested" emails. It's your word against hers.

Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't. Oops!

The information in question was classified at a later date. It was not classified at the time it was transmitted.

Your information is out of date, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 1) 434

Oops is "oh no, my coffee spilled on the documents and ruined them... see? I kept them around just so I could show the extent" and by some miracle, that was the only copy.

Oops is not "oh no, my finger pressed the delete key for a few minutes... and no you cannot look at my server"

The best way for the Justice Department to stay off her back is for them to do what they've been doing for a while, ignore cases or investigations they find politically inconvenient.

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 2) 434

Your information is out of date: http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 1) 434

And in a just world she will be convicted under USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Comment Re:Felons (Score 3, Informative) 434

Correct, but there are other prohibitions against holding such an office depending on the crime. Most people have forgotten about USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

In theory, Hillary has already committed an act which if convicted for would disqualify her for any future public office... now actually prosecuting her for that is a separate and rather unlikely matter.

Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...

Working...