Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:pulp and rubbish (Score 1) 428 428

Just sending of classified emails is not the issue. I deal with information that would be classified as confidential and secret all day. I know you can email some classified data around (when the proper encryption methods are used). Of course I only use secure servers and only send to authorized receivers on other trusted servers. The problem is with retention.

Having an unauthorized server retain ANY classified information is a violation of several statues and governmental rules.

Which would be a much more compelling argument if a) the authority doing the authorizing wasn't the Secretary of the relevant department, meaning that any server Hillary Clinton used was by definition authorized, and b) anyone thought to nail Colin Powell for the same damn thing.

And this wasn't just data Hillary classified, the information in question was considered classified by the various intelligence agencies. Some of it included minute by minute details as to the whereabouts of Ambassador Stevens and his team.

Whose classifying the whereabouts of a State Department Ambassador if it isn't the State Department?

Comment Re:pulp and rubbish (Score 1) 428 428

It's irrelevant whether they were emails about the State department. "I'm at work, I'll take a break at 3 PM, call me then" is both about the State Department and not an email the government actually has the capital-P power to force you to archive.

To actually win the point you'd have to show the email a) fit the legal definition of "work document," and wasn't some perfectly legal off-the-books gossip, and b) the definition of work document was Constitutional.

Given that Hillary's actually a lawyer, whose very good at coming right up to the line of legality and not crossing it (or she'd be in jail already), you're just not making a credible argument here. You're a random guy on the internet, arguing that one-half of a power couple known for being the Lebron James of technically not breaking the rules (as is proven by a) their continued presence in numerous media scandals, without b) getting in any actual legal trouble) actually rules broke the rules, and the only rule you can actually name (the Federal Records Act) is one she complied with.

Comment Re:BBC / other state broadcasters? (Score 4, Interesting) 132 132

Ever heard the phrase "Divided by a common language?"

In British English a member of "the government" is not a Bureaucrat with a public service-style salary, it's the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Where they use "government" we'd use "Administration" (as in: the Obama Administration).

So you basically just said that the Right Honorable David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; actually has control over what the BBC does. He does not. No Prime Minister ever has. And in several recent memorable cases (in particular the run-up to the Iraq War) the Beeb took a stronger line against the Prime Minister (and this in British English, agains the government) stance then our non-governmental independent media did.

Even assuming that you actually meant 'government' in the American sense of a public bureaucracy, it's not really in business. The BBC is pretty much the only broadcaster, and is the only English-language broadcaster, that has 54 African correspondents for 54 African countries. If something interesting happens in Zambia the non-business BBC will immediately have a reasonably intelligent (tho not necessarily pretty) person posting to their website, appearing on their broadcasts, etc. Which is low ratings, and high cost, thus bad business; but tends to produce excellent journalism.

OTOH, Fox and CNN tend to have a stable of a dozen or so photogenic blondes who get air-dropped to trouble-spots, who compare everything to Iraq or Afghanistan because their entire career consists of spending time with our boys in those countries. It's low-cost, and high-ratings; thus good business. Then they juice the ratings more by adding heavy doses of partisanship. The business side gets even better if they can force some extremely dramatic turn of events that will keep people glued to their screens due to the constant potential for mass death.

Currently their business plan to do juice ratings is relatively harmless but incredibly fucking annoying ("Go go Donald Trump!"), but in the run-up to that Iraq War...

Comment Re:BBC / other state broadcasters? (Score 1) 132 132

Two problems:

1) There are real IT costs associated with streaming to a half-billion people instead of 60-65 million.

2) A chunk of the Beeb's budget is selling shows like Dr. Who to European networks. If everyone in Germany can watch Dr. Who on the internet, then Vox's license isn't worth much, and the BBC loses money.

Which is probably why they specifically exempt the BBC. Other English-language networks will have the same problem, but can probably solve it by some contract renegotiations (ie: NCRV gets to set up the Dutch servers that stream Downtown Abbey, sell ads on the show, and send a cut to ITV, all without you the end-user figuring it out).

Comment Re:BBC / other state broadcasters? (Score 1) 132 132

That could get tricky.

See the way ITV currently gets money from Dutch people watching Downtown Abbey is a licensing deal with a Dutch company (NCRV last time I checked), and if the Dutch can simply watch online then a) ITV's British ad rates don't go up, while b) NCRV's Dutch rates go down. Which means they could easily increase their viewership in the Netherlands and lose money anyway.

They'll probably figure out something soon enough if they have to. Perhaps NCRV and equivalents gets cut out (but then the actors doing the voiceovers in countries like Italy get screwed, and ITV jacks up rates to cover the expanded market. Or maybe the NCRV-types get to be ad salesmen so that ITV shows shown in the Netherlands can have Dutch ads, etc.

But you do have to change the business model or the new rule won't work.

Comment Re: Blocked (Score 1) 132 132

I suspect the logical response to this would be to make copyright rules a responsibility of the EU Parliament, so that future works can't be licensed in different EU Jurisdictions under different rules; with some convoluted bureaucratic procedure to make sure national-level copyright holders works licensed under the old rules still get paid.

But the EU stopped doing logical things about the time it adopted the Euro.

So they'll probably make an unenforceable ruling, and then act really surprised when they can'tenforce it; and even more surprised when national-level governments refuse to give u0p the powers that would allow the EU to enforce their ruling.

Comment Re:pulp and rubbish (Score 1) 428 428

I doubt Powell pulled that not talking about Classified shit off. It's far from unusual for some bureaucrat to classify something that's public knowledge solely because he knows his boss is more likely to read Classified docs. So pretty much the only way for Powell to do discuss classified shit on his server would be not use the private server in the first place.

It's not illegal for the Secretary of State to send you info her department has classified. Legally speaking that is her over-ruling her underlings decision to classify the data. It's also not illegal to send Classified: Secret info to people who have secret clearance, even if their clearance is related to their work on something completely different then what you're discussing.

Comment Re:pulp and rubbish (Score 1) 428 428

There's plenty of question about "willful and unlawful." Even assuming you are right about unlawful, and the entire fucking Bush administration should be arrested for that thing*, she's turned over what she says are all work emails. That's the opposite of concealing or destroying, even if it is belated.

In theory the deletion of the rest could be a problem, but only if you think she deleted work emails. The "willful" word is significant here because she had to know that the email she deleted was a work email. If she's got a coherent line of thought defending most of her choices, and the others can be chalked up to "oops" it's not willful. Without copies of the emails, and that's impossible to prove in Court, because Judges/Juries/etc. are actually legally required to assume she's innocent until the Prosecution has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And you're still wrong that the Act could have any effect on her Presidential campaign. The scandal could affect it, but if Hillary could survive being married to Bill politically this ain't gonna be no thang.

*The major reason she will never be charged is that doing so without also charging literally the entire Bush administration would be political suicide, thus a Romney or Jeb Bush administration would be less likely to charge her then Obama because they're not gonna sacrifice an ex-GOP President, and most of his staff, to get one Democrat.

Comment Re: Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified i (Score 1) 428 428

What is your point about Amb. Gration? That he had at least five other bone-headed practices, so violating the Federal Records Act is not really an offense worth caring about? Even if true, does this help an official who presented Russia with an "overcharge" button for diplomacy, who wanted to obscure the events leading up to Benghazi because she pretended to not see what difference it would make to understand the truth, and who flagrantly violated State Department policy while her immediate underling was persecuting an ambassador for violating that same policy?

Your point is that it must have been against the rules because Gration got fired for doing it. But he was not fired for setting up a private email server, he was fired for a whole host of offenses that included installing his own special non-departmewnt-approved internet connection and using the email address from the ISP for his official duties. If you actually paid attention to the firing at the time you'd know their major problem with that was not that it was not a address, but that it's really bad optics when your Ambassador insists on installing an internet connection in his bathroom. State exists to be good optics.

As for the rest, you're really stretching. The Russians didn't seem to mind that button was spelled wrong (altho they did take glee in pointing it out), and the "Reset" worked fine until the Maiden protesters forced things. She's taken responsibility for Benghazi, which is pretty much all you would ever expect apolitical appointee to do.

Perhaps Colin Powell also violated the Federal Records Act.

If Hillary did Powell did. So did President Bush and Rove. She will never be attacked for it any place that matters because the people who can do that would also have to nail their own party.

State Department policy did not officially require use of government email servers (except in emergency situations) until the year he left the office.

State department policy did not require the Secretary to use a address until Kerry took office.

If he wants to run for president, there should certainly be a public debate over what he did or didn't do with regards to that. However, his primary defense -- that most of his emails were sent to government addresses -- is also Hillary Clinton's primary defense.

I did not directly address your facile arguments about what a foreign government would want from a Cabinet secretary's email because I thought the holes were so obvious: Hacking her server would give far more information than they could capture from a single conversation in her house, it is easier to do deniably, and at any rate the undeniable breach of federal law is in failing to put federal records in proper custody for preservation and oversight. For high-level officials, mishandling classified and SBU information is a real risk (and what the IGs here want to be investigated), but is not such a clear violation.

Below the Secretary of State level that's the only concern, because they don't know anything that hasn't been put in paperwork.

At the Secretary's level that's not as big a concern as the shit that isn't in the paperwork.

The things China cares most about are things that would not be put in an email to anyone. Very few Presidents are gonna put on official paper that a mission to stabilize some conflict involving China is a bluff. Very few would put on paper that they'd nuke Shanghai if the Chinese back down. A Secretary of State's impression that Obama is very very concerned about the South China Sea, and would actually increase his paper-commitment to it before backing down, or that he's only there because of everyone else and would back down rather then lose people (even if that's not what the paperwork says) is several thousand times more valuable then all the paperwork in the Federal government put together.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 428 428

Dude, if this was so suspicious why weren't you up in arms when Colin Powell did it? Why didn't the media freak out when the actual President did it? Bush used his private email server to fire prosecutors for going after his political allies. Which we know because he fired all seven who broke Reagan's 11th Commandment (don't attack fellow Republicans), and nobody else, and all seven said their emails came from that server.

As for what we know on this case, what we know is precisely what I said. She had a private email server where people sent her shit. Some of that's classified, but she's Secretary of State so that was not illegal, or against any rule, in place at the time.

She turned a bunch back over when somebody decided that the Federal Records Act clearly applied to Secretary Clinton's email (but apparently not Secretary Powell's email, which was automatically deleted by the server after 30 days and is unrecoverable). Then the State Department decided what to release to the public. We know that's true because the IG report criticizing what was released said so.

There just isn't anything you can fir into that story that is a) illegal, and b) does not involve her sending the classified info to someone who should not have it.

Comment Re: Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified i (Score 1) 428 428

Apparently you've never read the report on Amb. Gration. This is why he was forced out:

Key Judgments
  The Ambassador has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission. Of more than 80 chiefs of mission inspected in recent cycles, the Ambassador ranked last for interpersonal relations, next to last on both managerial skill and attention to morale, and third from last in his overall scores from surveys of mission members. The inspectors found no reason to question these assessments; the Ambassador’s leadership to date has been divisive and ineffective.
  The Ambassador has damaged the cohesion of Embassy Nairobi’s country team by underscoring differences between offices working directly with Kenya and those with regional responsibilities. Country team members, particularly those from other agencies, relied on the recently departed deputy chief of mission to maintain a sense of common purpose at Embassy Nairobi. Unless corrected there is a risk that the country team will become dysfunctional. The Ambassador needs to broaden his understanding of why various agencies are part of his mission, cease avoiding contact with them, and work with the assistance of a senior Department of State (Department) official and the next deputy chief of mission to restore country team harmony.
  The Ambassador’s efforts to develop and focus the mission’s work around what he calls “mission essential tasks” have consumed considerable staff time and produced documents of unclear status and almost no value to the Department in approving priorities and assigning resources. His efforts have also created confusion about the relevance of the embassy’s annual Mission Resource Request (MRR). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) team agreed with embassy staff that the mission essential task process added no real value to the management of the embassy.
  The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information. Notwithstanding his talk about the importance of mission staff doing the right thing, the Ambassador by deed or word has encouraged it to do the opposite.
  The Ambassador does not read classified front channel messages and has not established a system to have his staff screen incoming cables relevant to Kenya and U.S. interests in the region.
  The Ambassador’s initiative to redirect programming for nearly $550 million in U.S. health assistance, while well intentioned, has proven disruptive and created confusion about its relationship to existing programs. He announced to the Kenyans the establishment of a new unfunded program, called Let’s Live, with the unrealistic aim of reducing by 50 percent in 1 year Kenya’s premature mortality rates for infants, mothers, and noncommunicable diseases.

You'll note six bullet points, of which one mentions email. I've bolded it because you're clearly too lazy to find it yourself. It also specifies "commercial email," which means something like gmail or an ISP-provided email address, rather then a private email server. You'll also note that he was not Secretary of State so literally none of the argument you were responding to applies to him.

As for the Statute, if the interesting bit of legal jargon known as "records" applied to email sent by the Secretary of State why are 0 of Colin Powell's emails in the possession of the State Department? And, if it's so important to you, is it so important to drag Hillary over the coals for "breaking" the rules by not turning over half her emails for a few a few years, when it is literally physically impossible for anyone to get their hands on 100% of Colin Powell's emails because he deleted them all?

Comment Re: What bothers me (Score 1) 428 428

I'm assuming you mean USC 44, 3101-3107

Which does not seem to apply to almost any email I have ever read. If it did Colin Powell would be fucked because he deleted all his emails from his private email server. It certainly doesn't apply to emails that have already been turned over to the archivist.

And even if you've got some miraculous line of reasoning that makes every single time your office discusses whether to order pizza for everyone "documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency," in a legal context "crime," "guilty,", and "conviction" implies criminal law. There's no criminal penalty for disobeying the Federal Records Act.

Moreover prima facie evidence is a very strong standard. It means there's no possible defense. Hillary has a defense: I turned them over already.

Comment Re:Nobody noticed her return address all those yea (Score 1) 428 428

She was Secretary of State for 4 years, and before that a Senator for 8 years, and in all that time NOBODY noticed that emails came from (and went to) a non-government address? And nobody said anything about it? Even assuming that most of the elected officials have less of a clue than the average citizen ("It's a series of tubes!"), they know about handling classified material, because they get lectured about it every year. And nobody seemed to think there was a problem all that time.

Why would they?

Powell had a address. Condi Rice apparently almost never emailed (but did use a .gov when she did). Several other members of the Bush administration used a address.

So I suspect that the only people who emailed her personally were close allies, or people who'd dealt with Powell; and they just figured that it must be nice being at that level.

Comment Re:pulp and rubbish (Score 1) 428 428

That last little line kinda kills your credibility as a source on anything legal.

Since the great Term limits debate of the mid-90s it's been established that nothing, except a Federal Constitutional Amendment, can make it illegal for someone who is qualified for office under the Constitution to take office. That means it does not matter whether you can prove that it was il;legal for her to have her server, and classified info on her server, that rule is not in the Federal Constitution so it cannot bar her from the White House.

"There is such a fine line between genius and stupidity." - David St. Hubbins, "Spinal Tap"