Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:10 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
sardia wrote:Why is the "but I'm a senator"excuse not somewhat valid? There's no transcript like we have with Flynn, so sessions can lie all he wants without anybody to contradict him.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, could you explain? The guy said, under oath "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it." There is proof that he did have communications with Russians. What does it matter if he's a senator or not? That really sounds like lying under oath to me, and I'm not sure what can change that fact.

I thought the thing that brought down Flynn was a transcript showing that Flynn had promised to end sanctions while Obama was hitting the Russians. Without a transcript, I think the GOP was just going to give sessions the benefit of the doubt.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:13 pm UTC

Flynn didn't require confirmation. Sessions took an oath, and lied while he was under that oath. There's proof of that lie. What he talked about with the Russians is irrelevant, it could have been his favorite chocolate-chip cookie recipe. He said he didn't speak with them, and he did. I'm not sure how to make this clearer?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Chen
Posts: 5426
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:42 pm UTC

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-about-m/

See here why the context of the question matters. Taken absolutely sure it's a lie. He did have communication with Russians. I mean hell, theoretically if he had ever spoken to a Russian person in his life that would have been a lie. He's claiming he did meet Russians during the timeframe of the campaign but it was related to his job as a senator as a member of the Armed force committee not in relation to being a Trump delegate. Thus the claim that his answer was not intentionally meant to hide something. Similarly he explicitly answered that he had no communication with Russian government officials regarding the election at all. I mean that could all be a bunch of lies too of course.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:53 pm UTC

Contrary to your assumption I did read the entire quote, within context, before writing my previous post. The question was "What will you do if there's anyone affiliated with the campaign that communicated with the Russians?" He chose to not answer the question, but that's beside the point. He then goes on to say he didn't meet them. He didn't say "I didn't talk with Russia as part of the campaign". He just said "I didn't speak with them", and the context, in my mind, doesn't help in this case.

As for your "if he ever spoke to a Russian that would be a lie", I disagree. The question talked about "someone affiliated with the Trump campaign". He was not affiliated with it before the campaign even started, and so any interaction he had with Russia before this isn't covered under this question. Also, I think it's pretty clear when saying "the Russians" that we don't mean Sergei from the grocery store around the corner.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:10 pm UTC

I had an unfriendly Russian can driver once. "I prefer home country, but is good for kids here."

Fellow members of the armed services committee have disputed that he would talk to ambassadors as part of that position.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3683
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:55 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Contrary to your assumption I did read the entire quote, within context, before writing my previous post. The question was "What will you do if there's anyone affiliated with the campaign that communicated with the Russians?" He chose to not answer the question, but that's beside the point. He then goes on to say he didn't meet them. He didn't say "I didn't talk with Russia as part of the campaign". He just said "I didn't speak with them", and the context, in my mind, doesn't help in this case.


Sessions wrote:I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."
It only takes a slightly charitable reading to see that in the context of a campaign.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:57 pm UTC

Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigations on advice from staff within the department. He categorically denies having lied to the Senate Committee, but does allow that it would be inappropriate for him to participate in the investigation given that he was involved in the campaign.

elasto
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:52 am UTC

Vice-president A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe used a personal email account to discuss security issues as governor of Indiana and was hacked last summer, it was reported on Thursday.

Pence’s AOL account was compromised by a scammer who sent an email to his contacts claiming Pence and his wife had been attacked on their way back to their hotel in the Philippines, losing their money, bank cards and mobile phone, the Indianapolis Star reported.

“In response, Pence sent an email to those who had received the fake communication apologising for any inconvenience,” the paper said. “He also set up a new AOL account. Because the hacker appears to have gained access to Pence’s contacts, experts say it is likely that the account was actually penetrated, giving the hacker access to Pence’s inbox and sent messages.”

The revelation comes after a bruising election campaign in which Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state was a recurring theme. Commenting on an FBI investigation last September, Pence told NBC’s Meet the Press that the Democrat was “the most dishonest candidate for President of the United States since Richard Nixon”.


Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.

link

speising
Posts: 2215
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Trump presidency

Postby speising » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:27 am UTC

elasto wrote:AOL account

Chen
Posts: 5426
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:07 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.


Only in that we don't have a detailed explanation of what was going on yet. If there were no classified emails on that account and if he adequately kept all the emails as required by Indiana state law, it would be different.

But really I'm with speising; AOL? Come on now, that in and of itself should be punishable.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:44 pm UTC

LMAO account
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

idonno
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:21 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.

One major difference is that using a private email address for convenience is much more believable than maintaining a private email server is. I'm not saying that there wasn't a legitimate convenience issue for Hillary but Pence's actions don't really raise suspicions (justified or unjustified) of anterior motives. Also, the Governor of Indiana has substantially less security responsibility than the Secretary of State.

I think the use of AOL is the real horror here. Especially since the article says he set up a new account on AOL after the hack so the "I've had this account for 20 years" excuse doesn't even hold up.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:22 pm UTC

It's got the word "American" right on the tin. He probably thought he was being patriotic.

From a security standpoint, isn't it actually worse to use email hosted on someone else's server? At least with your own server you're ultimately in control of the data.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

Trebla
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Trebla » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:39 pm UTC

SDK wrote:From a security standpoint, isn't it actually worse to use email hosted on someone else's server? At least with your own server you're ultimately in control of the data.


You're leveraging a much larger security system that's much more likely to be patched for any vulnerabilities. It's quite likely that any "mom and pop" server is going to lag behind major hosting solutions in terms of security patches. That said, AOL is probably one of the worst major options for security.

It does have the issue of being stored completely beyond his control though. One could argue that's potentially better for transparency reasons.

------------

Since "But he didn't use it for classified" was brought up earlier (different topic)... noted this from the article as well:

Not all the emails have been released, however, because some were deemed to be confidential or too sensitive, raising questions over what might (sic) content might have been accessed by hackers.


Basically, there was stuff of a "too sensitive to release" nature in there, it's not clear what classification level it was, if it was sent BY him or TO him, etc etc etc. I wonder if the people chanting to lock Clinton up will now apply the same logic to Pence?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:59 pm UTC

Trebla is right. You'll definitely have more control over data on your private server, but not necessarily great security. I would trust Google more than a private person or small company/organization in this regard, for a couple of reasons.
First, they're a much larger company, with very robust security teams.
Second, there's strength in numbers. If 500 million people send e-mails using your system, you're much more likely to find security issues, and they're much more likely to happen to someone other than me. If I'm the only one using this server and something's wrong with it, I'll only find out once it impacts me personally.
Third, Google is probably a lot more worried about class action suits and legal battles from its users (again, because they have so many of them).

Of course, companies like Google still look at people's data (even if automatically and without personal contact), they're probably a much bigger target than a possibly unknown entity like my company, and people in government are probably used to stricter security procedures than what Google expects its users to use. For instance, I'm sure the vast majority of Google users don't employ two-factor authentication, but that's something the FBI (or whoever is supposed to do the IT security) could easily require Clinton/Pence to do when they log in.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:39 pm UTC

AIUI, Hillary's server was managed by a 'decent' company (though not so decent as to honour an original request to remove old junk until after there may have been a legal representation against that action... a sloppily deferred process that didn't help) which ought to have been considered competent enough at security, it wasn't just an old 386SX running MHS sitting under the coffee table in the guest reception, next to the only free power socket with a BNC/Coax socket-pair nearby to attach to the network...

Whether it was sufficient for Hillary-grade use, it should have been sufficiently protected for most purposes. And in fact the vulnerabilities of the data seemed to have been socially-engineered through the grabbing of external copies of any mails that leaked (the email accounts of other people who were involved in conversations and then later fell for spearphishing attacks) or by the FBI via a (not yet explained?) local archive of such material upon a machine related to a provenly dodgy individual.

AOL or Google mailboxes aren't any more secure than that system, save perhaps that a Watergate/Mission Impossible/Rogue One-style break in to the smaller hosting company was probably a little bit easier than trying to target any Google Cloud Farm for removing specific data via a handy USB port or removable drive-caddy...


If there was a problem, it was the dichotomy between the modern easy-come-easy-delete1 data cloud and the traditional and mandated retention of (nearly) all paper documents and intermediate media types to form the core of future-historians' investigations into the mindset of the eventually-historic figures of today. At least once security considerations and a suitable number of decades allow access to any particular subset of the repository. Modern tech is just outpacing traditional expectations and laws. (Would a glimpse of Hillary on Snapchat, saying something to a supporter in a post-rally scrum, be technically breaking those rules?)

Balancing against the illegal hacking crimes that went on is difficult, but I'd need to know more about Pence's reliance upon a (provenly!) leaky datastore before comparing his failure of expectations against Clinton's. He didn't have State Department stuff passing through, probably, but he may not have kept it strictly personal (or at least non-political, in all its higher forms of administrative dataflow).


1 Or effectively deleted, despite backups and backups of backups still existing, however awkward to retrieve from.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:45 pm UTC

Oh, it's definitely possible for a small company to have high security standards, and there are very specific rules and regulations for that. I work in healthcare and there are strict definitions of what's safe enough to store personal health information, I'm sure the same is true for high-security info.

Personally, I would generally trust a high-security department at google more than a small security provider, though.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

mcd001
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:51 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.

It's exactly the same, as long as the State of Indiana maintains a separate system for classified government documents and correspondence; has policies and rules in place enforcing the use of that system for all such classified government information; and has laws on the books controlling the storage and release of such information, with a clause similar to paragraph (f) of U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793:

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

If the State of Indiana DOESN'T have such a system, or such a policy, or such a law, then... well, it's not the same.

Chen
Posts: 5426
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:04 pm UTC

Does that quoted rule only apply to Federal government employees? One would imagine the rules governing classified information would be federal laws and thus apply to everyone.

That said, if he had no classified information stored there, that rule would clearly not apply.

cphite
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:52 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.


Well, the main difference is that it's legal in Indiana for a state employee to use a private email account for public business.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5900
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:03 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
elasto wrote:Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.


Well, the main difference is that it's legal in Indiana for a state employee to use a private email account for public business.


How is that a difference?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

cphite
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:57 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
cphite wrote:
elasto wrote:Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.


Well, the main difference is that it's legal in Indiana for a state employee to use a private email account for public business.


How is that a difference?


One was a federal department head handling classified information, and the other was a state governor handling not-classified information.

elasto
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:36 pm UTC

cphite wrote:One was a federal department head handling classified information, and the other was a state governor handling not-classified information.

Huh? Though some emails were retroactively earmarked as containing sensitive information, they were not officially marked as Classified at the time Clinton handled them, which is why the FBI investigation ultimately cleared her.

Pence's email likewise contained sensitive information related to his work.

It's a close enough parallel that to claim otherwise is simply splitting hairs - though I'm sure the Republican party will try their best to do so.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:54 pm UTC

And, you can't argue that republicans wouldn't have made as big a deal about things if Clinton had done what Pence did.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5900
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:48 am UTC

cphite wrote:
Thesh wrote:
cphite wrote:
elasto wrote:Ho hum. I'm sure that 'but that's different!' for some reason though.


Well, the main difference is that it's legal in Indiana for a state employee to use a private email account for public business.


How is that a difference?


One was a federal department head handling classified information, and the other was a state governor handling not-classified information.

But it's not illegal to use personal email for federal business any more than it is for state business.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

mcd001
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:56 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Though some emails were retroactively earmarked as containing sensitive information, they were not officially marked as Classified at the time Clinton handled them

Not true: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/
FBI investigators reviewed the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014. The investigation found
a very small number" contained classification markings at the time they were sent

and:
In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status

Clinton's defense that the information was not marked is bogus. Information is not classified because it is marked, it is classified for what it contains. As Secretary of State, she knew that information was sensitive and deliberately chose to mishandle it.

The sad truth is if we had done the same thing Clinton did, you or I would have been found guilty of violations of that paragraph from section 789 of Title 18 that I quoted earlier. The rules are different for us little people.

idonno
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:01 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
cphite wrote:One was a federal department head handling classified information, and the other was a state governor handling not-classified information.

Huh? Though some emails were retroactively earmarked as containing sensitive information, they were not officially marked as Classified at the time Clinton handled them, which is why the FBI investigation ultimately cleared her.

Pence's email likewise contained sensitive information related to his work.

It's a close enough parallel that to claim otherwise is simply splitting hairs - though I'm sure the Republican party will try their best to do so.

"Sensitive information" a Governor has too is very different from classified information. It is likely that most of it was political stuff that it would have been completely legal for him to disclose to anyone or confidential information that he may be liable for damages if he disclosed it to anyone. On the other hand classified information has protection that go beyond the realm of civil offence and into the realm of criminal offence.

I heard three primary accusations against Hillary. One, she was maintained a private email server to control the data so she could hide the fact that she was engaged in nefarious deals like trading favors for donations to the Clinton Foundation. This does not apply to Pence's situation because he didn't maintain control of the data AOL did and that means an investigation would be court order away from having access to his emails without him even knowing about it. Two, that she mishandled classified information. This doesn't apply to Pence because he did not have classified information to mishandle. Three, that she violated FOI rules. Every article I've read says that Pence was following Indiana FOI rules.

You can argue against those three issues but what Pence did only matches what Hillary did if you argue that Hillary didn't do any of the things the republicans said she did. This brings everything back to a "Republicans were being dishonest about Hillary" argument and the Pence emails that clearly aren't guilty of any of these violations don't add any weight to that argument.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:14 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Clinton's defense that the information was not marked is bogus. Information is not classified because it is marked, it is classified for what it contains.
Information is marked classified for what it contains.

How do I determine if the contents of an unmarked email qualify as 'classified' before I've even read it? You're proposing that officials in a position to receive classified emails must read all emails as if they were classified. Why? Unless you're in a context where the majority of your correspondence is classified, why not just flag classified material appropriately before sending it?

(This isn't meant as a defense for Hillary; it seems possible that she mishandled material flagged as sensitive. I'm just refuting your point about how 'classified emails' work.)

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Lazar » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:24 pm UTC

Trump tweetleges that Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump Tower, possibly incited by a Breitbart piece that ran yesterday ("Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s 'Silent Coup' vs. Trump"). Obama is a "bad (or sick) guy!", so you know it must be true.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10636
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:48 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
mcd001 wrote:Clinton's defense that the information was not marked is bogus. Information is not classified because it is marked, it is classified for what it contains.
Information is marked classified for what it contains.

How do I determine if the contents of an unmarked email qualify as 'classified' before I've even read it? You're proposing that officials in a position to receive classified emails must read all emails as if they were classified. Why? Unless you're in a context where the majority of your correspondence is classified, why not just flag classified material appropriately before sending it?

(This isn't meant as a defense for Hillary; it seems possible that she mishandled material flagged as sensitive. I'm just refuting your point about how 'classified emails' work.)


You don't. You read it, realize "oh crap, someone fucked up" and report it. Yeah, if people are not properly tagging data, responsibility for that does largely land on the sender, but it is on the recipient to report in a timely fashion. If neither are doing that, you have essentially no security.

I think if one wished to incriminate Hillary, however, relying on the few that WERE marked seems like a sounder argument. That's much harder for someone to claim they didn't notice/realize, when you've got explicit banners and markings.

And, sure, it's relevant that a *lot* of government people really don't get security. Sure, sure, AOL isn't exactly the same thing, but no security consultant would suggest that an AOL account is the right path to improve your security posture, yknow? Might not be criminal, but it's still not the best idea.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby JudeMorrigan » Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:40 pm UTC

I realize I'm tilting at windmills, but I'll try again:

- Clinton's use of a private email server was terrible opsec, it wasn't illegal.
- Had the spillage that occurred done so on state.gov accounts, it would have broken exactly the same rules and been just as bad.
- Please don't misunderstand me, spillage is a serious security violation. But absent a reason to believe that there was malicious intent, inadvertent spillage is always handled administratively. I mean, seriously. Comey wasn't making things up when he laid out the reasons why the FBI didn't bring charges against her. Had he done so, *that* would have been a case of the rules being different for us little people.
- Similarly, while I'm not terribly familiar with the laws of Indiana, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that this Pence story is just embarrassing for him - nothing more.

elasto
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:11 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Similarly, while I'm not terribly familiar with the laws of Indiana, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that this Pence story is just embarrassing for him - nothing more.

Agreed. It's embarrassing but not illegal - in the same way as Trump continuing to use his unsecured personal phone is embarrassing but not illegal.

My point about comparing Pence to Clinton is not to say that there should be calls for Pence to be locked up like there were calls for Clinton to be locked up, it's that it lays the Republican party's political opportunism bare for all to see.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:31 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:Similarly, while I'm not terribly familiar with the laws of Indiana, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that this Pence story is just embarrassing for him - nothing more.

Agreed. It's embarrassing but not illegal - in the same way as Trump continuing to use his unsecured personal phone is embarrassing but not illegal.

My point about comparing Pence to Clinton is not to say that there should be calls for Pence to be locked up like there were calls for Clinton to be locked up, it's that it lays the Republican party's political opportunism bare for all to see.

We knew that without knowing Pence was a hypocrite with his email security. I don't see how this helps any Democrat take back power.

In other news, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/p ... .html?_r=0
Trump has decided that Obama has been tapping his phone. As usual, the hunt began for which alt news source was the reason for Trump's outburst. They eventually settled on a Breitbart article, instead of his usual standby of Fox and Friends.
I know Breitbart is trash, but aren't the folks at Fox and Friends excited/concerned that the President is retweeting their message word for word? I'm surprised they don't talk about how often the President cites them.

mcd001
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:27 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Clinton's use of a private email server was terrible opsec, it wasn't illegal

Well, yeah, it actually was illegal. I refer once again to paragraph (f) of U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:44 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Well, yeah, it actually was illegal. I refer once again to paragraph (f) of U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793.
I presume you mean this part:
Paragraph (f), U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793 wrote:through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed
As it was never demonstrated that any emails containing classified information were actually hacked, Hillary Clinton did not break the law (in this particular case).

Mutex
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:47 pm UTC

As I remember only one person has ever been found in violation of that law, they took a notepad full of secrets out of a facility and handed it right to an enemy agent. Not quite what Clinton did.

mcd001
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:15 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:As it was never demonstrated that any emails containing classified information were actually hacked

But they were "removed from their proper place of custody"

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:17 am UTC

mcd001 wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:As it was never demonstrated that any emails containing classified information were actually hacked

But they were "removed from their proper place of custody"
Forwarding an email to yourself doesn't 'remove' it from its 'proper place of custody'; it's still there in the place you forwarded it from. If I'm breaking the law by forwarding a classified email to myself, I'm also breaking the law by printing a classified email out to read it. On top of that, you're missing a crucial part of that sentence:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust.
This language was clearly written to apply in instances where, through gross negligence, someone permitted the 'wrong' parties to access classified data. If the wrong parties didn't actually get access to that data, then this language does not apply.

'Proper place of custody' isn't 'these specific official government servers'; 'proper place of custody' is the custody of the Secretary of Defense. IE, the person these emails were sent to in the first place. If the Secretary of Defense, upon receiving these emails, took actions that led to those emails falling out of their custody -- and into the wrong hands -- then the law would apply.

Until then, you're trying to arrest somebody for almost accidentally hitting you with their car. Should they be more careful? Absolutely. Should we take this as an opportunity to tighten up traffic laws so we can prohibit, punish, or even criminalize their high-risk behavior? Maybe. But in this instance, did they actually break the law? Nope!

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:23 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Forwarding an email to yourself doesn't 'remove' it from its 'proper place of custody'; it's still there in the place you forwarded it from.
????? You're protecting content of the message not the bytes on the disk. The proper place of custody would be a list of people with security clearances adequate to the level of the content. That's a quibble.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby JudeMorrigan » Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:44 am UTC

Once again, there's exactly zero reason to believe there was ever any intention to send or receive any classified information on the private email server. The spillage is a separate issue which would have been just as much of an issue on a state.gov account. I'm not saying the spillage wasn't technically in violation of a couple of statues. I'm saying those are separate matter from the use of the private email server for her unclassified processing and that in the absence of "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice", people aren't actually prosecuted under them. Big or little.

If you're complaining that that applies to the unclassified emails relating to defense that were sent over that server were in violation of that statue, she wasn't violating the regulations that existed at the time by setting up the email server. As State, she had a quite a bit of leeway in deciding their "proper place of custody" at the time. Paragraph f simply doesn't apply to those.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests