101–110 of 148 posts
He didn't learn much from Hillary's case.... Always claim that you didn't know that there was any classified material and always bring your attorney along, even if it's a voluntary interrogation.
And make sure your attorney gets immunity, and make sure that the FBI promises to destroy your hardware once it's done with it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you'll enjoy: The Myth of the Rule of Law... http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
While it's great to harp on the inconsistency of the body of law, the importance of rule of law is how powerful people equally get prosecuted and sentenced and cases are not determined by who can pay a bigger bribe to the judge. Both happen in the negative in, say, Hungary.
More importantly, these powerful people effectively write the laws themselves - why break a law when you can simply cause whatever action you wish to take to become legal?
Torturing prisoners? Crashing the world's financial system? Spying on millions of Americans without any kind of warrant? Lying about the spying to congress? All no problem! Just make up a law and get it passed, or if you forgot to do that, get retroactive immunity granted or just ask the President to pardon you directly.
The only thing that matters is how much power (influence, force, money etc.) you can bring to bear and who your opponents are. Law is irrelevant. To put it in plainer terms: people who own nuclear weapons don't have to pay their parking tickets.
What constitutes a "secret arrest", as mentioned in this article? Jose Padilla was arrested and initially held without notice to his family or attorney. Is that what this arrest is like? What proportion of the arrests in the US are "secret"? When the families of the prisoners are told, are they sometimes bound by court orders not to disclose the arrests?
It is legally an indefinite detention pending formal charges, but due to the nature of "indefinite," those charges never have to actually exist. It performed under section 1021 of the original National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012), which has been upheld as constitutional by an appellate court, a ruling which the supreme court declined to subsequently hear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point taken. You're correct on all points. Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home, not least because it's clear the discussions were being undertaken as part of her official duties. Taking documents home is a lot more ambiguous as to intent.
> Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home It is identical. He is being accused of moving classified information to unauthorised locations. She moved information to unauthorised locations. She literally had people send classified information to the basement of her home. Plus I'd argue that sending classified information to an insecure server is a far…
* - additional here meaning that I wouldn't claim it to be deliberate to, say, reply to an email containing classified portions and leaving the classified portions in the reply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not being neutral by using the Clinton spin of "labeled as classified". The existence of markings is irrelevant. From the FBI statement: 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret informat…
I find the situation she engendered as ridiculous as everyone else, but the public report, at least as far as I could tell, did not differentiate sending and receiving of information. Ascribing criminal culpability to her is therefore unclear based on the public form of the report, and the lack of charges implies that it's unclear in the classified version of events as well.
Want to see something really scary??? Here's his house: https://www.google.com/maps/place/7+Harvard+Rd,+Glen+Burnie,...
Not sure if you know this, but you can ask Google to blur a Street View address by filling out a form. I'd guess he did this himself versus any sort of conspiracy thing happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has managed to find any documents that passed through Clinton's email server that were labeled as classified, let alone Top Secret. (One or two documents had classified sections, which were labeled with small (c) marks. The document should have had big CLASSIFIED marks, but since it didn't, missing a (c) next to a paragraph is not an arrestable offense)
> Nobody has managed to find any documents labeled as classified, let alone Top Secret. Really? So you can just delete all the classification labels and send the document to a yahoo account. Look no labels, so it is fine? You better ask your friendly Security Officer about that (actually don't you'll be highly suspicious doing that). She had 10 or so TS/SCI satellite images in there. Other people would go to jail for…
Have managed email servers. Can confirm. Would be more likely to arrive at Mordor on foot.
> Imagine an NSA or NRO employee doing that.
Well, one kind of did, but we like him. He's one of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home It is identical. He is being accused of moving classified information to unauthorised locations. She moved information to unauthorised locations. She literally had people send classified information to the basement of her home. Plus I'd argue that sending classified information to an insecure server is a far…
The primary argument would be one of agency - while I agree that it was a terrible thing to have done, if she neither requested nor sent any (additional)* classified information from that system, it lacks the same kind of agency that a person explicitly taking classified data out of a secured location has. * - additional here meaning that I wouldn't claim it to be deliberate to, say, reply to an email containing clas…
I think it's fair to say a bad thing happened (secret documents through insecure channels) because she did a bad thing (setting up an insecure server linked to secure systems). There are multiple failures here and hers, especially considering her leadership[+] position, is one of them. Unfortunately you guys have a choice between two objectively bad candidates.
Good luck.
--
[+] You can't have trickly economics in only one direction.
Here's the criminal complaint. Check Paragraph 12, sounds like he just liked to take work home with him. I'm leaning on the side that this IS NOT ShadowBrokers. https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2016/Mart... EDIT: Yeah, Martin is not even being charged with unauthorized disclosure. Not ShadowBrokers, sorry to burst everyone's bubble.
What's to say $FOREIGN_INFOSEC_ACTORS don't try to target employees like him? Maybe he did "take his work home" and a FSB operative stole it from his home or hacked his home computer? I'm saying this as if this was Russia and he was a Russian infosec guy, I wouldn't put it past the NSA TAO to go do just that.
Here's the criminal complaint. Check Paragraph 12, sounds like he just liked to take work home with him. I'm leaning on the side that this IS NOT ShadowBrokers. https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2016/Mart... EDIT: Yeah, Martin is not even being charged with unauthorized disclosure. Not ShadowBrokers, sorry to burst everyone's bubble.
MANY have said that its possible there was another NSA patsy covering for Snowden or definitely at least another spy. http://observer.com/2016/08/the-real-russian-mole-inside-nsa... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-jul...