Harrow posted:

My friend's take on the lack of indictment:

Honestly not super sure what to think because I'm not read up on the statute itself, but dude's pretty furious. He's not even a Bernout.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

I thought Jeb was initially considered a serious contender having FL a lock and expecting to have the blessing of the GOP machine?

WampaLord posted:

Get the gently caress out of here.

Jeb "Please clap" Bush and Scott "My bald spot is from where I hit my head" Walker were not going to stand a chance against Hillary.

Noam Chomsky posted:

If you can't see how it is in the interests of the global intelligence agencies and various world governments that Assange is accused of an indefensible crime, and that they may have helped the accusations along at best, then you're probably why various intelligence agencies and the global elite get away with so much. Guilty until proven innocent, I guess.

mcmagic posted:

I was calling BS on her numbers with Independents. I know she's net positive with Dems.

Harrow posted:

My friend's take on the lack of indictment:

Honestly not super sure what to think because I'm not read up on the statute itself, but dude's pretty furious. He's not even a Bernout.

ImpAtom posted:

... what?

Bush wouldn't have been the candidate even if Trump wasn't running.


He is in fact wrong. Someone did a really good post in an earlier thread about the entire issue and why this wouldn't be a big issue if Clinton wasn't the one being discussed. I'll see if I can dig it up.

quote:

This is primarily a meta-argument about how the email scandal accusations are framed.

kronix posted:

It's very likely that the state dept had no mechanism for delivering classified email to smartphones and the only option would be unclassified email.

When Colin Powell stepped up in 2004 the state department didn't have email at all. He used a private mail account through dial up on his personal laptop in his office to do all his emailing in part to show other people how awesome email is and make the case for adopting it.

In his autobiography he talks with pride about successfully making the case to get funding that allowed him to purchase 44,000 internet capable computers so that every person at state could have one:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03...il-scandal.html

Colin Powell posted:

What I did when I entered the State Department, I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly.

So we put in place new systems, bought 44,000 computers and put a new Internet capable computer on every single desk in every embassy, every office in the State Department. And then I connected it with software.

But in order to change the culture, to change the brainware, as I call it, I started using it in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st century institution and not a 19th century.


It's a rather important bit of perspective to realize that when Clinton stepped up in 2008 email was still a rather new thing at State ( it takes awhile to get funding and install 44,000 computers ) and that prior to its adoption all the business done on email was done on private accounts out of band. For example, Powell's demo email account only connected with staff who also had private email accounts since the .gov email system didn't exist yet. People who frame this as if the state department IT was run like a James Bond movie are misinformed. Deliberately so since talking up the maturity/security of their IT allows detractors to make Clinton's actions look more significant/subversive.

Another bit of misleading framing is the implication or claim that Clintons' server was set up after she was appointed SoS. In reality the Clinton family server was set up by Bill after he stepped down around 2001ish. Hillary had her blackberry hooked up to it all during the primary. Setting up a secure email server is a significant endeavor for the layman. By claiming it was done after she stepped up you make listeners suspicious and prime them to accept a devious motive. The truth that she just kept on using the setup she'd been using, otoh, flows much more naturally into Hillary's stated reason, convenience. All her poo poo was there and why mess with what works? You can juggle two mail boxes ok but juggling two calendars completely defeats the purpose of a calendar. Again, she used it in place of a non-classified .gov email. When she had to use the secure system she went to the secure building and handed over her wireless devices to security to get in and sit at a special secure terminal like everyone else. She hated it just like everyone else. Lastly, her own emails show her asking IT to hook up her blackberry to a .gov account and them saying they couldn't do it.. ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-...ure-smartphone/ ). This information is also left out or actively lied about by people pushing a nefarious motives narrative since attempt to use the State system while maintaining the functionality of her system undermines their entire premise.

The last major false frame of the email scandal is the idea that criminal prosecution is something that routinely happens when people mess up with secure material. You get a lot of hyperbolic claims about how much trouble a regular Joe would be if they'd done that. Also a poo poo ton of quoting snippets of legal statutes and torturing the definition of the word "deliberately". If security agencies criminally prosecuted people for honest mistakes then people would never self report or cooperate with security audits for fear of jail. It is more important that breaches be promptly and honestly reported than to jail people for mistakes. They will gently caress you up if you deliberately sell data or deliberately post it to wiki leaks sure. But if you are operating in good faith then jail isn't a realistic outcome even if you "deliberately" took some work home with you the night you got mugged and someone stole your backpack. You didn't intend for the data to get away so that's not the right kind of "deliberately" to get anti-espionage statutes thrown at you.

A minor frame used in all three major frames is trying to make this an elitist thing. Asserting that nobody else uses personal emails when it was actually a common practice or that she is avoiding punishment others would face when in reality punishment would be the exception rather than the rule.

Once you see the tropes and false frames, you can't un-see them.


Grognan posted:
That is exactly what she did though? It was all on the same server unless you are drawing the distinction at email address instead of hardware that hosted it.

No.

She used it instead of an unclassified .gov email. The classified system is something else entirely. It's not even connected to the civilian internet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

One of the accusations in the right wing media is that she sneaker-netted a few classified documents from a SIPRNet terminal to the unclassified email system. The quote you'll see for that will have a snippet from her emails with the word "nonpaper" in it ... which is industry jargon for removing the classified bits so that you can release the rest. telling an aid to make it nonpaper and send it is not a problem.

Harrow posted:

My friend's take on the lack of indictment:

Honestly not super sure what to think because I'm not read up on the statute itself, but dude's pretty furious. He's not even a Bernout.

Boon posted:

I just want to mention that I spent my 4th of July flying to a communist country. Whats that make leftist my power level? Over 9000?

Noam Chomsky posted:

If you can't see how it is in the interests of the global intelligence agencies and various world governments that Assange is accused of an indefensible crime, and that they may have helped the accusations along at best, then you're probably why various intelligence agencies and the global elite get away with so much. Guilty until proven innocent, I guess.

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/dick_nixon/status/750355203547885569

emdash posted:

Filthy Hans posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

mcmagic posted:

And they didn't like their odds because the party (the elites and the voters are both to blame) anointed her the nominee despite her being a horrible candidate and willfully ignored all the issues in her track record. And if the GOP wern't so batshit insane as to nominate a joke like Trump, she would lose.

mcmagic posted:

If it was Bush or god forbid Walker vs Clinton, we would be looking at a Republican President.

Epic High Five posted:

"I smell paid hillbot. Correct the record?"

TheLoquid posted:

This one?

Shifty Pony posted:

Do these people check under their beds for CTR people each night? It is getting indistinguishable from gang stalking at this point.

Narciss posted:

Hillary was never going to be indicted, she's always had Comey & Lynch fit snugly in her pocket; I've been saying that since day 1.

Harrow posted:

My friend's take on the lack of indictment:

Honestly not super sure what to think because I'm not read up on the statute itself, but dude's pretty furious. He's not even a Bernout.

Narciss posted:

Hillary was never going to be indicted, she's always had Comey & Lynch fit snugly in her pocket; I've been saying that since day 1.

zoux posted:

Also, people really neglect their under-bed cleaning regimen.

Sir Tonk posted:

http://drudgereport.com/flashvp.htm

Harrow posted:

My friend's take on the lack of indictment:

Honestly not super sure what to think because I'm not read up on the statute itself, but dude's pretty furious. He's not even a Bernout.

Sir Tonk posted:

http://drudgereport.com/flashvp.htm

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR/status/750362186577383424

TheLoquid posted:

This one?

Sir Tonk posted:

http://drudgereport.com/flashvp.htm

Harrow posted:

So I guess my question after reading that is: what was the FBI investigating in the first place? What did she do that was negligent enough to warrant an investigation? I'd heard so many things about her sending classified information through that server, but should we read the non-indictment as saying that didn't happen, or that it did but it's not a criminal offense?

Harrow posted:

So I guess my question after reading that is: what was the FBI investigating in the first place? What did she do that was negligent enough to warrant an investigation? I'd heard so many things about her sending classified information through that server, but should we read the non-indictment as saying that didn't happen, or that it did but it's not a criminal offense?

Zanzibar Ham posted:

I think they found the e-mail server while looking for Ben Ghazi's skeleton in her closet.

Sir Tonk posted:

http://drudgereport.com/flashvp.htm

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Yes, though again everyone knew about this

ImpAtom posted:

If I understand correct they were investigating if it was a malicious and intentional act rather than "you hosed up, kinda dumb" or whatnot. THAT would have been criminal-illegal but also was never really likely.

Arrgytehpirate posted:

Ikvana isn't on that poll so it's invalid

Mr Jaunts posted:

I still think it'll be Christie. He's been Trump's loyal toady for months, no one else will kiss Trump's rear end like he will. Of course Christie's a terrible choice, but since when has anything Trump does made logical sense?

Evil Fluffy posted:

If you think the GOP would still win with someone like Rubio or Cruz you're living in a different world from everyone else.

I like your excuse though "well they didn't run because both the elites and the voters are to blame for annointing her" is pretty wonderful. Those loving voters, how dare they support her instead of your hand-picked candidate. Clearly it's all her fault for spending time shoring up support when they weren't doing so.





Even if either of them had been the nominee both can be attacked on so much poo poo. Bush literally passed laws so illegal during the Terri Schavio incident that Republican judges were horrified while striking them down and Walker's a sock puppet with downs who holds his office almost entirely because Wisconsin elects governors in off-year elections.

Riosan posted:

I kind of expect him to nominate his son or son-in-law. Something that crazy and stupid wouldn't surprise me and it would keep his name in the news cycle instead of his and also the VP's.