Clinton's email excuses are falling apart

[jwl]

All this is saying to me is that certain aspects of the US government are way too bureaucratic. She's the Secretary of State, she should be allowed to do whatever she likes with classified information.

So in your world the Sec-State can take a CIA cable containing enough information to identify an in place Iranian intelligence agent and fax it to the Guardian?

Because unless you qualify that your fucking insane. It's even better because she can do whatever she wants with State Department classified information but she has exactly zero control of anything not inside State Department.

So wait, why isn't the state department in control of the CIA?

In essence, yes, why not?

[Gaidin]

Literally. This is why.

[Mr Bean]

All this is saying to me is that certain aspects of the US government are way too bureaucratic. She's the Secretary of State, she should be allowed to do whatever she likes with classified information.

So in your world the Sec-State can take a CIA cable containing enough information to identify an in place Iranian intelligence agent and fax it to the Guardian?

Because unless you qualify that your fucking insane. It's even better because she can do whatever she wants with State Department classified information but she has exactly zero control of anything not inside State Department.

So wait, why isn't the state department in control of the CIA?

In essence, yes, why not?

No the the departments each of which have their own Secretary are as follows State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security.

The FBI falls under Justice, the NSA falls under defense, the CIA was supposed to be under Homeland Security but is currently an independent branch of the government. Likely they will be moved under Defense or Homeland Security the next time they accidentally cause 60 years of war again.

[Ace Pace]

Why would the CIA be beholden to the State department? Why is that a better place for it than the military or any inevitable tug of war over the subject?

[Gaidin]

Well, the discussion you guys are having might be why they literally wrote a law to put the entire intelligence community(including the CIA) under someone who then is under the President.

[Ace Pace]

Well, the discussion you guys are having might be why they literally wrote a law to put the entire intelligence community(including the CIA) under someone who then is under the President.

Yes, like in other countries. Yet that's precisely the question jwl was asking.

[jwl]

Okay, but even if she isn't in charge of the CIA, it seems a bit odd how, as secretary of state, she isn't an authority over the information they produce.

[Gaidin]

Over the CIA's information? Why would she be? She'd only be an authority over the intelligence that the State Department produces through their diplomatic relationships. It's a different game for them. And it's, I'm willing to bet, a different method of analysis for their agency for the information they get from others.

[Ralin]

Over the CIA's information? Why would she be?

I think the idea is that she has access to their information and is a much higher ranking government official than the CIA employees who produce that information. Both of which imply a certain amount of authority to make judgment calls about how to use it.

Similar to how Obama isn't a member of the CIA or the military and never (far as I know) went through the security clearance process, but has the authority to view and make use of classified information because he is the president.

[Simon_Jester]

As Secretary of State, Clinton had the authority to view classified information and to make use of it.

That doesn't translate into being able to decide whether or not the information should continue to be treated AS classified. Not when she is outside the CIA's chain of command and probably wouldn't know the full context of why it was classified in the first place.

In a large organization, outranking someone else in a different department doesn't mean you get to ignore or invalidate their decisions. A corporal guarding a gate in a military base can tell a colonel to go away if that's what regulations demand; an auditor can issue a demand for paperwork that a senior executive has to comply with.

[Themightytom]

And the whole "hurr hurr Bernie Sanders is my guy" crap, sure, make yourself feel better, but I'm IN NH, Sanders is not getting through the primary, I'd bet money on it.

How much money are we talking? Sanders is up by something like 15 points in NH.

$20 bucks to the charity of your choice, just not a superpac :-p

[Dominus Atheos]

Your local legal aid society, which does very important work even though no one has ever heard of it.

http://www.nh-cls.org/you-can-help/donate-now/

If clinton wins NH I will donate $20 to the Oregon equivalent.

http://www.cej-oregon.org/donate-pledge.shtml

[bilateralrope]

Let's all ask ourselves why the FBI has interest in breaking what is likely their policy for this? Why not complete the investigation? I ask this with the assumption that they're an agency with employees, analysts and agents spread all over the political spectrum.

Because Hillary is running for president, which makes political neutrality tricky. Delaying leads to one of two outcomes:
- Hillary wins the democrat nomination before being charged. Which, as others have said, will affect the presidential election. Especially since the democrats won't be able to change their nominee at that point.
- Hillary wins the presidency before being charged. How would that affect her ability to be prosecuted and punished ?

Charging Hillary before she wins the nomination gives the democrats a chance to pick another nominee. Minimising the effect on the presidential elections and the chance of her becoming president.

Also, I'm not saying stop the investigation. It should be completed and, once completed, any further charges can be added.

[Gaidin]

Because Hillary is running for president, which makes political neutrality tricky. Delaying leads to one of two outcomes:
- Hillary wins the democrat nomination before being charged. Which, as others have said, will affect the presidential election. Especially since the democrats won't be able to change their nominee at that point.
- Hillary wins the presidency before being charged. How would that affect her ability to be prosecuted and punished ?

Charging Hillary before she wins the nomination gives the democrats a chance to pick another nominee. Minimising the effect on the presidential elections and the chance of her becoming president.

Also, I'm not saying stop the investigation. It should be completed and, once completed, any further charges can be added.

You're not exactly naming something that gives them a reason to deviate from policy on a whim. Want to hazard a guess how much is four years worth of emails even with what she deleted? Now, bear in mind the investigation and whether to indict are two different things. If they don't have a complete investigation, they may not be handing the US Attorney a very concrete case, whatever back and forth we happen to get out here. So, why should anybody but the US Attorney make this decision? And if they get handed bad or limited information early do they wait longer? One hopes they didn't start procedures for the federal grand jury. Or do they just throw it out. Or...you know. Let them do their jobs, politically loaded fiasco that this is. The investigators aren't the ones that make this decision. So get off their ass.

[Adam Reynolds]

So wait, why isn't the state department in control of the CIA?

In essence, yes, why not?

Because it would give them too much bureaucratic oversight. It would also force CIA station chiefs to actually answer to the ambassador of the nation in which they reside.

Though I actually agree that it would be a good idea to break up the CIA, along with the NSA and for exactly the same reasons. The problem is that the CIA has two functions, the first being simple intelligence gathering and the second being the execution of covert actions.

There should be three agencies that absorb the functions of the CIA and NSA. The first is the FBI, who absorb virtually all counter-terrorism operations and absolutely all domesitic intelligence gathering. The second would be the State department controlled intelligence agency that answers to diplomats and is involved in peacetime intelligence gathering with friendly nations. The third would be a military unit that would be involved in wartime intelligence gathering and covert actions, which should legally be treated as an act of war, regardless of context. This would include cyber-attacks and cyber-espionage, which are virtually indistinguishable in their potential effects.

If done properly, it would get the US out of the business of covert operations as a regular practice.

[Ace Pace]

If done properly, it would get the US out of the business of covert operations as a regular practice.

Focusing on this (and ignoring your astounding ignorance as to some of the major tasks of the CIA), why do you think the U.S. should get out of covert operations?

[Adam Reynolds]

Would the US really be worse off if it didn't have an agency involved in thinks like faked vaccination programs and selling weapons to the group we'll be fighting in the next war?

This is also partially a response to something like the drone program. If the US considers it necessary to blow up a terrorist in a particular country, it should also be willing to consider that action an act of war against the host nation. Because in effect, that is what it is.

The same is true with cyber-espionage. If you break into a system in order to discover what is on it, you often have the ability to destroy it, either intentionally or not. That should also be considered an act of war as it is a potential attack on an enemy's infrastructure.

[The Romulan Republic]

You really think every act of cyber-espionage should be considered an act of war? That's... insane.

Do you have any idea how often we'd be at war over relatively tiny things?

[Ralin]

In the same sense that North Korea sending commandos or whatever into South Korea or American drones and special forces violating Pakistani territory is an act of war.

Acts of war don't necessarily mean war follows, it would seem.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know. It just seems strange, and dangerous, to me to consider something that's relatively routine (even if it shouldn't be) an act of war.

You are, of course, correct that an act of war does not necessarily mean that a war will take place. But if you're not going to go to war over it, there seems little point to calling it an act of war except empty bellicose posturing.

[Patroklos]

. The first is the FBI, who absorb virtually all counter-terrorism operations and absolutely all domesitic intelligence gathering. The second would be the State department controlled intelligence agency that answers to diplomats and is involved in peacetime intelligence gathering with friendly nations.

You understand that most of our ambassadors, including many to the most important nations of the world, are not career diplomats, right? That they are usually laymen with no qualification :

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... qvq0Ubly7Q

And this isn't an Obama bash. This has been an ongoing thing for decades no matter who is in charge. That's why State owns basically nothing regarding US operations in other countries regardless of who is sourcing them. Organizations like the CIA, DoD, FBI,and others basically loan their personnel to a countries mission and they play nice as long as things are mutually beneficial but there is no pretense that the ambassador has any control whatsoever of the day to day work of those professionals. Even State's own assets take orders from the home office most of the time rather than the sitting ambassador. This obviously varies based on the country (Afghanistan and Iraq have pros, mostly because no donor would take that post as a thank you for their millions in donations) but if you think anyone from the the Japan office is listing to anything Caroline Kennedy has to say on Japanese trade relations you are kidding yourself. They might nod nicely in her conference meetings, but they are on the phone home for real instructions as soon as that meeting ends. The defense attache at the very least, and I have personnel experience with this, don't give a shit what the embassy has to say when push comes to shove.

[Ace Pace]

Would the US really be worse off if it didn't have an agency involved in thinks like faked vaccination programs and selling weapons to the group we'll be fighting in the next war?

Then the U.S. should get better intelligience agencies.

This is also partially a response to something like the drone program. If the US considers it necessary to blow up a terrorist in a particular country, it should also be willing to consider that action an act of war against the host nation. Because in effect, that is what it is.

The same is true with cyber-espionage. If you break into a system in order to discover what is on it, you often have the ability to destroy it, either intentionally or not. That should also be considered an act of war as it is a potential attack on an enemy's infrastructure.

You're as mad as the hatter. Cyber espionage has incredible attribution problems and insanely positive RoI for intelligience agencies. There is zero reason any government would want to consider a simple cyber-espionage operation an act of war unless they're willing to not be hypocrites and end all their collection activities.

[Adam Reynolds]

I don't know. It just seems strange, and dangerous, to me to consider something that's relatively routine (even if it shouldn't be) an act of war.

That is the problem. Right now, US cyberwar command is subordinate to the NSA. They both fully use the same people in virtually identical functions regardless of whether they are stealing information or Who do you think made Stuxnet?

Then the U.S. should get better intelligience agencies.

Indeed it should. And I don't seriously expect this idea to ever actually happen. It has about as much plausibility as the USMC getting absorbed by the Army.

You're as mad as the hatter. Cyber espionage has incredible attribution problems and insanely positive RoI for intelligience agencies. There is zero reason any government would want to consider a simple cyber-espionage operation an act of war unless they're willing to not be hypocrites and end all their collection activities.

Which is also my point. Tailored Access Operations should fully be a military operation, regardless of whether they are stealing information or planting viruses because the abilities required are identical.

[Welf]

I'm no fan of Hillary, but that article convinced she didn't do too much wrong. There's just too much switch-and-bait.

The first part discusses that it's a crime to remove classified markings. And then it implies Clinton has used a specific phrase that could mean she did that. But no prove, no direct allegation.
The second part talks a lot about all those security leaks, and how they are dangerous. But no prove that this happened to Clinton's server, just strong implication. It does not mention any tangible reason for this, like that the government has better technology at hand, and that Clinton couldn't use it. We assume that, but we don't know that. Clinton likely has bought the best stuff available on the market, and it may or may not be comparable to official security. But no reasoning here, just implications. It's also somewhat funny that even if the servers had been hacked, it wouldn't have made any difference because the state departments servers.
The third part is the most dishonest. It claims that she acted unlawful if she forwarded a New York Times article, because it contains still classified information. this pretty much confirmed for me they had nothing on her. Technically that is maybe correct, but it is the kind of nitpicking you use when you have nothing else left. And it is revealing that this is their last argument, since classically you would use your strangest argument at the end of your text.

Just to make clear: I don't think Clinton should have used a private email, and it is one of the reasons I don't want to see here as the POTUS. It just screams that she ignores the rules for other people. But the way here opponents argue make it seem like a minor offence.

[Mr Bean]

I

Just to make clear: I don't think Clinton should have used a private email, and it is one of the reasons I don't want to see here as the POTUS. It just screams that she ignores the rules for other people. But the way here opponents argue make it seem like a minor offence.

A minor offense with the following punishments

Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 798 — disclosure of classified information could apply to someone who “knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person” classified information. Someone guilty of this crime “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both,” under the law.

Anther law, 18 USC 793 — gathering, transmitting or losing defense information also carries a penalty of an unspecified fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.

Both 793 and 798 fall under the broader 1917 Espionage Act.

Separately, another potential charge dealing with removing the classification label could be 18 U.S. Code § 2071 — concealment, removal or mutilation generally of classified information. Under this statute, a guilty person “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.”

Every instance is a separate charge meaning that if found guilty for the things already revealed she faces a minimum of 22 years to a max of 100+ years plus an unknown fine for each instance because the 10/1 rule does not apply to fines which are pretty much up to the judges desecration.

Let me blunt Welf, from a former member of the United States military who held a clearance. There is no way someone who sets up an independent outside private email server and is moving things from INTERNAL/SECURE to UNCLASSIFIED accounts is going to keep everything separate for the four years Hillary served as Secretary of State. She sent thousands on thousands of emails, her day to day work directly involves a majority/minor of classified material and Secretary of the State routinely handles CIA/NSA material in his or her day to day work. Something would have cross pollinated and we now have indications that a minimum of 22 interactions did and still pass the bar of "classified information on a unclassified system"

And we still have a few thousand state department emails to be released, everything indicates you don't hold things back because you can easily release them but because the last sets of emails are the worst from a security perspective, it would be rather embarrassing for the State department having to send a few of their current members to the jail cells next to Hillary because they released another set of non-redacted emails which contains classified information.

So take this from someone who spent time inside the system. Hillary might get off as lightly as General Petraeus did, he should have been spending a minimum of ten years in jail plus being dishonorably discharged but got two years suspended sentence instead. Secretary Clinton might get the exact same, but by all reporting it's clear she as well broke the law and will be charged, the only question is when and if President Obama steps in with a pardon.