Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
I'm not sure what your basis for that assessment might be. But people have been prosecuted and even gone to jail for having unsecured classified material at home. Most government employees take the restrictions more seriously than you think.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to drag this out, but do you have any examples of people who simply had stuff they were working on at home and were sent to jail?

Not people who had stuff to sell or barter, or who had stuff they weren't supposed to work with, but just had stuff they were privy to in an insecure location (although private enough that there was no intent to provide, or evidence of, third party access to the materials) and served jail time for that offense alone.

Thanks.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'm not trying to drag this out, but do you have any examples of people who simply had stuff they were working on at home and were sent to jail?
....
Click to expand...

Just for taking files home? No, I don't. Unlike some posters here, I suspect that most government employees take their obligations -- and potential consequences for skirting them -- pretty seriously. But taking files out of the office by itself is a federal felony, and a number of people -- including a former CIA Director and a former National Security Adviser -- have taken no-jail pleas to that offense when they could have been hit with much more serious charges.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

But here's a whistleblower Foreign Service Officer -- who narrowly escaped prosecution himself -- who says this:
“I cannot conceive any other person in government being able to do what she did without being punished,” he says. “Lots of people have lost their clearances, lost their jobs and in some cases lost their freedom and gone to jail” for allegedly being careless in protecting classified documents.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...isnt-hillary-the-hammer-for-mishandling-secre

Whistleblowers have been jailed for giving information that may or may not have been classified to media.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norma...ing-didnt-get-a-light-sentence_b_7286186.html
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/the-secret-sharer
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/...cer-turned-whistleblower-shares-his-story.php
https://exposefacts.org/whistleblowers-vs-fear-mongering/

Of course, if you take pictures of your submarine, even if you don't do anything with them. you're sunk.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...dria-submarine-pictures-john-walker/30907091/
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Just for taking files home? No, I don't.
Click to expand...

That is about what I expected. In that I expect our government to be reasonable, not that I expected you to come up short in supporting your assertion.

Unlike some posters here, I suspect that most government employees take their obligations -- and potential consequences for skirting them -- pretty seriously.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I work in an office full of confidential information (I know the distinction between confidential and classified, just a comparison) and yet we often have to remind staff not to take files home when they have a project to work on. It is not that I distrust the government employees, it is that I trust human nature to be fairly consistent.

To bring this back on topic: assuming that Hillary is found guilty of mishandling confidential documents do you think she will go to jail when you can find no other case of someone being jailed for a similar offense?
 
Dr. Keith said:
....
To bring this back on topic: assuming that Hillary is found guilty of mishandling confidential documents do you think she will go to jail when you can find no other case of someone being jailed for a similar offense?
Click to expand...

Jail? Not a chance. I think it's extremely unlikely that she would even be prosecuted. But if investigators were to announce that classified material appears to have been mishandled and that the facts contradict HC's public statements, that would be devastating to her campaign.

The latest news:
The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner's unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.

The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military's U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department.
Click to expand...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f80a...als-more-work-emails-clintons-private-account
 
It is looking like the media is bring Hillary down with negative news of no news. It's sad that our country is so media stricken that they believe whatever the media tells them to.
 
Ziggurat said:
Your confidence is unwarranted.

Here's the thing: Bill could slip out of scandal like a greased pig because he was charming. That charm led people to look for excuses for his actions. But Hillary isn't charming. She's a shrill harpy. The more people see her, the less they like her, even without the scandals. And scandal fatigue is going to lead to Hillary fatigue. Perhaps people will start to ignore the accusations, but they're also going to want to ignore her.

Hillary's lead will evaporate, just like it did in 2008.
Click to expand...

Not surprising that you quote NH polls only. How's Iowa looking? How's the national tally looking. You know politics well enough to know that the unique advantage for non-conformists is that the size of your organization and your political clout don't matter. NH is rogue when it comes to the primaries.

You can cheer on None of the Above as much as you like but the reality is that the last pol standing from Clown Car Survivor is going to face Hillary Clinton. And that means Bubba on the campaign trail, plus a whole lot of support from the Obama organization (IOUs from '08 and '12). I think the combination is unbeatable when you combine it with the GOP shooting itself in the General Election foot. Obama's not going to retire to the ranch. He won't rally the sort of support for Hill that he had, but it'll be sufficient, 'cuz he's got decades to go in the public eye (not to mention future Senator Michelle Obama).

The best hope for conservatives is to keep pushing for Sanders or Biden. Sanders does not poll well outside of the northeast. He will get stomped mercilessly in South Carolina, as everyone knows. In fact, that's probably about when he withdraws, I feel. Biden? They'll have a field day with him. The negative commercials will look like a selection from America's Funniest Home Videos. The GOP are dying to get to run against Biden.

Tough! Ain't gonna happen.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It is looking like the media is bring Hillary down with negative news of no news. It's sad that our country is so media stricken that they believe whatever the media tells them to.
Click to expand...

wait... we were actually told yesterday that the story was dead, and that no one was reporting about it.

tonight we learn that the "media" is "bring Hillary down with negative news."

Bwhahahhahaha!! Oh man, you cannot make this up!

Say, can you folks get the pathetic sad little stories straight?

Poor Hillary... beset by such supporters.

The media is reporting negative stories about Hillary! How dare they! She is ready.

Poor Hillary....:D:D:D:D:D
 
Upchurch said:
Predictions are a funny thing. Make them ambiguous enough and almost any future can fit them.
Click to expand...
True enough, but I assume predictions of Hillary being "done" are limited to the 2016 election cycle. Regardless of which... the best you can estimate is relative performance this far out. In my opinion if she gets the nomination there's a chance she can win if she can overcome historical trends with these third term party White House wins, and if the Republican Nominee is unelectable enough she could win. But regardless of the "how" factor I don't see her winning with the same degree of success as Obama did... not the same electoral college distribution. And look at how persistent she was in the brutal 2008 campaign against Obama? She was persistent almost to the very end of the primaries that year. Even if this pans out I think it's a long ways off.

This time around, there's no Obama... maybe a Biden and a Sanders could put her under pressure but,.... still have to see...

I'm the same way with the Republican field... but particularly difficult to predict given the volatility of things before primaries and all along with how many candidates are in the field. I keep seeing predictions that Bush will be the nominee. I think it's a difficult call given that the size of the field right now spreads money so thin as well as air time. Makes it that much harder...

Upchurch said:
But, Brainster may have been correct. The Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
Maybe... I just hope if this is true, the party recoups eventually. As unattractive as I am to the religious wing of the party I would rather they have a decent level of influence to balance the Democrats out some than not have them at all. A single-party arrangement isn't my cup of tea.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
That is about what I expected. In that I expect our government to be reasonable, not that I expected you to come up short in supporting your assertion.



Agreed. I work in an office full of confidential information (I know the distinction between confidential and classified, just a comparison) and yet we often have to remind staff not to take files home when they have a project to work on. It is not that I distrust the government employees, it is that I trust human nature to be fairly consistent.

To bring this back on topic: assuming that Hillary is found guilty of mishandling confidential documents do you think she will go to jail when you can find no other case of someone being jailed for a similar offense?
Click to expand...


I worked with Very Classified information in my USAF days and the procedures are clear - classified information does not go home. It doesn't leave the office and it gets put away in a file safe when people go to lunch. At the absolute highest echelons of bureaucracy people might have a locking briefcase for transporting classified files from place to place and even to work on at home (the highest echelon jobs are often 24 hour jobs) but those people are the rare exception. If anyone would have a need for classified files at home, paper or data, the various Secretaries on the president's staff would be on my list of guesses.

Revealing, disclosing or misplacing confidential medical data has consequences but mishandling even Confidential classified data can land a person in Ft. Leavenworth.

{edit to add}
My experiences with classified stuff were back in the dark ages: I actually transmitted punch cards a few times for the Navy Det on base. We operated a worldwide network of computers doing what would today be email, but very secure and we had hard copy at both ends. The job changed radically around the time I got out (laid off do to lack of work when the Berlin Wall fell) and we were just starting handing out floppies of messages rather than handfuls of paper.

Most computers in government service at all levels are not rated for handing classified information. The ones that are have magic red stickers on them. There's a completely separate SIPRNET, in theory more secure than NIPRNET, but my experience with government software leaves me unimpressed.
 
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg said:
I worked with Very Classified information in my USAF days and the procedures are clear - classified information does not go home. It doesn't leave the office and it gets put away in a file safe when people go to lunch. At the absolute highest echelons of bureaucracy people might have a locking briefcase for transporting classified files from place to place and even to work on at home (the highest echelon jobs are often 24 hour jobs) but those people are the rare exception. If anyone would have a need for classified files at home, paper or data, the various Secretaries on the president's staff would be on my list of guesses.

Revealing, disclosing or misplacing confidential medical data has consequences but mishandling even Confidential classified data can land a person in Ft. Leavenworth.
Click to expand...

All true, and yet somewhat misleading.

Yes, mishandling Confidential data can land a person in jail, but it hardly ever does. (In fact, it would be interesting to know if anyone could present a single case where it did, unless the Confidential data was being sold. Note for those playing along at home that Jjarg and I are both capitalizing Confidential. That's important.)

We had a guy at our company (Hughes Aircraft in the 1980s) who took some Secret documents home. He stopped at a bar on the way home and while he was in the bar his car was stolen, documents inside. He was fired, and rehired, with clearance reinstated, two years later.

Moreover, the data that I have seen being discussed is only sort of classified. It is the kind of stuff that wasn't marked classified, but on further review someone decided to classify it. A lot of commentators act as if that doesn't make a difference, but it does. Furthermore, in the articles I have read, most of the classified data was things that Hillary Clinton received in an email. You can't be arrested for receiving an email.

I haven't handled classified data since the '80s, so I have no idea what the rules are for email and classified data. My guess is that the answer is "don't". My guess, and this is only a guess, is that there are specific, secure, networks that are approved for sending and receiving classified data, and that sending an email to a .com or .gov address isn't an approved method.

I'll close with an anecdote. it's marginally relevant, but I find it amusing so I tell it sometimes. I was very excited when my clearance was approved. I was working on a program, and up until that point I could only get access to the unclassified portions of the documents we used for the program. Finally, I would get to see "the good stuff". I signed the receipt. I went to my office. I closed and locked the door, opened the safe, opened the outer envelope, opened the inner envelope, pulled it out and......I had written it.

This left me disappointed, and also with a problem. I had written it on an unclassified computer, and it was still sitting on the hard drive of that computer. I also knew that the information was absolutely useless to the Ruskies anyway, and despite being incorporated into a classified document, it was actually obsolete within hours of it being produced. I wasn't exactly sure what to do, but I was confident that, even if I ignored it, Leavenworth was not in my future.
 
I find it humorous how many keep focusing on jail time. I don't think anyone is suggesting this. Perhaps some lone opinion is, not sure. This is about her sinking poll numbers, and botching her chances of being elected. Although at the rate things keep getting uncovered, who really knows. NO ONE!
 
Dog Town said:
I find it humorous how many keep focusing on jail time. I don't think anyone is suggesting this. Perhaps some lone opinion is, not sure. This is about her sinking poll numbers, and botching her chances of being elected. Although at the rate things keep getting uncovered, who really knows. NO ONE!
Click to expand...

I was listening to Hannity the other day. He frequently has sacrificial Democratic guests on. What I mean by that is he invites people onto the show so they can give a liberal viewpoint and he, possibly with a second right wing guest, can insult them for being so stupid.

This time, the Democrat was trying to say that the real scandal being covered up was almost certainly how much time and effort she put in digging up money for the Clinton Foundation. Hannity would have none of it. He only wanted to talk about the criminality of classified data.



By the way, I see she is scheduled to testify at a Congressional hearing next month. By the end of that, I think she will either be done, or be reinvigorated. A lot depends on how foolish the Republicans look. If it is obvious they are just going for the jugular and trying to get a conviction on something, she'll end up looking great. If not, things could go differently.
 
Dog Town said:
I find it humorous how many keep focusing on jail time. I don't think anyone is suggesting this. Perhaps some lone opinion is, not sure. This is about her sinking poll numbers, and botching her chances of being elected. Although at the rate things keep getting uncovered, who really knows. NO ONE!
Click to expand...

You're right, it's inconceivable that Hillary Clinton would go to jail. At the very worst, she would admit doing something wrong, find a way to blame it on her staff ("Oh, I never thought about what kind of email to have....") and promise not to do it again.

But here are questions a Hillary supporter thinks she has an obligation to answer:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/62195/sorry-what-hillary

And here is the same guy's assessment of the situation she has put herself into:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/07/11/Memo-Hillary-Youre-Still-Problem

And of course, this is being reported today:
The State Department will provide Congress with 925 additional e-mails from former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton to assist the investigation of the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, a senior agency official said Friday.

The new submission comes after the State Department had previously said it turned over all records the House Select Committee on Benghazi had requested and as the agency reviews Clinton’s e-mails for public release.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom