The Trump Presidency: Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
kellyb said:
Has anyone posted this yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...15497e-e1f2-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about typical procedures for contacting persons who have been privy to classified data when that classification changes to know if WaPo is stretching to make this into a Clinton thing more than the State Department is. I am fairly sure, however, they have no criminal liability unless they refuse to surrender or destroy any such documents they possess.

People who worked for an agency once headed by Clinton would probably have contact links with Clinton in their email histories. I think they are expecting that implication to spontaneously sprout legs and carry the story from there.

It's even vague enough that it can be read as either "lock her up" or "abuse of executive power" depending on your affiliations.
 
kellyb said:
Has anyone posted this yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...15497e-e1f2-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html
Click to expand...

Quote: As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials.
Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.
Click to expand...

No they don't. These people DON'T know the law or at least DON'T care about. The US Constitution is very clear on this one point.

No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Three

They cannot rule retroactively. They can decide going forward that certain kinds of emails would be illegal, but they cannot revisit past emails in this way.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I don't know enough about typical procedures for contacting persons who have been privy to classified data when that classification changes to know if WaPo is stretching to make this into a Clinton thing more than the State Department is. I am fairly sure, however, they have no criminal liability unless they refuse to surrender or destroy any such documents they possess.

People who worked for an agency once headed by Clinton would probably have contact links with Clinton in their email histories. I think they are expecting that implication to spontaneously sprout legs and carry the story from there.

It's even vague enough that it can be read as either "lock her up" or "abuse of executive power" depending on your affiliations.
Click to expand...

What's Trump going to do if he hears that at a Democratic Rally the crowd chanting "Lock him up"?
 
acbytesla said:
No they don't. These people DON'T know the law or at least DON'T care about. The US Constitution is very clear on this one point.

No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Three

They cannot rule retroactively. They can decide going forward that certain kinds of emails would be illegal, but they cannot revisit past emails in this way.
Click to expand...

Slow down.

The line reads: "now constitute potential security violations"

It does not say: "now constitute violations of federal statutes"
 
I knew it all along that Hillary's emails are the REAL ISSUE!!! Lock her up and do it retroactively back in 1994!

Anyway, this is surely mainly for the base and Fox "News" - the mainstream media has been pretty gullible especially with anything concerning the Clintons, but I doubt that it would be this dumb. We sure live in interesting times.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
still, it's very much asking to put the ink back in the bottle after pouring it into the ocean.
Click to expand...

Having not ever had a security clearance or received any notification of changes to such, I don't know if receiving a communication that states there could be "potential security violations" is just a way of notifying the person of the seriousness of the issue or if that phrasing is exceptional and attempting to convey a threat.

Do you?

Did WaPo make a concerted effort to clarify that point (I honestly don't know, I've read a few second-hand articles because WaPo insists my ad blocker is on when it isn't)?

ETA: Part of this is a result of our Trumpian era, I can't tell if there's something nefarious going on or if this article is just muckraking. My suspicions arise out of the curious need to connect 130 former State Dept. folks who have or had security clearances receiving notifications about security issues as they relate to Clinton rather than as they related to being former State Dept. officials who have or had security clearances. It's a bit too "free association logic" for my taste. Of course former State Dept. officials are within 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon from Clinton, she ran the State Dept!

Which aspect of their former employment is more relevant to the matter at hand? So for your ink analogy, I can't for the life of me tell who exactly is spilling said ink.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
No they don't. These people DON'T know the law or at least DON'T care about. The US Constitution is very clear on this one point.



No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Article One, Section Nine, Clause Three



They cannot rule retroactively. They can decide going forward that certain kinds of emails would be illegal, but they cannot revisit past emails in this way.
Click to expand...
They haven't made a new law. They have applied a security classification.

I presume that means they are targetting the people who sent emails to or received them from Hillary. They will go to all these people and search all their computers and try to come up with a crime.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
They haven't made a new law. They have applied a security classification.

I presume that means they are targetting the people who sent emails to or received them from Hillary. They will go to all these people and search all their computers and try to come up with a crime.
Click to expand...

The set defined "people who exchanged emails with Clinton" has strong correlation with the set defined "people who used to work at the State Dept. and at some point possessed a document that has had it's classification status changed."

Like I said, both sides can make hay out of this two entirely different ways based entirely on a vague inference of causality in the presence of plausible alternatives.

The open question is "was the way they were contacted in any way out of the ordinary when classification status of documents one has or once had access to changes?"
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Having not ever had a security clearance or received any notification of changes to such, I don't know if receiving a communication that states there could be "potential security violations" is just a way of notifying the person of the seriousness of the issue or if that phrasing is exceptional and attempting to convey a threat.

Do you?

Did WaPo make a concerted effort to clarify that point (I honestly don't know, I've read a few second-hand articles because WaPo insists my ad blocker is on when it isn't)?
Click to expand...

18 months ago, they sent a message around saying they wanted to do this - and then didn't, because clearly it isn't feasible.
It is hard to see this as anything but an effort to please Trump and influence 2020 voters.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
18 months ago, they sent a message around saying they wanted to do this - and then didn't, because clearly it isn't feasible.
It is hard to see this as anything but an effort to please Trump and influence 2020 voters.
Click to expand...

Unless it is entirely standard for a person who previously had access to something they no longer have access to being notified of such in order to assure they no longer possess such information in any form that could be improperly accessed.

I don't have WaPo's full story, maybe there's 3 whole paragraphs detailing the difference between how these people were contacted and the way it usually works or someone who is familiar with these matters could clarify if it seems typical or not.
 
acbytesla said:
No they don't. These people DON'T know the law or at least DON'T care about. The US Constitution is very clear on this one point.

No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Three

They cannot rule retroactively. They can decide going forward that certain kinds of emails would be illegal, but they cannot revisit past emails in this way.
Click to expand...

Sorta? As was pointed made clear after the examination of Hillary's e-mails, information can certainly be classified after there was time to discuss it. There's excellent reason to think that the Trump Administration is up to no good, because, well, it's horrendously corrupt, inept, ignores the law all the time, and constantly makes brazenly evil decisions, but that doesn't mean that classifying things that happened in a previous administration is necessarily illegal or out of bounds, though the timing certainly makes it distinctly suspicious.
 
Trump Tweets

The only people that don’t like my conversation with the new Ukrainian President are those that heard Rep. Adam Schiff read a made up and totally fraudulent statement to the House and public, words that I did not say but that he fabricated (& admitted to this fabrication). Sick!

It is disgraceful what the Do Nothing Democrats are doing (the Impeachment Scam), but it is also disgraceful what they are NOT doing, namely, the USMCA vote, Prescription Drug Price Reduction, Gun Safety, Infrastructure, and much more!
 
I am amazed at how eerily Trump is able to identify all the problems his narrative has, and attribute it to his opponents as a preemptive "no you are".
In a weird way, this requires a lot of introspection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom