The Clinton Discussion Thread

[alasdairm]

the u.s. date department - president trump's state department - spent a year investigating this issue and found "there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information".

this just starts to looks like a politically-motivated witch-hunt...

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

It's certainly worth investigating. It always has been. Is it serious? Yes.. But not to the degree conservative types make out.

You seem to be now doing what you had a problem with. To what degree are conservative types making it out to be, and to what degree of seriousness do you personally consider it?

the u.s. date department - president trump's state department - spent a year investigating this issue and found "there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information".

this just starts to looks like a politically-motivated witch-hunt...

How is it politically-motivated when you've just admitted that Trump's state department absolved her? This doesn't mean that she's innocent or that her crimes were low-level it just means that Trump's administration is not interested in pursuing justice with regards to the Hillary Clinton camp.

Because we know for a fact that there was systemic/deliberate mishandling of classified information. Only someone ignorant or denying reality would argue against that. The question is who took those classified files off from the secure networks and put them on an unsecured server? Because we know for a fact that this did happen and was one of the most (if not the most) serious violations of national security on record.

So you either care about pursuing justice or protecting Clinton with lies about her crimes.

 

[JessFR]

You seem to be now doing what you had a problem with. To what degree are conservative types making it out to be, and to what degree of seriousness do you personally consider it?

I never had a problem simply with using labels at all. I mostly had a problem with you complaining about labels while also using them yourself in the same kind of way.

I have no issue with you using labels like leftist in itself. My biggest issue was using them while also saying you're being insulted when similar ones are used against you.

I'll also admit though there is a degree to which I'm not a fan of how certain labels are used. Mainly when they're used to imply that someone's beliefs are just a predefined part of some group they're a part of, rather than individually determined. So I'm more inclined to be annoyed by being called a leftist than say.. A pro lifer. (amusingly I've been called both) Since the former implies that all my beliefs revolve around that and that I'm loyal to the label rather than the positions. While the latter is only referring to one specific belief. I'm not perfect though, I've probably done the former at times when I've felt particularly frustrated. I'm human I make mistakes. The important thing is to try and recognize those mistakes and improve.

OK so as for how serious it is... Well obviously allowing state secrets to be at risk of being compromised is a serious mistake. It depends a bit on the specific secrets, and just how great the risk was. But it certainly seems like Hillary Clinton wasn't as careful as she should have been or was required of her. That should be investigated and appropriate penalties issued if it's determined that she was negligent in her handling of information entrusted to her. Appropriate penalties would depend a bit on just how great the consequences were or plausibly could have been. It could be as small as a fine, it could be as severe as removing her security clearance. Which would severely impact her political prospects. It depends.

But the way some people tell it you'd swear she had deliberately leaked continuity of government plans to hostile nuclear powers or something. It's not that serious. There have been cases that serious, but I've seen no reason to believe this was.

 

[JGrimez]

I have no issue with you using labels like leftist in itself. My biggest issue was using them while also saying you're being insulted when similar ones are used against you.

What you refuse to accept is that they're not similar. A leftist will call themselves a leftist as they are left-wing. You could argue that the term has become a slur but that's the still the name. Skeptics have never called themselves deniers, that was a slur foisted upon them in order to shut them down. It is a direct insult, where you are annoyed that the legitimate political label 'Leftist' is often used as an insult.

I'm glad you are more of an independent thinker. I personally feel you've been a little too radicalized by the Leftwing on a few issues but it's nice to see you don't fall in line with everything that they say automatically. And I'm sure you've taken a lot of heat for espousing certain opinions in those circles.

OK so as for how serious it is... Well obviously allowing state secrets to be at risk of being compromised is a serious mistake.

A "serious mistake" is when you order the wrong thing at work or you screw up really badly on an entrance exam. What happened there were some of the most egregious crimes in recent history. Now you could assume that this type of behavior went on a lot, but Clinton was the first one who was caught that we have concrete proof. What she did bordered on treason and treason is a capital offence. I believe that you are disingenuously downplaying the severity of her crimes.

It depends a bit on the specific secrets, and just how great the risk was.

It was classified intelligence and Special Access Programs which is as close to "above top secret" as you can get. An example of an SAP would be the identities of undercover CIA spies overseas. Obviously incredibly sensitive information. In fact while Hillary was Sec of State, a CIA spying ring was uncovered in China and those agents were executed. Could of have been simply a coincidence, but what if some of those 33,000 files that she deleted contained such information and was hacked by China from her servers? Remember she did destroy evidence requested by subpoena, how can anyone argue against the severity of that action to? Was that an accident? That show blatant intent.

Her servers were unsecured for 3 months and during that time she met with foreign officials using a blackberry that intel agents directly warned her against. It actually looks like she was giving or selling those secret files to foreigners, because really the excuse of recklessness or incompetence pushes the boundaries of credulity.

Appropriate penalties would depend a bit on just how great the consequences were or plausibly could have been. It could be as small as a fine, it could be as severe as removing her security clearance. Which would severely impact her political prospects. It depends.

Here is an example of you downplaying the severity. The maximum punishment is removing her security clearance? So you're admitting that the law should not apply equally to everyone. This mentality perpetuates the power that the elite have over the rest of the people.

But the way some people tell it you'd swear she had deliberately leaked continuity of government plans to hostile nuclear powers or something. It's not that serious. There have been cases that serious, but I've seen no reason to believe this was.

Yes it's that serious and I believe plans of nuclear sites were in fact leaked because of her. The problem here is that we know that she knew better. First of all she shouldn't have had ANY work-related emails (classified or not) on a private server anyway. There's a reason that the Sec of State must use a state.gov email address so that they're working in transparency and you or I can do a FOIA request to see any of those files. So for her to pay $5,000 to set up a server in her bathroom to conduct government business, the only point of that really is to engage in illegal activity that you do not want the public to see.

Then when it comes to handling classified information, there's literally no way that she could've not known (or forgot) to not remove classified files from secure networks like JWICS or SIPRnet. Literally no way. The only other explanation is that she has dementia or is getting too senile to realize what she's doing. And in that case then she is massively unqualified for her position and should have been removed immediately. So during the election when her supporters kept repeating that she's "the most qualified candidate ever", well that was a straight lie because the server scandal rises past the level of incompetence. In fact intent is not even relevant when it comes to gross negligence of this magnitude.