The New American Politics thread

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes. That's why he's intimately familiar with these laws.

So you either don't know what Clinton said? Or what perjury is?

I'd like to hear your reasoning.

She never said "I never sent any classified emails" in that hearing,yet that's the basis for your perjury charge.

If you are testifying under oath and someone asked you if your house had mice in it, what would you say? In some ways this isn't really a fair question because it can be outside of your area of expertise.

By answering the way she did, she willingly put herself in a position of authority and responsibility over that situation. If she wanted to be "truthful", she would have said that she "didn't believe" any material was marked classified. However, she didn't do that. Likely because it would have gone down a path that she didn't wish to go down.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by New Era

The vast majority of government communication takes place across insecure channels, and information that may end up being classified at a later date is routinely disseminated across insecure channels.

Fair enough. I understand that one of the 'classified' documents was a public newspaper.

But, it seems to me, that exclusively using insecure channels is unacceptable - like ordering drone strikes from a blackberry. Am I incorrect?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If you are testifying under oath and someone asked you if your house had mice in it, what would you say? In some ways this isn't really a fair question because it can be outside of your area of expertise.

By answering the way she did, she willingly put herself in a position of authority and responsibility over that situation. If she wanted to be "truthful", she would have said that she "didn't believe" any material was marked classified. However, she didn't do that. Likely because it would have gone down a path that she didn't wish to go down.

Incorrect != perjury

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Let's leave the snark aside please.

To prove perjury, you must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wilfully made a false statement and new it was false. That's perjury.

She said she didn't knowingly send any emails marked classified. That's the statement you have to prove was false and said with intent to mislead.

When the lead investigator on the issue also said it's reasonable that she didn't know I'm not sure how you're going to prove it wasn't reasonable.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Incorrect != perjury

She knew at the time she gave her answer that she was under investigation from the FBI and that she had to turn over her email servers already.

She made a definite and affirming statement on something that she turned over to the FBI and was aware of the contents of. If you honestly don't know the contents of your emails, say you don't know. Then there isn't an issue.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Nailed on? Really.

I'm sure she got administratively hit on that, which is the extent they could go to for that issue. What more were you expecting?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

She knew at the time she gave her answer that she was under investigation from the FBI and that she had to turn over her email servers already.

She made a definite and affirming statement on something that she turned over to the FBI and was aware of the contents of. If you honestly don't know the contents of your emails, say you don't know. Then there isn't an issue.

They were not properly marked classified. It's a very reasonable defense to think you've sent no emails marked classified when 3/60,000 had markings that weren't appropriately applied (ie. No markings in headers or subject lines). You'd have an incredibly hard time prosecuting that one

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

She knew at the time she gave her answer that she was under investigation from the FBI and that she had to turn over her email servers already.

She made a definite and affirming statement on something that she turned over to the FBI and was aware of the contents of. If you honestly don't know the contents of your emails, say you don't know. Then there isn't an issue.

At the risk of sounding snarky, I don't think you know what perjury is.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Fair enough. I understand that one of the 'classified' documents was a public newspaper.

But, it seems to me, that exclusively using insecure channels is unacceptable - like ordering drone strikes from a blackberry. Am I incorrect?

That would be an action associated with a classified operation, so the communication would go across secured channels. Again, it depends on the label assigned to information and operations as to how you handle it. The vast majority of information and communication is not labeled and considered public.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by New Era

I know of individuals at all levels of government in the executive branch that employ private servers or channel their communications through a personal email address hosted by another interest.

Would these individuals be compelled by the Federal Records Act to submit these communications to the government?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Gozer

At the risk of sounding snarky, I don't think you know what perjury is.

The willful intent comes from her assuming that she is the authority on her emails.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by New Era

That would be an action associated with a classified operation, so the communication would go across secured channels. Again, it depends on the label assigned to information and operations as to how you handle it. The vast majority of information and communication is not labeled and considered public.

I wasn't asking a hypothetical - Secretary Clinton used an insecure channel to approve drone strikes.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The willful intent comes from her assuming that she is the authority on her emails.

The standard that you are applying is so strict that every government official would be compelled to state "unknown" or "the 5th" to every question.

Such strict intrepetation would be detrimental to any inquiry or probe. There needs to be a charitable consideration of testimony. Was this an attempt to obstruct justice and deceive investigators?

[Buster]

Trying to defend Clinton on the email issues in the context of "at least, even with this, she is better than Trump" is a legitimate argument.

Otherwise defending Clinton on any of this is absurd. Her "least worst" case here is that she looks incompetent and ill-informed. That's not exactly a win.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Buster

Trying to defend Clinton on the email issues in the context of "at least, even with this, she is better than Trump" is a legitimate argument.

While I don't disagree, I do object to the dichotomy.

When these findings were made public, the DNC had an obligation to assess their candidate as qualified.
it is my opinion that no such assessment was made because she was an oligarch being coronated by the party she controls. That is un-democratic.

[octothorp]

I think this debate kinda shows why this has no sticking power on Clinton: everyone more or less agrees on the things she's done wrong and what her flaws are, and she achieved a kind of rock bottom on those flaws with Comey's release. I do believe that 'pattern of behavior' is one of the most important factors in how damaging a particular revelation can be, and both the perjury accusations (old news) and the Clinton Foundation (new news) fit the pattern of behavior that she operates with impunity towards established rules. So normally I think that's precisely the sort of ongoing stories that can really dictate a campaign, but here, both candidates have unusually well-established patterns of behavior, so it becomes either a comparison of which patterns of behavior are worse, or a matter of trying to open up new flaws. The Trump campaign's focus on Clinton's health shows that they realize that they're reaching a point of diminishing returns on the whole typical Washington/Wall-Street insider politician angle.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by octothorp

fit the pattern of behavior that she operates with impunity towards established rules.

So what you're saying is that really it's Hillary who's the anti-establishment candidate after all?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Would these individuals be compelled by the Federal Records Act to submit these communications to the government?

All departments are required to comply with the FRA. I just think you have this idea that the FRA does more than it is supposed to do. To simplify, the FRA is a record management framework. It provides information on creation, handing, retention and disposition of records. It also addresses availability which is to comply with FOIA. You may be confusing some of the security directives from the OMB as being part of the FRA.

Originally Posted by Gozer

I wasn't asking a hypothetical - Secretary Clinton used an insecure channel to approve drone strikes.

That's erroneous information. Secretary of State does not approve drone strikes. SoS would be an informational consideration of such an action, not directly involved in the execution order. The SoS is a diplomatic position, and while it may have some influence into the executive decision of ordering a strike because of the diplomatic mission in given regions, the position has no ability to give or approve military engagements on foreign soil.

In regards to the technology use by Clinton, the government issued Blackberry was the most secure device at the time. Only after Clinton was in office did the Feds begin transitioning to other devices, which included a homegrown flavor of the android OS with an incredibly strong security overlay plugging many of the holes in the base OS and forcing encryption across the board. This was designed to set or exceed the features of Blackberry server and OS at the time.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by New Era

All departments are required to comply with the FRA. I just think you have this idea that the FRA does more than it is supposed to do. To simplify, the FRA is a record management framework. It provides information on creation, handing, retention and disposition of records. It also addresses availability which is to comply with FOIA.

I'm sorry I'm not appreciating what you're trying to say.

The SoS did not retain or dispose of relevant documents in accordance with the FRA and appears to be intentionally circumventing the auspices of FOIA.

Am I wrong? Is that a non-sensical claim, due to the nature of the FRA not being a criminal code? Is it possible to violate the FRA?
I don't mean to be unpleasant. It's clear that you have more thorough knowledge, but I don't know where I'm ignorant.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by New Era

That's erroneous information. Secretary of State does not approve drone strikes. SoS would be an informational consideration of such an action, not directly involved in the execution order. The SoS is a diplomatic position, and while it may have some influence into the executive decision of ordering a strike because of the diplomatic mission in given regions, the position has no ability to give or approve military engagements on foreign soil.

She seemed to have an improper amount of influence.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-...kes-1465509863

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...tons-personal#