4 ms·

Is it possible that by Bush setting a precedence, it being done now is OK?

by joemi 10y ago

umanwizard 10y ago
Why would that be the case? How do you think the law works? Just because the President breaks the law doesn't magically change the law...
- joemi 10y ago
  Honestly, I don't know the applicable laws very well (or at all). This was just an honest question. Given all the contention over the HRC email thing and specifically over this reddit revelation, I'm not so sure that the situation we have is clearly defined within the laws (otherwise why wouldn't everything be clear cut and decided already?).
  - koube 10y ago
    The law behind the mishandling of classified information is from the 1950s and is mostly outdated. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/the_hillary_clinton_email_scandal_shows_the_espionage_act_is_outdated.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... What is clear however, is that judging Clinton's mishandling of emails as a crime, when only one person in a hundred years in completely different circumstances has been prosecuted for the same crime, would be unprecedented. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266 http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-...
    - patrickg_zill 10y ago
      There was a guy prosecuted this year for similar security lapses. He went to jail. Snowden wrote in wired, though the article doesn't cover the latest news https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prosecuted-hillary-clinton/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prose...
      - koube 10y ago
        Who should we believe? A writer from Wired Magazine? Or the director of the FBI who is also a lawyer? There are several distinctions between the Clinton case and the Petraeus case. * The Clinton case revolved around an unclassified context while the Petraeus case revolved around information taken from a classified context. * The Clinton case involved data not marked classified (keep in mind emailing New York Times links to someone about about Snowden would be highly classified information), while the Petraeus case involved books that were clearly classified. * The Clinton case showed no intent while the Petraeus case involved clear intent. * The Clinton case involved an internal server while the Petraeus case involved open books given to his mistress. * Clinton cooperated with the FBI while Petraeus intentionally misled the FBI. Also, reminder that Snowden is a wanted criminal asking for a pardon for leaking 200,000 classified documents to the press, while taking refuge in the state of a geopolitical enemy. He will make scripted media appearances on behalf of Putin [1]. He is not a reliable source. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLC2WbIaq_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLC2WbIaq_Y
        patrickg_zill 10y ago
        Those are great talking points. Unfortunately, every single person that I know, that has a security clearance, can easily punch holes in almost all your points. My views are based on what I have read and what I have been told by people with, collectively, 100+ years of security clearance holding. * The Clinton private email server was not cleared for handling classified info. Yet classified information went through it as we now know. * Some things were marked classified and some were not. This has no bearing on anything however. The onus is on the person who has the clearance to treat and handle all classified information properly regardless of whether it is marked properly or not. * Clinton's intent: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." i.e. take classified info, put into email form and strip the classified markings from it, then send to me. Source: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605 I'll stop there. Basically your points are garbage.
        koube 10y ago
    - SilasX 10y ago
      >federal law doesn’t prohibit the discussion of classified information over unsecured networks." Seriously? "Oh, man, we sure left a loophole you can drive a truck through! Better update the training materials to make sure clearance holders know this is kosher..." Sorry, but my prior on this claim is just way too low to casually accept that the analysis, as given in the first link, is plugging the relevant laws into the facts. Classified-material law just doesn't make sense if something like that is legal.
- joemi 10y ago
  Also, precedence can definitely matter in law sometimes. For instance, if someone does not enforce a patent or a copyright, that can sometimes lead to loss of such patent/copyright protections. Indeed, this isn't all that similar of a situation, but hey, who knows? I'm not a lawyer.

Is it possible that by Bush setting a precedence, it being done now is OK?

by joemi 10y ago

Is it possible that by Bush setting a precedence, it being done now is OK?

Why would that be the case? How do you think the law works? Just because the President breaks the law doesn't magically change the law...

joemi 10y ago
Honestly, I don't know the applicable laws very well (or at all). This was just an honest question. Given all the contention over the HRC email thing and specifically over this reddit revelation, I'm not so sure that the situation we have is clearly defined within the laws (otherwise why wouldn't everything be clear cut and decided already?).
- koube 10y ago
  The law behind the mishandling of classified information is from the 1950s and is mostly outdated. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/the_hillary_clinton_email_scandal_shows_the_espionage_act_is_outdated.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... What is clear however, is that judging Clinton's mishandling of emails as a crime, when only one person in a hundred years in completely different circumstances has been prosecuted for the same crime, would be unprecedented. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266 http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-...
  - patrickg_zill 10y ago
    There was a guy prosecuted this year for similar security lapses. He went to jail. Snowden wrote in wired, though the article doesn't cover the latest news https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prosecuted-hillary-clinton/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prose...
    - koube 10y ago
      Who should we believe? A writer from Wired Magazine? Or the director of the FBI who is also a lawyer? There are several distinctions between the Clinton case and the Petraeus case. * The Clinton case revolved around an unclassified context while the Petraeus case revolved around information taken from a classified context. * The Clinton case involved data not marked classified (keep in mind emailing New York Times links to someone about about Snowden would be highly classified information), while the Petraeus case involved books that were clearly classified. * The Clinton case showed no intent while the Petraeus case involved clear intent. * The Clinton case involved an internal server while the Petraeus case involved open books given to his mistress. * Clinton cooperated with the FBI while Petraeus intentionally misled the FBI. Also, reminder that Snowden is a wanted criminal asking for a pardon for leaking 200,000 classified documents to the press, while taking refuge in the state of a geopolitical enemy. He will make scripted media appearances on behalf of Putin [1]. He is not a reliable source. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLC2WbIaq_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLC2WbIaq_Y
      - patrickg_zill 10y ago
        Those are great talking points. Unfortunately, every single person that I know, that has a security clearance, can easily punch holes in almost all your points. My views are based on what I have read and what I have been told by people with, collectively, 100+ years of security clearance holding. * The Clinton private email server was not cleared for handling classified info. Yet classified information went through it as we now know. * Some things were marked classified and some were not. This has no bearing on anything however. The onus is on the person who has the clearance to treat and handle all classified information properly regardless of whether it is marked properly or not. * Clinton's intent: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." i.e. take classified info, put into email form and strip the classified markings from it, then send to me. Source: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605 I'll stop there. Basically your points are garbage.
        koube 10y ago
  - SilasX 10y ago
    >federal law doesn’t prohibit the discussion of classified information over unsecured networks." Seriously? "Oh, man, we sure left a loophole you can drive a truck through! Better update the training materials to make sure clearance holders know this is kosher..." Sorry, but my prior on this claim is just way too low to casually accept that the analysis, as given in the first link, is plugging the relevant laws into the facts. Classified-material law just doesn't make sense if something like that is legal.
joemi 10y ago
Also, precedence can definitely matter in law sometimes. For instance, if someone does not enforce a patent or a copyright, that can sometimes lead to loss of such patent/copyright protections. Indeed, this isn't all that similar of a situation, but hey, who knows? I'm not a lawyer.