5 ms·

> I think he said that because he was parroting what administration officials have continually shouted. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Moreover, ev

by rdtsc 10y ago

> I think he said that because he was parroting what administration officials have continually shouted. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Moreover, even if we take your point that he was just thinking of those with clearance, he was still wrong because his exact quote was "... It is different from the media. So everything you learn about this, you are learning from us. ". Would you say then that those with from the government told him to tell people to listen to CNN for classified material so they can be entrapped?. It doesn't make any sense. The only thing that makes sense is it was a blatant lie because they didn't want people to read what it is in the emails. As much as I try to see it the point of view of "caring for those who hold clearance" I just don't see it... Moreover, Wikileaks presents materials it is given. To date I don't think it has altered a single email provable fake. Nobody raised their hand and pointed to an email not written by them with their name on it. It sure editorializes material by choosing what to release. But it is what it is. I'd trust it more than CNN for example. > Second, I think the over-classification of material harms national security. Yap. Strongly agree with that. > They sure as hell didn't stop the OPM breach or countless other breaches That was such a monumental failure, and so embarrassing. I am surprised that not more has been talked about it (but also not surprised too). > he intentionally leaked or ordered the leak of the identity of Valeri Plame. Cheney is a fscking malevolent sociopath I believe that too. > Second, however secure her personal server, I'd be shocked if her server was substantively less secure than whatever the State Department was using. They are not efficient, and have lots of red tape and such, but they are not all dummies. I think she would have avoided embarrassment if she did keep it there. She sabotaged herself in choosing to go the other route. I think not only Russians accessed it any state actor with even a mediocre attack team would have been stupid not to try to access it. It as a big red target for everyone to see basically. > That other people have been punished for the same thing Hillary did is beside the point That is not besides the point. A lot of people in this country believe in fairness (for better or for worse). Special treatment for the politicians is exactly why many voted against her.

wahern 10y ago
I don't think that the CNN reporter (which, to be honest, is basically a hypothetical person to me at this point) was only thinking of those with clearance. I'd bet he either a) wasn't thinking or b) wasn't about to try to reiterate whatever long-winded and complex explanation there was. As I stated, it's not as simple as maybe illegal for people with clearance, not illegal for everybody else.[1] This is CNN. His only choices as a practical matter were to parrot it or not parrot it. He chose to parrot it. I don't think either choice was intrinsically better, especially for an outlet like CNN. Maybe this was on one of those more editorializing shows, in which case I can see wider room for disagreement. But I still don't see much to get upset about. And Hannon's accusation harms her credibility far more than what she accused CNN of doing. Regarding fairness, I understand and respect people's desire for fairness. And I understand that that desire is part of the fury. But it's unreasonable to expect that. Most of those same people were silent during the Plame affair, and most of the other other half of the country up in arms. It's precisely because of that kind of partisan hypocrisy that high-level officials _must_ be treated differently. It's impossible to disentangle politics from their positions except in the most clear and unambiguous circumstances. Certainly not in a rigorous and consistent manner. Courts aren't equipped to do that; and Congress isn't unbiased. And so the law, wisely, steps back (or should step back), and law enforcement understandably more reticent to step into the fray and risk their credibility. It's far more important for them to keep their hands clean than to punish someone. And while overtime that can build resentment, there's no other easy answer. In any event, rightly or wrongly voters got to punish Hillary all the same. That is, after all, the last check in a democratic system. And their conviction, such as it was, was legitimate regardless of whether she actually committed any crime. Had she won the election, it would have been just as legitimate. [1] You simply can't say it's legal for everybody without clearance. First, there's no such law, legislative or judge-made, that gives such blanket protection. Secondly, I can't see the court saying that it could never be illegal. For truly sensitive material (and, for better or worse, courts normally defer to the judgment of the government in that regard), I could easily see the court crafting a rule that requires looking at the specific situation. For example, maybe the first guy to download highly sensitive material from Wikileaks could be thrown in jail. While the 10-millionth has a defense because it's considered public knowledge at that point. And maybe it would be difficult to prove who the first guy was, but that wouldn't make it legal for him. I've only briefly studied the law in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's pretty close to the direction the law is going or maybe where it's already at. FWIW, a quick Google search suggests that one basis for the presumption that anyone obtaining or retaining classified information is illegal might come from the Espionage Act. In particular, see 18 U.S.C. S. 793(e): Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document ... or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Notably, unlike clauses (a) through (d) there's no requirement that you intend to harm the U.S. The only mens rea required is knowing your possession is unauthorized. Now, whatever we think about the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, can you really fault a CNN reporter for presuming it valid. Of course, I doubt any reporter would ever read the text. But it's funny how the further we dig into the facts, the more complex things become. And the notion that he's simply parroting (knowingly or unknowingly) government propaganda, and should have or could have explicated the particular claim in detail, becomes more difficult to sustain. CNN looks better and better, and Hannon worse and worse.

by rdtsc 10y ago

wahern 10y ago

I don't think that the CNN reporter (which, to be honest, is basically a hypothetical person to me at this point) was only thinking of those with clearance. I'd bet he either a) wasn't thinking or b) wasn't about to try to reiterate whatever long-winded and complex explanation there was. As I stated, it's not as simple as maybe illegal for people with clearance, not illegal for everybody else.[1] This is CNN. His only choices as a practical matter were to parrot it or not parrot it. He chose to parrot it. I don't think either choice was intrinsically better, especially for an outlet like CNN. Maybe this was on one of those more editorializing shows, in which case I can see wider room for disagreement. But I still don't see much to get upset about. And Hannon's accusation harms her credibility far more than what she accused CNN of doing. Regarding fairness, I understand and respect people's desire for fairness. And I understand that that desire is part of the fury. But it's unreasonable to expect that. Most of those same people were silent during the Plame affair, and most of the other other half of the country up in arms. It's precisely because of that kind of partisan hypocrisy that high-level officials _must_ be treated differently. It's impossible to disentangle politics from their positions except in the most clear and unambiguous circumstances. Certainly not in a rigorous and consistent manner. Courts aren't equipped to do that; and Congress isn't unbiased. And so the law, wisely, steps back (or should step back), and law enforcement understandably more reticent to step into the fray and risk their credibility. It's far more important for them to keep their hands clean than to punish someone. And while overtime that can build resentment, there's no other easy answer. In any event, rightly or wrongly voters got to punish Hillary all the same. That is, after all, the last check in a democratic system. And their conviction, such as it was, was legitimate regardless of whether she actually committed any crime. Had she won the election, it would have been just as legitimate. [1] You simply can't say it's legal for everybody without clearance. First, there's no such law, legislative or judge-made, that gives such blanket protection. Secondly, I can't see the court saying that it could never be illegal. For truly sensitive material (and, for better or worse, courts normally defer to the judgment of the government in that regard), I could easily see the court crafting a rule that requires looking at the specific situation. For example, maybe the first guy to download highly sensitive material from Wikileaks could be thrown in jail. While the 10-millionth has a defense because it's considered public knowledge at that point. And maybe it would be difficult to prove who the first guy was, but that wouldn't make it legal for him. I've only briefly studied the law in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's pretty close to the direction the law is going or maybe where it's already at. FWIW, a quick Google search suggests that one basis for the presumption that anyone obtaining or retaining classified information is illegal might come from the Espionage Act. In particular, see 18 U.S.C. S. 793(e): Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document ... or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Notably, unlike clauses (a) through (d) there's no requirement that you intend to harm the U.S. The only mens rea required is knowing your possession is unauthorized. Now, whatever we think about the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, can you really fault a CNN reporter for presuming it valid. Of course, I doubt any reporter would ever read the text. But it's funny how the further we dig into the facts, the more complex things become. And the notion that he's simply parroting (knowingly or unknowingly) government propaganda, and should have or could have explicated the particular claim in detail, becomes more difficult to sustain. CNN looks better and better, and Hannon worse and worse.