4 ms·

> Nobody said Russia rigged the election. Nobody sensible said that, but I've seen more than a few comments along those lines on various sites, enough to belie

by Natsu 10y ago

> Nobody said Russia rigged the election. Nobody sensible said that, but I've seen more than a few comments along those lines on various sites, enough to believe that general sentiment is commonplace. As for Comey, I'd say he let her off easy. Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ Then look at the PDF attached here of an email between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton and ask whether this looks intentional or not: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

lern_too_spel 10y ago
How did Comey let her off easy if she didn't break any laws?
- Natsu 10y ago
  Comey claimed not to have charged Clinton because there was a lack of intent. Gowdy is calling him on that, saying that this makes zero sense and going over all the ways they have to prove intent. His point at the end about "negligence" underscores the fact that the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical: intentional negligence is a contradiction in terms. That which is intentional cannot be negligent and vice versa. The law in question is against negligence (which does not require any intent whatsoever). Just to underscore that, I just linked to a document where Colin Powell describes in detail how they're subverting the law: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 "However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it [is] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and be subject to the law. Reading about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data." I don't think it's reasonable to let our politicians get away with this. Inasmuch as people are worried about Russian influence, it seems strange to me that there's no worry about the very leaders to jeopardize our OPSEC with their hubris. Here is Colin Powell, again, saying things that should make HN readers cringe: "Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly." If the law is so toothless that high ranking people of either party (Powell is a Republican) can deliberately subvert them, then we're always going to be at the mercy of every country with half-decent spies. This is a problem in its own right, independent from whatever partisan considerations we have here. === Note: The square brackets in the quote are me fixing typos in the original.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    You don't understand what intent means as it relates to the law. The particular law you are referring to is the Espionage Act. The case law (in particular, Gorin v. United States) establishes a bright line of scienter for application of this law, highlighting the text that says the defendant must have "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation" in order to be in violation of the law. Intending to use a private email server with a Blackberry is not enough. She must intend to circumvent the security of the email system in order to harm the United States or help a foreign nation.
    - Toe-Rag 10y ago
      Intent to harm the United States (or another nation) was not the intent Comey was looking for. It was intent to share national security information with people not authorized to receive it.
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        And what law would that be a violation of? The only law requiring intent that was under investigation was the Espionage Act, and I have given you the text that describes what intent is required.
        Toe-Rag 10y ago
        The statute - 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) - says nothing about intent. Comey read it in as a requirement for launching a prosecution. The intent he thought was required was as I described, not intent to harm the United States.
        lern_too_spel 10y ago
        > The intent he thought was required was as I described Again, cite the law. It doesn't exist. > The statute - 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) - says nothing about intent. Again, that section was anulled by case law, in particular Gorin v. United States, which establishes the bright line of scienter for applying this law. That is why Comey said that no prosecutor would bring this charge.

by Natsu 10y ago

lern_too_spel 10y ago

How did Comey let her off easy if she didn't break any laws?

Natsu 10y ago
Comey claimed not to have charged Clinton because there was a lack of intent. Gowdy is calling him on that, saying that this makes zero sense and going over all the ways they have to prove intent. His point at the end about "negligence" underscores the fact that the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical: intentional negligence is a contradiction in terms. That which is intentional cannot be negligent and vice versa. The law in question is against negligence (which does not require any intent whatsoever). Just to underscore that, I just linked to a document where Colin Powell describes in detail how they're subverting the law: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 "However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it [is] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and be subject to the law. Reading about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data." I don't think it's reasonable to let our politicians get away with this. Inasmuch as people are worried about Russian influence, it seems strange to me that there's no worry about the very leaders to jeopardize our OPSEC with their hubris. Here is Colin Powell, again, saying things that should make HN readers cringe: "Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly." If the law is so toothless that high ranking people of either party (Powell is a Republican) can deliberately subvert them, then we're always going to be at the mercy of every country with half-decent spies. This is a problem in its own right, independent from whatever partisan considerations we have here. === Note: The square brackets in the quote are me fixing typos in the original.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  You don't understand what intent means as it relates to the law. The particular law you are referring to is the Espionage Act. The case law (in particular, Gorin v. United States) establishes a bright line of scienter for application of this law, highlighting the text that says the defendant must have "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation" in order to be in violation of the law. Intending to use a private email server with a Blackberry is not enough. She must intend to circumvent the security of the email system in order to harm the United States or help a foreign nation.
  - Toe-Rag 10y ago
    Intent to harm the United States (or another nation) was not the intent Comey was looking for. It was intent to share national security information with people not authorized to receive it.
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      And what law would that be a violation of? The only law requiring intent that was under investigation was the Espionage Act, and I have given you the text that describes what intent is required.
      - Toe-Rag 10y ago
        The statute - 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) - says nothing about intent. Comey read it in as a requirement for launching a prosecution. The intent he thought was required was as I described, not intent to harm the United States.
        lern_too_spel 10y ago
        > The intent he thought was required was as I described Again, cite the law. It doesn't exist. > The statute - 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) - says nothing about intent. Again, that section was anulled by case law, in particular Gorin v. United States, which establishes the bright line of scienter for applying this law. That is why Comey said that no prosecutor would bring this charge.