4 ms·

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no h

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower. Adding in a Clinton dig just adds political derailment to the topic for no particular reason.

paisawalla 5y ago
He's anticipating the objection re Snowden. You have to be angry about the fact that the information he released makes the govt look bad, and not just the fact of improper process, a la Clinton. Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  > Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth This is a very easy argument to make without resorting to political derailment, especially since it's basically a founding principle of our country (separation of powers, because we can't trust governing entities to police themselves, therefore competing and opposed government entities must effectively 'police' each other).
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    Sure, but 1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit 2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency
    - helen___keller 5y ago
      > 1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit OK? The fact that government doesn't police itself sucks, yes. The fact that I don't have a Lamborghini also sucks. I don't see what throwing in a Hillary Clinton dig is going to do to solve this situation or offer any kind of insight to other readers and commenters besides making people feel angry about politics. > 2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency I don't even know what you're referring to right now or how it relates to the topic.
      - paisawalla 5y ago
        You honestly sound like you're going out of your way to be upset about this.
boringg 5y ago
Exactly. OP clearly has an agenda (though all over the map in their comments). Clinton has no relation to this whatsoever. Maybe too much consuming of right wing media.
- fareesh 5y ago
  Just so I understand your claim: My agenda is that I am advocating for the rights of Julian Assange - who exposed various embarassing government secrets for the Bush administration... .. and simultaneously my agenda is also that I am advocating against Hillary Clinton, the political opponent of George W Bush? Our local Indian news channel NDTV (which leans left) released a story in 2016 about Hillary Clinton asking her housekeeper Marina Santos to print out classified information. The US Government has no problem with this. I don't think that the housekeeper having access to classified information is in the public's best interests. I do think that the releases made by Assange and Snowden are in the public interest. But the US government has a problem with this. This is the double standard that I am highlighting - the US government (regardless of who is running it) is demonstrably and fairly consistently at odds with what is in the best interests of the public when it comes to privacy, social media, etc. etc.
  - pionar 5y ago
    You're leaving out that even though she asked her housekeeper to print out classified information (so you say, I'm not familiar with the story, but I'll take your word on it for this), she wasn't actively trying to undermine US security. She's just careless and ignorant of the ramifications of her actions. I'm not defending Clinton or Assange. I think they should both be facing some sort of punishment for their actions. Neither is a saint. Assange has a martyr complex that he's milking for support. Clinton is a megalomaniac that will say anything to get into power. Neither are good people.
    - fareesh 5y ago
      I am not a professional and I have not met any of them, so I cannot diagnose them with complexes. Actively trying to undermine US security is a misattributed intent. You can easily assume good intentions for Snowden and Assange, just like good intentions are assumed for Clinton. This is not done because Clinton is a member of the Washington DC establishment, who is well networked, and is well protected by people in the system.
fareesh 5y ago
Do you realize that I am advocating for Assange, who exposed the Bush administration. Why is it only a political dig if it's aimed at Clinton?
- burnished 5y ago
  Because some nut, clutching their gun, waking up from a nightmare screaming "Hilary!" is a meme at this point. Bringing it up out of nowhere seems to mark tribal membership more than anything else. If it was just the first thing that came to mind then you should probably know (so I will tell you) that 'the emails' have become something of a loaded topic, what with getting mostly used as a rallying cry these days.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  Yes, your post is otherwise advocating for whistleblowers, which is on topic and makes sense to discuss. Clinton's email server is not a whistleblower. Clinton is not a whistleblower. The FBI is not a whistleblower. Your sentence "according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended" does not relate to whistleblowers in any way. What is does do is signal a political flag to other individuals. This sort of political signalling does not contribute to the conversation about whistleblowers and ultimately is not productive.
  - fareesh 5y ago
    Yes and I also clarified that this is about optics. Anyway, since you are challenging the reference - I shall explain it. It is a bit complex and hinges on a few pieces of information and reasoning: 1) The whistleblowers I am advocating in favor of - Assange, Manning and Snowden, are being prosecuted because the US government is ensuring that there is justice served to those who would dare to expose their secrets to the public. The secrets have already been leaked. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle, so as such the persecution of these individuals is punitive, and to serve as a warning to others who would dare to do something like this in the future. 2) Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. The FBI said that she did not do this intentionally (I am inclined to agree with the FBI here btw). HOWEVER, there is magically no interest in setting an example here, or being punitive, or serving any kind of warning to others who would dare to make a mistake like this. Director James Comey said that any reasonable person in her position would have known that this was wrong. The US government wants to make an example out of Assange and Snowden when they leak classified information, but not of Hillary Clinton because she didn't intend to do any harm. As such, Assange (who is not even a US citizen) and Snowden leaked this information in the interest of the public exposing the apparent misdeeds of the US government. From an optics point of view, the moral of the story appears to be that if you are Hillary Clinton's housekeeper, you get to print out classified material for her convenience, but if you are a concerned citizen, you don't get to learn about the fact that your government collects your internet correspondence en-masse. 3) I quote from: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11136 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11136 in which Neera Tanden writes to John Podesta: > I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that. But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty). And also: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150 In which Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik tips off Hillary Clinton's campaign manager about what the Department of Justice will be doing in the next couple of days, so that the campaign can get their communication ready in advance. We see here that there is widespread agreement, even amongst allies, that some wrongdoing has been done, and we see the government's machinery springing into action to help this person out. --- Perhaps you are a wealthy or fortunate person who sees things from a different perspective, but I am an ordinary person living in a third world country where government corruption regardless of party is the norm. I see a powerful person getting off easy and getting help from people inside t he government to clear their name. I also see good people who risked their lives and their families being persecuted by the most powerful government in the world, and all they did was help ordinary people like me understand what our governments are doing to us. Mr. Snowden has to live in Russia and may never get to go home again. Mr. Assange has lived in captivity for years. Mr. Clinton can give a speech in a single day and make $200,000 while his wife is in government. Maybe for you this is not shady at all, but for ordinary people like me, this is just emblematic of corruption and a broken system where government protects its own. The optics are terrible.

paisawalla 5y ago

He's anticipating the objection re Snowden. You have to be angry about the fact that the information he released makes the govt look bad, and not just the fact of improper process, a la Clinton. Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth.

helen___keller 5y ago
> Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth This is a very easy argument to make without resorting to political derailment, especially since it's basically a founding principle of our country (separation of powers, because we can't trust governing entities to police themselves, therefore competing and opposed government entities must effectively 'police' each other).
- paisawalla 5y ago
  Sure, but 1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit 2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    > 1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit OK? The fact that government doesn't police itself sucks, yes. The fact that I don't have a Lamborghini also sucks. I don't see what throwing in a Hillary Clinton dig is going to do to solve this situation or offer any kind of insight to other readers and commenters besides making people feel angry about politics. > 2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency I don't even know what you're referring to right now or how it relates to the topic.
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      You honestly sound like you're going out of your way to be upset about this.

boringg 5y ago

Exactly. OP clearly has an agenda (though all over the map in their comments). Clinton has no relation to this whatsoever. Maybe too much consuming of right wing media.

fareesh 5y ago
Just so I understand your claim: My agenda is that I am advocating for the rights of Julian Assange - who exposed various embarassing government secrets for the Bush administration... .. and simultaneously my agenda is also that I am advocating against Hillary Clinton, the political opponent of George W Bush? Our local Indian news channel NDTV (which leans left) released a story in 2016 about Hillary Clinton asking her housekeeper Marina Santos to print out classified information. The US Government has no problem with this. I don't think that the housekeeper having access to classified information is in the public's best interests. I do think that the releases made by Assange and Snowden are in the public interest. But the US government has a problem with this. This is the double standard that I am highlighting - the US government (regardless of who is running it) is demonstrably and fairly consistently at odds with what is in the best interests of the public when it comes to privacy, social media, etc. etc.
- pionar 5y ago
  You're leaving out that even though she asked her housekeeper to print out classified information (so you say, I'm not familiar with the story, but I'll take your word on it for this), she wasn't actively trying to undermine US security. She's just careless and ignorant of the ramifications of her actions. I'm not defending Clinton or Assange. I think they should both be facing some sort of punishment for their actions. Neither is a saint. Assange has a martyr complex that he's milking for support. Clinton is a megalomaniac that will say anything to get into power. Neither are good people.
  - fareesh 5y ago
    I am not a professional and I have not met any of them, so I cannot diagnose them with complexes. Actively trying to undermine US security is a misattributed intent. You can easily assume good intentions for Snowden and Assange, just like good intentions are assumed for Clinton. This is not done because Clinton is a member of the Washington DC establishment, who is well networked, and is well protected by people in the system.

fareesh 5y ago

Do you realize that I am advocating for Assange, who exposed the Bush administration. Why is it only a political dig if it's aimed at Clinton?

burnished 5y ago
Because some nut, clutching their gun, waking up from a nightmare screaming "Hilary!" is a meme at this point. Bringing it up out of nowhere seems to mark tribal membership more than anything else. If it was just the first thing that came to mind then you should probably know (so I will tell you) that 'the emails' have become something of a loaded topic, what with getting mostly used as a rallying cry these days.
helen___keller 5y ago
Yes, your post is otherwise advocating for whistleblowers, which is on topic and makes sense to discuss. Clinton's email server is not a whistleblower. Clinton is not a whistleblower. The FBI is not a whistleblower. Your sentence "according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended" does not relate to whistleblowers in any way. What is does do is signal a political flag to other individuals. This sort of political signalling does not contribute to the conversation about whistleblowers and ultimately is not productive.
- fareesh 5y ago
  Yes and I also clarified that this is about optics. Anyway, since you are challenging the reference - I shall explain it. It is a bit complex and hinges on a few pieces of information and reasoning: 1) The whistleblowers I am advocating in favor of - Assange, Manning and Snowden, are being prosecuted because the US government is ensuring that there is justice served to those who would dare to expose their secrets to the public. The secrets have already been leaked. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle, so as such the persecution of these individuals is punitive, and to serve as a warning to others who would dare to do something like this in the future. 2) Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. The FBI said that she did not do this intentionally (I am inclined to agree with the FBI here btw). HOWEVER, there is magically no interest in setting an example here, or being punitive, or serving any kind of warning to others who would dare to make a mistake like this. Director James Comey said that any reasonable person in her position would have known that this was wrong. The US government wants to make an example out of Assange and Snowden when they leak classified information, but not of Hillary Clinton because she didn't intend to do any harm. As such, Assange (who is not even a US citizen) and Snowden leaked this information in the interest of the public exposing the apparent misdeeds of the US government. From an optics point of view, the moral of the story appears to be that if you are Hillary Clinton's housekeeper, you get to print out classified material for her convenience, but if you are a concerned citizen, you don't get to learn about the fact that your government collects your internet correspondence en-masse. 3) I quote from: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11136 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11136 in which Neera Tanden writes to John Podesta: > I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that. But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty). And also: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150 In which Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik tips off Hillary Clinton's campaign manager about what the Department of Justice will be doing in the next couple of days, so that the campaign can get their communication ready in advance. We see here that there is widespread agreement, even amongst allies, that some wrongdoing has been done, and we see the government's machinery springing into action to help this person out. --- Perhaps you are a wealthy or fortunate person who sees things from a different perspective, but I am an ordinary person living in a third world country where government corruption regardless of party is the norm. I see a powerful person getting off easy and getting help from people inside t he government to clear their name. I also see good people who risked their lives and their families being persecuted by the most powerful government in the world, and all they did was help ordinary people like me understand what our governments are doing to us. Mr. Snowden has to live in Russia and may never get to go home again. Mr. Assange has lived in captivity for years. Mr. Clinton can give a speech in a single day and make $200,000 while his wife is in government. Maybe for you this is not shady at all, but for ordinary people like me, this is just emblematic of corruption and a broken system where government protects its own. The optics are terrible.