4 ms·

Where is the "but her emails" crowd now? There are three main issues here: 1. The Defense Department bans the use of Signal for everybody else. Why is that? Wh

by jmyeet 2y ago

Where is the "but her emails" crowd now? There are three main issues here: 1. The Defense Department bans the use of Signal for everybody else. Why is that? Why is the Secretary exempt? 2. As we've seen it's pretty easy to add unauthorized people to what should be secure communication channels where classified information is shared; and 3. There are laws around the preservation of governmental records. Expiring Signal messages seems like it's intentionally meant to circumvent these legal requirements ie it's illegal. We're only 100 days in. We've got 1200 more days of this.

Supermancho 2y ago
> Where is the "but her emails" crowd now? Same place everyone else is now. Nobody cares about the flagrant violations by the executive. This is the foxes walking around freely now.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  Nobody? Including yourself?
  - jmull 2y ago
    That’s a common idiom which isn’t literal. (Obviously?)
    - iszomer 2y ago
      Because this is my United States of Whatever!
    - nonethewiser 2y ago
      The implication is that either he doesnt care, or he does. So I guess he does. I just didn't get the vibe that he wanted Hillary to be held accountable for her emails.
eastbound 2y ago
[flagged]
- croes 2y ago
  They vote this to get it worse? Strange logic.
- viraptor 2y ago
  > Sounds like locking her up for bypassing the governmental emails would have been a win, now. This is getting stupid to bring up, but at least we've got a canonical long response to that with a proper legal analysis. https://youtu.be/cw1tNTIEs-o https://youtu.be/cw1tNTIEs-o
- semi-extrinsic 2y ago
  > Sounds like locking her up for bypassing the governmental emails would have been a win, now. Under what basis should one have "locked her up"? All legal experts agree that there was no crime committed which could result in a prison sentence. This is specifically because none of the emails were classified.
  - eastbound 2y ago
    Please correct me if I’m wrong: She bypassed the requirement to communicate with all her contacts through secure and auditable channels (things people accuse the Trump admin of now doing), including foreign diplomats, by giving them her private email, which was effectively an email server stored under her desk, in simple SMTP, not SMTPS, which means all hostile entities could hack into it. When caught, she deleted the 19,000 emails and wasn’t sued for destruction of evidence. That “all” of your legal experts (all 100% of them) found that perfectly legal is non sequitur: As a Secretary of State, practically her whole life can be used as ransom to make her do things contrary to state interests; and as a Secretary of State, she’s even responsible for making her subordinates set up the security rules to make it physically impossible to do what she did, if not legally impossible. She should not only have known, but she should have set up the rules for others. Sounds like 100% of your legal experts may have been accessory to a scheme. Maybe she abided by the letter of the law but not the spirit, maybe the law has a hole, maybe everyone is lying because they’re afraid saying she cheated would benefit Trump, maybe anything else. I’m genuinely interested in understanding if the story was wrong; But I’m not interested in understanding whether your take on the low importance of just a few emails from just a basic secretary, “nah don’t worry it’s just emails with her friends, she can have a private life”. No she can’t?
sokoloff 2y ago
Re: 1. If a team at work has a long-standing policy implemented by and applying only to that team and I come in as the new team lead, I can change that policy. NB: I’m not arguing that this change in policy was done after a careful Chesterton’s Fence analysis and weighing of all relevant factors, but it would seem stranger if a new leader couldn’t change any policies than if they can.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  But did they change the policy, or did they do whatever because they felt like it regardless of what the policy said?
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
Huh? I am still here and I am still annoyed by both. If anything, people who opposed 'but her emails' crowd to sufficiently penalize Hillary, made the current situation possible to begin with. edit: To the lazy down voters. Address the 'my side never does anything wrong' issue and I might concede.

by jmyeet 2y ago

Supermancho 2y ago

> Where is the "but her emails" crowd now? Same place everyone else is now. Nobody cares about the flagrant violations by the executive. This is the foxes walking around freely now.

nonethewiser 2y ago
Nobody? Including yourself?
- jmull 2y ago
  That’s a common idiom which isn’t literal. (Obviously?)
  - iszomer 2y ago
    Because this is my United States of Whatever!
  - nonethewiser 2y ago
    The implication is that either he doesnt care, or he does. So I guess he does. I just didn't get the vibe that he wanted Hillary to be held accountable for her emails.

eastbound 2y ago

[flagged]

croes 2y ago
They vote this to get it worse? Strange logic.
viraptor 2y ago
> Sounds like locking her up for bypassing the governmental emails would have been a win, now. This is getting stupid to bring up, but at least we've got a canonical long response to that with a proper legal analysis. https://youtu.be/cw1tNTIEs-o https://youtu.be/cw1tNTIEs-o
semi-extrinsic 2y ago
> Sounds like locking her up for bypassing the governmental emails would have been a win, now. Under what basis should one have "locked her up"? All legal experts agree that there was no crime committed which could result in a prison sentence. This is specifically because none of the emails were classified.
- eastbound 2y ago
  Please correct me if I’m wrong: She bypassed the requirement to communicate with all her contacts through secure and auditable channels (things people accuse the Trump admin of now doing), including foreign diplomats, by giving them her private email, which was effectively an email server stored under her desk, in simple SMTP, not SMTPS, which means all hostile entities could hack into it. When caught, she deleted the 19,000 emails and wasn’t sued for destruction of evidence. That “all” of your legal experts (all 100% of them) found that perfectly legal is non sequitur: As a Secretary of State, practically her whole life can be used as ransom to make her do things contrary to state interests; and as a Secretary of State, she’s even responsible for making her subordinates set up the security rules to make it physically impossible to do what she did, if not legally impossible. She should not only have known, but she should have set up the rules for others. Sounds like 100% of your legal experts may have been accessory to a scheme. Maybe she abided by the letter of the law but not the spirit, maybe the law has a hole, maybe everyone is lying because they’re afraid saying she cheated would benefit Trump, maybe anything else. I’m genuinely interested in understanding if the story was wrong; But I’m not interested in understanding whether your take on the low importance of just a few emails from just a basic secretary, “nah don’t worry it’s just emails with her friends, she can have a private life”. No she can’t?

sokoloff 2y ago

Re: 1. If a team at work has a long-standing policy implemented by and applying only to that team and I come in as the new team lead, I can change that policy. NB: I’m not arguing that this change in policy was done after a careful Chesterton’s Fence analysis and weighing of all relevant factors, but it would seem stranger if a new leader couldn’t change any policies than if they can.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
But did they change the policy, or did they do whatever because they felt like it regardless of what the policy said?

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago

Huh? I am still here and I am still annoyed by both. If anything, people who opposed 'but her emails' crowd to sufficiently penalize Hillary, made the current situation possible to begin with. edit: To the lazy down voters. Address the 'my side never does anything wrong' issue and I might concede.