2016 Presidential Election

[Elric of Melniboné]

I hate when exposé stuff is released in serial fashion. If they have more videos, they should have put it all out at the same time.

That said, this doesn't look good but the short conversation segments shown in tue videos and the fact that there's no real evidence that links them with the Hillary Clinton campaign and demonstrates that she authorized it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the whole exposé. I'm definitely not saying that I support this, but it isn't going to go anywhere in all likelihood.

From my perspective, Donald Trump's statements that the election is rigged are most likely prompted by constant media coverage of his own actions as his support is at an all-time low and he hasn't been able to stop the momentum of his own negative image, stemming from his own words and actions in the past and present.

I'm also of the opinion that if Google and YouTube wanted to suppress this information, they would just take down the videos.

 

[Dak]

I think this is pretty accurate.

 

[Baroque]

I thought she was "gonna take away our gunz"

And Donald's would be more all over the place. One of the bullets would be "randomly nuke another country", another would be "unintentionally incite race riots", etc.

 

[Dak]

Well "all over the place" doesn't mean anything without context. I have a pretty good feel for what Hillary would do based on track record and emails and it's pretty goddamn bad. Also, I think you've fallen for completely unsubstantiated scare tactics on the nuke thing, and it's Dems that have intentionally incited riots because of Trump, so I don't know where the latter concern comes from.

 

[Einherjar86]

I take "all over the place" to mean that even if there are only three rounds in Donald's chamber, some of them are scattershot, or explosive rounds, yada yada yada, and have the capacity to do far more danger than Hillary's fully-loaded (yeah, mixing up my firearms, I know).

But that said, I don't agree with the cartoon at all. I find it emphatically inaccurate.

 

[Dak]

I could accept arguments about inaccuracy that suggested adding rounds to the chamber in "Donald". I think Hillary is going to make everyone miss the saner days of Obama. Never mind the fact she should be in jail at a minimum, if not executed.

 

[Satanstoenail]

 

[Einherjar86]

I could accept arguments about inaccuracy that suggested adding rounds to the chamber in "Donald". I think Hillary is going to make everyone miss the saner days of Obama. Never mind the fact she should be in jail at a minimum, if not executed.

We haven't gotten into this, and I kinda don't want to, haha - but I cannot believe all the people I hear who keep saying that she should be imprisoned. I don't see her behavior as criminal, but as politically obligatory. That's not to say I find it ethically appropriate or admirable, but I find it no more incriminating than I do Trump's tax "evasion" (which isn't technically evasion, just very underhanded business tactics).

And seriously, executed? You're bordering on something dangerous here...

 

[SentinelSlain]

Donald Trump used a loophole to avoid paying an enormous tax bill, but that's what you would expect him to do as a businessman. You might expect him to close those loopholes as a politician and he may more or he may not, but that is a separate matter. Hillary, on the other hand and her Clinton foundation, have done all kinds of shit that basically exploits charitable causes to make money for her and her cronies, some of whom are presently in jail. Seriously, which of the big businesses don't have rooms full of people working out how they can pay the least tax? Maybe things should change, but it strikes me as more likely that someone with their own money would change that than someone totally dependent on donors. Frankly, partially because they could move their own banking around a bit before making the legislative changes, as opposed to getting a list of measures (and recommended staff) from a couple of people at the big banks and going along with it.

 

[Dak]

Liberal armchair psychologists love to charge Trump with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and I'd estimate it to be very likely, potentially along with Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (not to be confused with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). However, in a battle of disorders, I'd rather deal with a narcissist than a literal psychopath like Hillary.

We haven't gotten into this, and I kinda don't want to, haha - but I cannot believe all the people I hear who keep saying that she should be imprisoned. I don't see her behavior as criminal, but as politically obligatory. That's not to say I find it ethically appropriate or admirable, but I find it no more incriminating than I do Trump's tax "evasion" (which isn't technically evasion, just very underhanded business tactics).

And seriously, executed? You're bordering on something dangerous here...

It doesn't matter how you see it eg feel about it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
https://www.ncsc.gov/training/WBT/docs/UDB_091211.pdf (pages 41,42)

People have had their lives ruined for far far less than what Clinton did. She is a career liar (beyond simply breaking campaign promises, this is that "political obligation" you refer to), but that's not something that warrants jail unless it's under oath. Although the death penalty is explicitly an option in the case of divulging classified information, Clinton's transgressions in that particular instance probably don't reach the threshold. But let's look at the death penalty on a federal level:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty

18 U.S.C. 1958 Murder for hire.
18 U.S.C. 2381 Treason.

Based on a combination of the publicly available evidence as well as the cover-ups, I am quite confident a complete and open investigation of the Clintons would find multiple counts of the first infraction, and the latter would be found as the sum of many actions (the complete and flagrant disregard for security protocols being one of those relevant actions). The only way my opinion is "bordering on something dangerous" is if I were important enough to have my name wind up in the proverbial red lipstick on the wall. Of course at this point, even if somehow Hillary were brought to trial etc, by the the entire process were completed she might die of natural causes so not much is accomplished in practical terms.

Edit: I've read some headlines about the number of friendships destroyed around election season and I think that's incredibly childish (also confirms my biased thinking about the general population lol). I understand why people vote for Hillary even if I think it's misguided at the very least. If there was ever an election to not vote for a presidential candidate based on principal it would seem that this one is it. What I don't want though is to ever hear a Democrat complain about corruption ever again after pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton. She is the publicly available embodiment of corruption (I'm sure their are worse people that aren't in the public eye). This election is proving guys like Scott Adams and Dr. Haidt right - people are not generally rational, and definitely do not rationally engage in politics: values voters voting for a philanderer and "anti-corruption" voters voting for the most confirmedly corrupt politician of our lifetimes.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's all fascinating stuff, but none of it convinces me that she's guilty of the things you say she is. This is the point. Conspiratorial fear-mongering isn't the same thing as "critical information retrieval." The emails consistently have not revealed what the Clinton-haters want them to reveal - hard proof or even highly suggestive evidence. There is no proof that she has misused campaign donations, and there is even less evidence that she has hired to have people killed.

We can't stage a revolution on circumstance, as enticing and tempting as it is to entertain our own private fantasies. Which is basically what you're doing by imagining a set of axioms by which we can actually sentence Clinton to death - a ridiculous law that deserves as much retooling as the Constitution does.

Put another way, Clinton is absolutely a "career liar" - and she's fucking good at it. Geopolitical maneuvering centers on the premise of the public not knowing information, and the current state of information centers on the premise of ever-increasing transparency. Despite increasing transparency, she has still managed to avoid stone cold proof. That's impressive.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I'm officially leaning towards voting for Hillary Clinton because I can't ignore Donald Trump's malignant narcissism and the fact that he pretty much disputes reality and scientific facts every time that he talks. The fact that so many of his supporters believe the blatant untruths that he brings up about science also makes me uneasy.

That said, they're both corrupt and dishonest people and I'd rather neither of them were elected.

 

[Baroque]

Liberal armchair psychologists love to charge Trump with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and I'd estimate it to be very likely, potentially along with Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (not to be confused with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). However, in a battle of disorders, I'd rather deal with a narcissist than a literal psychopath like Hillary.



It doesn't matter how you see it eg feel about it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
https://www.ncsc.gov/training/WBT/docs/UDB_091211.pdf (pages 41,42)

People have had their lives ruined for far far less than what Clinton did. She is a career liar (beyond simply breaking campaign promises, this is that "political obligation" you refer to), but that's not something that warrants jail unless it's under oath. Although the death penalty is explicitly an option in the case of divulging classified information, Clinton's transgressions in that particular instance probably don't reach the threshold. But let's look at the death penalty on a federal level:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty


Based on a combination of the publicly available evidence as well as the cover-ups, I am quite confident a complete and open investigation of the Clintons would find multiple counts of the first infraction, and the latter would be found as the sum of many actions (the complete and flagrant disregard for security protocols being one of those relevant actions). The only way my opinion is "bordering on something dangerous" is if I were important enough to have my name wind up in the proverbial red lipstick on the wall. Of course at this point, even if somehow Hillary were brought to trial etc, by the the entire process were completed she might die of natural causes so not much is accomplished in practical terms.

Edit: I've read some headlines about the number of friendships destroyed around election season and I think that's incredibly childish (also confirms my biased thinking about the general population lol). I understand why people vote for Hillary even if I think it's misguided at the very least. If there was ever an election to not vote for a presidential candidate based on principal it would seem that this one is it. What I don't want though is to ever hear a Democrat complain about corruption ever again after pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton. She is the publicly available embodiment of corruption (I'm sure their are worse people that aren't in the public eye). This election is proving guys like Scott Adams and Dr. Haidt right - people are not generally rational, and definitely do not rationally engage in politics: values voters voting for a philanderer and "anti-corruption" voters voting for the most confirmedly corrupt politician of our lifetimes.

What exact classified information do you claim she disseminated without authorization?

Leadership in the highest levels of government such as Hillary are exactly who information is gathered for, and it is ultimately their decision what to do with it.

 

[Draehl]

Not a fan of either. With Hillary you know you're getting a shit sandwich. Trump is a lot tougher to predict. He could be a whole septic tank dumped on your head or a nice unexpected BLT...

 

[Dak]

That's all fascinating stuff, but none of it convinces me that she's guilty of the things you say she is. This is the point. Conspiratorial fear-mongering isn't the same thing as "critical information retrieval." The emails consistently have not revealed what the Clinton-haters want them to reveal - hard proof or even highly suggestive evidence. There is no proof that she has misused campaign donations, and there is even less evidence that she has hired to have people killed.

We can't stage a revolution on circumstance, as enticing and tempting as it is to entertain our own private fantasies. Which is basically what you're doing by imagining a set of axioms by which we can actually sentence Clinton to death - a ridiculous law that deserves as much retooling as the Constitution does.

I'm at a loss as to how a death sentence based on evidence and trial is a "revolution"? I'm not going to try and convince anyone that she did more than we have proof of and I'm not referring to emails when I talk about the body count surrounding the Clintons. There's enough smoke over the decades there to warrant checking for fire. Unfortunately the collateral damage insures that won't ever happen and the Justice system is completely compromised in a variety of ways, but especially surrounding the Clinton machine. Even if some sort of investigation occurred we'll see the same sort of shit that we saw with the email investigation where wrong doing is found but "neverminded" away.

What exact classified information do you claim she disseminated without authorization?

Leadership in the highest levels of government such as Hillary are exactly who information is gathered for, and it is ultimately their decision what to do with it.

Your second sentence shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the purpose and protocols surrounding classified information. Politicians do not have carte blanche with classified information.

The FBI determined more than 100 emails had classified information in them, and at least 3 were marked. I don't know what was in them and haven't gone looking for the information. Exposing state department business through gross and intentional negligence regarding cyber-security for personal convenience and "privacy" is disturbing from several angles, and definitely criminal. Which gets to this:

Put another way, Clinton is absolutely a "career liar" - and she's fucking good at it. Geopolitical maneuvering centers on the premise of the public not knowing information, and the current state of information centers on the premise of ever-increasing transparency. Despite increasing transparency, she has still managed to avoid stone cold proof. That's impressive.

It's impressive from some angles, although maintaining a degree of separation is less difficult when everyone is operating from the same playbook. However, I question how much it matters whether large portions of populations know anything - how much do facts matter for politics? How many people who were major Sander's supporters are voting for Hillary? How many people still claim voter fraud doesn't occur? How many Democrats claim to be seriously anti-corruption in politics?

The Clinton machine couldn't keep this proof from leaking, and it doesn't seem to matter to her voter base, similarly to how Donald's leaks haven't damaged him much with his Values Voters base.

 

[Baroque]

I'm at a loss as to how a death sentence based on evidence and trial is a "revolution"? I'm not going to try and convince anyone that she did more than we have proof of and I'm not referring to emails when I talk about the body count surrounding the Clintons. There's enough smoke over the decades there to warrant checking for fire. Unfortunately the collateral damage insures that won't ever happen and the Justice system is completely compromised in a variety of ways, but especially surrounding the Clinton machine. Even if some sort of investigation occurred we'll see the same sort of shit that we saw with the email investigation where wrong doing is found but "neverminded" away.



Your second sentence shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the purpose and protocols surrounding classified information. Politicians do not have carte blanche with classified information.

The FBI determined more than 100 emails had classified information in them, and at least 3 were marked. I don't know what was in them and haven't gone looking for the information. Exposing state department business through gross and intentional negligence regarding cyber-security for personal convenience and "privacy" is disturbing from several angles, and definitely criminal. Which gets to this:



It's impressive from some angles, although maintaining a degree of separation is less difficult when everyone is operating from the same playbook. However, I question how much it matters whether large portions of populations know anything - how much do facts matter for politics? How many people who were major Sander's supporters are voting for Hillary? How many people still claim voter fraud doesn't occur? How many Democrats claim to be seriously anti-corruption in politics?

The Clinton machine couldn't keep this proof from leaking, and it doesn't seem to matter to her voter base, similarly to how Donald's leaks haven't damaged him much with his Values Voters base.

Hahaha. Yeah *i* don't understand it. The FBI and the CIA report to the president and his advisors first and foremost. Their job is to make our leadership the smartest people in the world. They do not have authority over the president or his staff. The information provided to them is now theirs to do with as they see fit. Also, If the president does not want the FBI to investigate Hillary they can not and will not.

Politicians in general do not have carte blanche, but we are not talking about politicians in general.

Again you are making claims with no evidence, above you yourself said you don't even know what this supposed leaked classified information was. Or if it existed on her server at all.

 

[Dak]

Hahaha. Yeah *i* don't understand it. The FBI and the CIA report to the president and his advisors first and foremost. Their job is to make our leadership the smartest people in the world. They do not have authority over the president or his staff. The information provided to them is now theirs to do with as they see fit. Also, If the president does not want the FBI to investigate Hillary they can not and will not.

Politicians in general do not have carte blanche, but we are not talking about politicians in general.

Apparently you have confused the office of the Presidency with a dictatorship. You may be excused in that regard since it functions in that way in increasing degrees.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

if you skip down to Part 3, you'll notice nowhere does it state that the President or the Secretary of State or any other executive cabinet member may arbitrarily declassify anything (it is too lengthy to quote). The power to institute classification systems lies in the executive branch, but the President is still bound by the laws enacted.

Further down in this, you may find:

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(e) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(f) Consistent with law, executive orders, directives, and regulations, an agency head or senior agency official or, with respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish uniform procedures to ensure that automated information systems, including networks and telecommunications systems, that collect, create, communicate, compute, disseminate, process, or store classified information:

(1) prevent access by unauthorized persons;
(2) ensure the integrity of the information; and
(3) to the maximum extent practicable, use:
(A) common information technology standards, protocols, and interfaces that maximize the availability of, and access to, the information in a form and manner that facilitates its authorized use; and
(B) standardized electronic formats to maximize the accessibility of information to persons who meet the criteria set forth in section 4.1(a) of this order.
(g) Consistent with law, executive orders, directives, and regulations, each agency head or senior agency official, or with respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.

Clinton flagrantly disregarded all of this.

Again you are making claims with no evidence, above you yourself said you don't even know what this supposed leaked classified information was. Or if it existed on her server at all.

Do you read zero news? You could have even googled the evidence in a faster time than it took to accuse me of having none:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ndings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains.

 

[Baroque]

1) Hillary did not "arbitrarily declassify anything" she sent emails to other officials through a private network. It is not expected that every official is an expert on cyber security, just that they use their best judgement in these matters.

2) Yeah that is lengthy as fuck, and I can point at specific statements in that link that throw what you're saying into question, but I don't feel like continuing this discussion since it doesn't matter at all. Hillary will be president and arguing about this will not affect anything in my life or yours. But ok for two examples, (i) it says whoever deemed the info classified (the sec. of state is one who can make it classified or change its classification level) can also declassify it, (ii) the recipient of classified info becomes the originator of the classified info.

3) I can't even say why I know I'm right about the president having this power. So you can just go ahead and claim it's bs. I'm not going to risk getting into trouble over it.

4) If I'm wrong why did the FBI call off their investigation and decide not to do anything about it? The Secretary of State is 4th in the chain of command and can fire higher ups in agencies like the FBI if she decided to. The president and his staff are the policy makers. The FBI and CIA simply give them information. The president and his staff decide what to do with the information.

 

[Dak]

1) Hillary did not "arbitrarily declassify anything" she sent emails to other officials through a private network. It is not expected that every official is an expert on cyber security, just that they use their best judgement in these matters.

Correct, she didn't arbitrarily declassify it. She exposed it. I was responding to your statements about high rankings members of the executive branch being able to do whatever they want with classified information.

(i) it says whoever deemed the info classified (the sec. of state is one who can make it classified or change its classification level) can also declassify it

She could request that information be classified at a higher ranking. To reduce the classification it has to go into review with the originating department/classifying officer. For example, if the DoD has classified x document, the SecState cannot go read it on PBS just because he/she decided it wasn't worthy of classification.

4) If I'm wrong why did the FBI call off their investigation and decide not to do anything about it? The Secretary of State is 4th in the chain of command and can fire higher ups in agencies like the FBI if she decided to. The president and his staff are the policy makers. The FBI and CIA simply give them information. The president and his staff decide what to do with the information.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-didnt-the-fbi-charge-hillary-clinton-2016-7

"There are lots of statutes that deal with the mishandling of classified information, but what they all have in common is that it's intentionally or knowingly reckless, not careless," Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School lecturer who specializes in criminal law, told Business Insider. "If carelessness were sufficient, we would have indicted half the government."

So we can protect all of the worthless bureaucracy from consequences, but not this guy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-information-will-cite-hillary-clintons-case/

Here's commentary from a former CIA agent which corroborates Gertner's statement:

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/colu...ling-highly-classified-information-widespread

Realistically, however, Director Comey had no other choice. To indict Hillary Clinton would raise the question as to why we don’t arrest scores of senior officials.

The problem is that you can’t indict everybody. Sadly, there are numerous incidents where senior officials who should have known better were, as Director Comey characterized, “extremely careless in the handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” This sloppiness is widespread.

Was Hillary Clinton careless and arrogant? Certainly. However, such hubris is practically a job requirement in Washington. In fact, those who have spent any time in the Intelligence Community have seen similar sloppy behavior by senior officials at the Department of Defense (DoD), CIA, FBI and the White House (although admittedly, one of the worst is the Department of State).

While hubris is part of the potent mix leading to such behavior, equally important is a bureaucracy rife with poorly articulated and managed information, as well as overlapping systems with inconsistent security procedures. Further, senior executives operate in an environment which is far more gray than black and white when it comes to the use of classified and unclassified information.

There are two sides of this coin that security professionals deal with every day. On one side, there are senior leaders who clearly believe that they are above the need to protect information. At the same time there is almost no way to maintain a clear line between what is classified, and what is not – a fact which helps to protect those who abuse the privilege.

From my experience, Secretary Clinton’s actions fit a familiar pattern. Many senior officials complain that they cannot be expected to keep track of what is classified and what is not, because they need to make quick decisions and take action based upon the information they receive. They are in the arena and are held accountable for results. Practitioners assume that the purpose of secret information is to help them do their job, and therefore they should be able to “use” the information as they see fit in order to accomplish larger mission objectives. In this way, many senior officials develop a mindset that they are above it all. They are doers who cannot be held back by bureaucracy and conflicting rules. Is this hubris? Yes, and it is widespread.

 

[Dak]

No guarantee anything comes of the new investigation but the timing is interesting.