Wednesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 20. 2018

Millennials may be less happy and healthy than their parents

The Case for Gender-Segregated Universities

But how many genders are there, these days?

Penn law school hires ~~thought police~~ ‘Director of Social Justice Programs’

The $1.5 Trillion Student Loan Debacle Hits a Tipping Point

The Bad Hate the Good: The Southern Poverty Law Center Vs. Prager University

The Next Andrew Cuomo Related Corruption Trial Is Kicking Off

For the Record: Yes, Hillary Clinton Should Have Been Prosecuted for Willful Gross Negligence

Zero Tolerance at the Mexican Border

HERE ARE HORRIFYING PHOTOS OF OBAMA’S ILLEGAL ALIEN FACILITIES THE MEDIA REFUSES TO SHOW YOU

Hillary Clinton (Obama too): Just Because Your Kid Gets to America Illegally Doesn’t Mean They Get to Stay

'Foreign actors' accessed Hillary Clinton emails, documents show

At Least 6 and Potentially 7 Known and Suspected Intelligence Informants Accused of Spying on Trump Campaign - And now there are more.

Horowitz Describes How Bombshell FBI Anti-Trump Text Exchange Almost Slipped Away

FBI Agent Peter Strzok, author of anti-Trump text messages, escorted out of bureau headquarters but still employed

If these guys are not in trouble, I do not ever want to get another ticket for sliding through a stop sign

Horowitz: Over 300 Bribes To FBI Agents By Journalists; Two FBI Agents Who Hated Trump Still Work For Mueller; And More

U.S. Announces Its Withdrawal From U.N. Human Rights Council

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:49 | Comments (46) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Do they not get it? Secretary Clinton did not intend to violate the espionage act. Stipulated. She intended to, and did, hide her correspondence as Secretary of State from congressional requests and subpoenas, FOIA requests, and public records—also federal crimes, some of which are felonies. She did these things deliberately, knowingly, and willfully.

That she, wife of a president, senator, and nominee for Secretary of State should have known that some of these communications would be classified, makes the action of hiding them for other motives grossly negligent. I don’t see why her intent vis-a-vis the espionage act is debated, or even matters.

#1 Bruce Anderson on 2018-06-20 07:55 (Reply)

In the AF, when taught about handling classified material, you were supposed to be proactive and freakin' CAREFUL as anything.

Because it was CLASSIFIED. These people... I swear, they keep looking worse and worse.

#1.1 JLawson on 2018-06-20 09:57 (Reply)

QUOTE:

'Foreign actors' accessed Hillary Clinton emails, documents show

The breach was apparently due to hacks of the recipients email, not Clinton's.

Bruce Anderson: I don’t see why her intent vis-a-vis the espionage act is debated, or even matters.

Because some people who see Clinton as inherently corrupt are wrongly convinced that the Espionage Act would apply in this case. A FOIA violation would seemly be a stronger argument, but it's doubtful the evidence is nearly sufficient to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

#1.2 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 10:35 (Reply)

Zzzzz: ...but it's doubtful the evidence is nearly sufficient to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Laughable.

QUOTE:

Obviously and very highly classified material -- including about dealings with Iran and North Korea's nuclear program -- were sent and received through Hillary's bootleg server, to the point that some witnesses were shocked to learn about the type content that was recklessly compromised.
As for his point about the effort and intent that's required to move classified information from a classified system into an unclassified one, that was illustrated in stark relief by Hillary's own virtual paper trail in at least one case, in which she ordered a subordinate to strip the 'identifying heading' from a classified memo and send it over regular email, "nonsecure." Hillary repeatedly claimed that none of the emails on her server were classified (a laughable lie), then switched to saying none were classified at the time they were disseminated (also a lie). Desperate, she then turned to arguing that none were marked classified at the time they were disseminated.

#1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-20 11:02 (Reply)

Zzzz: The breach was apparently due to hacks of the recipients email, not Clinton's.

Again no citation just inference by the klddiez.

QUOTE:

In 2012, according to server records, a hacker in Serbia scanned Clinton's Chappaqua server at least twice, in August and in December 2012. It was unclear whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton, although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com.[74] During 2014, Clinton's server was the target of repeated intrusions originating in Germany, China, and South Korea. Threat monitoring software on the server blocked at least five such attempts. The software was installed in October 2013, and for three months prior to that, no such software had been installed.[83][84]

#1.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-20 21:41 (Reply)

QUOTE:

...(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody...

part (f) of the espionage act.

Is a private, insecure server that is not housed in a secure location and is administered by people without security clearances a proper place of custody?

#1.2.2 mudbug on 2018-06-20 11:02 (Reply)

mudbug: Is a private, insecure server that is not housed in a secure location and is administered by people without security clearances a proper place of custody?

No. But there is no evidence Clinton intended for the email system to be used for classified information, and as detailed in our previous post, the evidence suggests otherwise.

#1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 11:09 (Reply)

Zzzz: But there is no evidence Clinton intended for the email system to be used for classified information,

Again laughable even if the kiddiez do not understand the concept of evidence.

QUOTE:

As for his point about the effort and intent that's required to move classified information from a classified system into an unclassified one, that was illustrated in stark relief by Hillary's own virtual paper trail in at least one case, in which she ordered a subordinate to strip the 'identifying heading' from a classified memo and send it over regular email, "nonsecure."

#1.2.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-20 11:23 (Reply)

Try hard not to be stupid.

As Secretary of State, she would deal with classified information regularly and since, according to the NYT, she used her private server exclusively for State Dept. business, she knew that classified information would get on her server.

QUOTE:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department.

NYT March 2, 2015 (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

#1.2.2.1.2 mudbug on 2018-06-20 13:58 (Reply)

mudbug: As Secretary of State, she would deal with classified information regularly and since, according to the NYT, she used her private server exclusively for State Dept. business, she knew that classified information would get on her server.

That's not what your citation says. In fact, Clinton used the State Department secure system extensively.

mudbug: "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. "

A better argument can be made concerning FOIA, but this does not support a violation under the Espionage Act.

mudbug: Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department.

That doesn't mean she didn't use the secure State Department system. No email system, including the State Department's dotgov email system is considered secure enough for classified information, which is supposed to be transmitted solely on a separate secure State Department system. Email is only to be used for day-to-day, non-classified business.

Again,

• The vast majority of emails were not classified;
• The vast majority of classified information was sent on the secure State Department system;
• There's no motive for using email for classified information;
• Consequently, The relatively small number of classified emails suggest common error.

#1.2.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 14:50 (Reply)

Z: That's not what your citation says. In fact, Clinton used the State Department secure system extensively.

Reread the quote I provided. It said, "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state..."

Both the NYT and the IG have said that she used her private server exclusively so when you say she used the secure State Department system extensively, you are calling them both liars. Quoting from the same article from the NYT again:

You provide no attribution for your contention that she used the State Department secure system extensively.

Z: ...but this does not support a violation under the Espionage Act

You supported her actions as a violation of the Espionage Act. I quoted a part of the law and in so many words, you said she violated it. You admitted that her server was not an appropriate place for classified information yet she had Top Secret information on it.

Z: The relatively small number of classified emails suggest common error.

Is that like taking a picture in a submarine?

#1.2.2.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2018-06-20 17:10 (Reply)

mudbug: Reread the quote I provided. It said, "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state..."

Sure, she never used a phone, or met someone in person, or dictated a letter. You have to read for understanding. It's true that the only email she used was her private email. But there were only a relatively few email threads that were classified, so it's rather obvious she communicated on other channels as well, including a secure facsimile machine.

Even the emails show that Clinton was using secure fax, as she discussed problems with the system when it went down.

mudbug: You supported her actions as a violation of the Espionage Act.

No. We refuted that contention. Under the Espionage Act, it has to be proven that she knew at the time classified information was on the server.

mudbug: Is that like taking a picture in a submarine?

Kristian Saucier pleaded that he "had unauthorized possession of documents and information relating to the national defense" and that he "willfully retained the same and failed to deliver it" to authorities. In other words, he admitted, and the government was prepared to prove, that Saucier knew the pictures were classified at the time.

#1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 17:57 (Reply)

Pleading to a lesser crime is legally admission of guilt but seriously everyone with two or more brain cells knows that it is often the only choice they have. If you can be sent to jail for 20 years or even life and the DA has the power and will to do it but offers you a plea that puts you in jail for two years instead would you take it? Most people would even though they may be innocent. In this case the pictures did not show anything "classified" but it is against regulations to take any pictures inside a nuclear sub. So clearly he made a mistake in thinking that since the pictures would not expose classified info that he wasn't "really" doing anything wrong. He was wrong of course. Wrong to take the pictures, knew better and deserved to pay a price for what he did. But compared to Hillary he was a saint.

#1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2018-06-20 20:30 (Reply)

The difference being Saucier owned up to what he did.

Hillary lied or couldn't remember or something.

#1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-20 20:46 (Reply)

Anon: Pleading to a lesser crime is legally admission of guilt but seriously everyone with two or more brain cells knows that it is often the only choice they have.

Especially if the prosecutor has the evidence to convict.

Anon: Most people would even though they may be innocent.

Sure it's possible, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

Anon: In this case the pictures did not show anything "classified" but it is against regulations to take any pictures inside a nuclear sub.

That is incorrect. He could not be found guilty under the Espionage Act for violating regulations. Nor did the guilty plea concern the act of taking the pictures, but to willfully retaining information he knew was "relating to the national defence".

#1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-06-21 10:09 (Reply)

"Consequently, The relatively small number of classified emails suggest common error."

No classified material can be posted on or sent through the Internet. The presence of a single classified email on an unclassified, Internet-connected server is a breech of security. That makes this statement of yours desperately lame:

"The vast majority of Clinton's emails were not classified, either before or after the fact."

An admission that some of her emails were classified.

And an admission of her guilt.

#1.2.2.1.2.1.2 JJM on 2018-06-20 22:10 (Reply)

JJM: No classified material can be posted on or sent through the Internet. The presence of a single classified email on an unclassified, Internet-connected server is a breech of security.

That is correct.

JJM: An admission that some of her emails were classified.

The FBI has confirmed that some of Clinton's emails contained classified information. Presumably you accept the FBI's findings, at least when they confirm your presuppositions.

JJM: And an admission of her guilt.

No. The government would have to prove she knew the email contained classified information, and the evidence indicates otherwise.

#1.2.2.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-21 10:14 (Reply)

Ah, the "The Russiand and Chinese hacked recipients' email from clinton's unprotected server" defense. If she had used secure servers, the classified hacking could not have happened, which is why it is required.

The "there was only some classified material hacked, so the majority hacked was not classified" defense. I don't think htis defense would work for anyone else, except unless the prosecutors were in the tank.

Clintons are known to be inherently corrupt, pay-to-play scoundrels. But it is very profitable to take pay-to-play bribes such as $150 million for sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia. The clinton crime foundation is still under investigation, as may be the FBI withholding of evidence of russian involvement, which has now been disclosed to congress.

#1.2.3 jaybird on 2018-06-20 17:07 (Reply)

jaybird: Ah, the "The Russiand and Chinese hacked recipients' email from clinton's unprotected server" defense.

Do you have a citation that the recipients were using Clinton's server? By the way, the server did have various security measures in place, so saying it was unsecured is incorrect.

jaybird: Clintons are known to be inherently corrupt, pay-to-play scoundrels.

That's your echo talking.

#1.2.3.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 18:02 (Reply)

[B]Zzzzz:[b] Do you have a citation that the recipients were using Clinton's server? By the way, the server did have various security measures in place, so saying it was unsecured is incorrect.

You kiddiez are really reaching here and again do not have a clue or you're being deliberately obtuse

QUOTE:

Security experts such as Chris Soghoian believe that emails to and from Clinton may have been at risk of hacking and foreign surveillance.[73] Marc Maiffret, a cybersecurity expert, said that the server had "amateur hour" vulnerabilities.[74] For the first two months after Clinton was appointed Secretary of State and began accessing mail on the server through her Blackberry, transmissions to and from the server were apparently not encrypted.
•••••••
Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services.[74]

Back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#1.2.3.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-20 21:13 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Yes, Hillary Clinton Should Have Been Prosecuted

There was no prosecutable crime. The vast majority of Clinton's emails were not classified, either before or after the fact. Clinton worked extensively with the secure state system when dealing with classified information. There was no motivation for using email for classified information, and it has all the appearance of common carelessness.

An argument can be made that Clinton was using a private server to avoid the FOIA, but there is no good legal argument about a violation of the Espionage Act.

#1.3 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 10:51 (Reply)

Zzzz: There was no prosecutable crime.

Again, laughable.

#1.3.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-20 11:09 (Reply)

"The vast majority of Clinton's emails were not classified, either before or after the fact. "

For some reason, you can't seem to get it through your head that is doesn't MATTER if the vast majority were or were not classified.

Some were. Period.
Other people were prosecuted for less than what she did. But you have no problem with the fact they were and she wasn't.

We do.

#1.3.2 jimg on 2018-06-20 17:27 (Reply)

jimg: {it} doesn't MATTER if the vast majority were or were not classified.

It doesn't matter as to whether there was a violation of the Espionage Act, but it is evidence that Clinton was using other means of secure communications. There is a pattern of behavior. Clearly, the vast majority of classified communications occurred outside her email channel.

• The vast majority of Clinton's emails were not classified, either before or after the fact.
• Clinton worked extensively with the secure state system when dealing with classified information.
• There was no motivation for using email for classified information.
• Consequently, it has all the appearance of common carelessness.

jimg: Other people were prosecuted for less than what she did.

The legal question is whether Clinton was aware that classified information was being transmitted through her email system. But if you provide an example of a similar situation, and we'll take a look.

#1.3.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 18:09 (Reply)

As pointed out repeatedly, "intent" is not an element of the crime she would have been charged with, gross negligence is sufficient and people have gone to prison for extended terms for much less. Who knows what she "intended." The fact is that she mishandled classified information on a regular basis in violation of law and State Department policy and procedures, although she knew better and had been officially instructed not to do so (although obviously she paid no attention to her security training). And it's out now that the Russians among others got that information. As should have been obvious from the start.

The only reason she is not in prison is she is a leader of the political class and was protected by the Obama regime.

#1.4 Jim on 2018-06-20 14:34 (Reply)

Jim: As pointed out repeatedly, "intent" is not an element of the crime she would have been charged with, gross negligence is sufficient

That is incorrect. The courts have ruled that "the elements of scienter and bad faith" must be proven. You have to prove that the person knew the information was "relating to the national defence". See Gorin v. United States 1941.

Jim: people have gone to prison for extended terms for much less.

Please name a case where the person sent to prison didn't know that the information was classified as "relating to the national defence".

#1.4.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 14:58 (Reply)

Isn't there a better source to link to than NPR?

#2 Dan Knowles on 2018-06-20 08:17 (Reply)

I for one will be thrilled to see Nikki Haley running for POTUS after Trump's second term.

#3 Aggie on 2018-06-20 08:50 (Reply)

"The $1.5 Trillion Student Loan Debacle"

The federal government has no authority to lend students money to go to school. It was a mistake, a giveaway and was always going to end this way. End it now.

#4 Anon on 2018-06-20 10:24 (Reply)

"Zero Tolerance at the Mexican border"

It was/is the excessive tolerance that caused this problem. All illegals should be returned/deported within 24 hours of capture. They should be fingerprinted. mugshots, advised that they broke our laws and would never be allowed legal entry in their lifetime because of that. They should be told that any future attempt to enter the country would be a felony with jail time and then open the gate and push them back where they came from.

#5 OneGuy on 2018-06-20 10:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

HERE ARE HORRIFYING PHOTOS OF OBAMA’S ILLEGAL ALIEN FACILITIES THE MEDIA REFUSES TO SHOW YOU

Those were unaccompanied children that were flooding the border at the time. All the more reason to decry the Trump Administration policy of separating parents and children. Services were and are overwhelmed. And as Obama and Clinton made clear, just because your kid gets to America doesn't mean they get to stay.

OneGuy: All illegals should be returned/deported within 24 hours of capture.

That would be against U.S. and international law. People have the right to a hearing.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 10:41 (Reply)

"Did you come here legally? Did you apply for asylum at either an embassy or a normal border crossing point? No? Hearing concluded, you go back."

#5.1.1 JLawson on 2018-06-20 10:53 (Reply)

JLawson: "Did you come here legally? Did you apply for asylum at either an embassy or a normal border crossing point? No? Hearing concluded, you go back."

You forgot "Are you a citizen?" and "Are you applying for refugee status?"

Expedited removal can occur in certain circumstances, the most typical being that they are an "arriving alien", usually at a designated port of entry, and have lied about material facts such as citizenship. Otherwise, most immigrants are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, the judge being a check on the executive power.

#5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 11:05 (Reply)

"Did you apply for asylum at either an embassy or a normal border crossing point?"

If you're a refugee, you apply for asylum. If you don't, tough cookies.

And how many citizens are going to be crossing from Mexico to the US via unauthorized routes guided by coyotes to the point they're intercepted by ICE and hauled in front of a judge? I'm thinking very, very few - and they're likely to be carrying drugs.

#5.1.1.1.1 JLawson on 2018-06-20 11:15 (Reply)

Zzzz: People have the right to a hearing.

Correct but illegal aliens do not have a right to "game" and overwhelm the system.

#5.1.2 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-20 11:32 (Reply)

Z wrote: "Those were unaccompanied children that were flooding the border at the time."

Even the baby with the blue shirt holding the plastic bottle?
Or the one in diapers?

Face it, Obama was no better. His "administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process."

#5.1.3 Hank_M on 2018-06-20 15:13 (Reply)

JLawson: Even the baby with the blue shirt holding the plastic bottle?

The baby was at a processing center in Brownsville, presumably with a family member. Other pictures show women with small children, so that is certainly most likely. We do know that parents generally weren't separated from their children during that period.

#5.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-20 17:35 (Reply)

Of course the Southern Poverty Law Center is a liberal hate group. The fact that they have turned their hate on Prager U is sad enough to verge on funny. Hopefully, more people who hear this will look up Prager U to decide for themselves. But I do hope Prager can sue them for this smear.

#6 Dangerous Dean on 2018-06-20 11:42 (Reply)

I used the term "gender" for years in order to be polite and not offend unnecessarily. No more. It has become too unwieldy to manage sensibly, and I am going back to my previous practice: using it as a linguistics term, as in German masculine/feminine/neuter, and using "sex" to describe the binary division of living creatures, especially animals, especially mammals. especially humans.

In my paranoid lefty hippie days in the 60's and 70's, many people believed the FBI, CIA, and other agencies of government were deeply biased in favor of conservatives and secretly helped Nixon and others remain in power. It was a clear signal, though few picked it up at the time: what paranoids believe their enemies are capable of is pretty much what they would do themselves if they had the power. It's projection.

#7 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-06-20 12:57 (Reply)

Well, campuses have become cesspools of racism, sexism, genderism, and all the other -isms. Not to mention rape and drug abuse.

The "college experience" seems unpleasant to me. Online education is better.

Residential universities have lost their real value with the advent of modern communications and transportation. Namely, the university was a place where you were separated from the workaday society and could focus on developing your mind.

Today, the only reason to live on campus is to rape or be raped. Perhaps there is advantage to not having a commute?

#8 JK Brown on 2018-06-20 13:43 (Reply)

"Horowitz: Over 300 Bribes To FBI Agents By Journalists; Two FBI Agents Who Hated Trump Still Work For Mueller; And More
"

I'm sorry, but We don't comment on ongoing investigations...without compensation.

#9 JK Brown on 2018-06-20 13:46 (Reply)

"I used the term "gender" for years "
Me too but that was because I lived in Germany and the nouns had gender. I used to suffer from gender confusion because the gender of a noun could change depending on how it was used. I asked my German teacher how to keep track of these gender changes and she said to forget about it, it even confuses native German speakers. That's what I did and I've never been concerned about transgendered nouns since.

#10 Ray on 2018-06-20 17:08 (Reply)

There aren’t many of those. 99 and 44/100%, as they say, have one gender and stick to it. The very few exceptions are mainly words like Dingsbums (thingamajig) which might refer to a thing of any gender (I was taught to use the neuter das with it.) or Latin words where the Latin gender is probably grammatically correct, but the thing is too neutral to call masculine or feminine, e.g. der (or das) Virus.

So you might hear:

Wie heißt das Dingsbums [neuter] da?
(What is that [unknown gender, hence neuer] thingamajig called?)
Es [neuter, antecedent = Dingsbums] ist der [masculine] Vergaßer.
(That is the carburetor.)
Ach so. So heißt der [masculine] Dingsbums.
(Ah. That is what the [now known to be masculine] thingy is called.)

But the responder might just as well have said "Er is ein Vergaßer." Or the last could just as well have been "So heißt das Dingsbums."

#10.1 Bruce Anderson on 2018-06-21 08:02 (Reply)

I see the Gang of Z is playing both platoons today.

#11 Sam L. on 2018-06-20 20:11 (Reply)

I could see that as soon as I saw "44 comments."

#11.1 Texan99 on 2018-06-21 10:52 (Reply)

"But how many genders are there, these days?"

Just as many as you can invent!

However, there are still only two sexes.

#12 JJM on 2018-06-21 07:16 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 20. 2018

Wednesday morning links