Thread: FBI recommends not to indict Hillary

  1. #16
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Angola
    Posts
    8,445
    Dunno, it's precisely dumbness that sends people to jail, daved. It's not the intention, but the actions that should dictate due process. The intention will only determine the level of the charge. And one more reason why "but no one has been indicted before" doesn't hold water. Well, this happened with other secretary of states before her and will continue to happen precisely because no one is doing their job and indict one of these people to once and for all put an end to it and leave a clear message to future ones.

    And it is just not future Secretaries of State that are off the hook. What happened here is that the lawyers of the next less important, less money-ridden, and who is seating in a much lesser chair, that unintentionally but deliberately (I love to say it) leaked top secret information and ignored the instructions and rules in place, will have a field day getting him a free green pass because before him Hilary and others before her also got away with this crap.

    To you it may seem personal. To me, Hillary is seating exactly on the right chair to be indicted. Unless you think that Secretaries of State should be held accountable to their actions with the same leniency you will give, say, the guy doing the daily backups of Malia and Sasha ipads.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 07-14-2016 at 09:28 AM.
    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    I wouldn't necessarily be against enforcing these restrictions more strictly (although there is currently a problem with overclassification that makes me not super gung-ho about the idea). However, for this or any other case I'm not in favor of arbitrarily changing precedent. Instead, if one wanted to start enforcing these rules more strictly, one should make clear that such enforcement was going to take place and only apply it to individual actions made after that announcement. Regardless of political power or affiliation, I'm not in favor of making an example out of one individual.

    As far as intention versus actions, I think it's a combination of those as well as results. And intention does matter if you read the text of the relevant law. Basically, it's a crime if you intended to leak classified information, or if your actions resulted in classified information getting into the wrong hands by "gross negligence". In this case, there was apparently not enough evidence of either.

  3. #18
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Angola
    Posts
    8,445
    This woman is running for the presidency of your country Daved! There's nothing arbitrary about changing the precedent in this instance. The indictment, I would say, should be clear and deliberate. Precisely because it takes into consideration this person will be on a presidential ballot in 4 months. Particularly when it matters to a case of public service in which a potential future president was caught disrespecting the regulations and putting national security at risk.

    An indictment would help clear the waters around this entire issue. Either her innocence or guilt. What you have now is confusion and indecision about who Hillary is and whether she's fit for office. People (some? many?) will be voting based on this and whatever they think of an issue that wasn't fully clarified and is ripe for speculation. The opposition I'm sure is thankful.

    It's perhaps too late now. 4 months is nothing and this would never be solved by then. Serving an indictment today would probably take that much for the grand jury to decide whether it would move to court. And I agree that is not fair to a presidential candidate. But It should have been done months ago. And, if all you say is correct, she would be today running for presidency in a much more transparent campaign that could avoid much of the heat it is getting.

    I'm a foreigner. And I don't even live there. But as you might suspect, whatever happens in the USA presidential elections is always of interest to the world. This is why I am discussing it so openly and personally. As a foreign citizen, candidates like Donald Trump represent an America that no one outside your border wishes. To see him capitalize on the weaknesses of your system, is troubling on itself. On top of that, witnessing a country that once served as an example of democracy, taking on the exact same turn that on other countries deemed by you as less reputable allows for people in power to move unscathed in their careers despite their many misgivings. I know, I know, it's always been a bit like that. But boy, it's all the time now over there.
    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  4. #19
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    In this case, the evidence seems to show that Clinton and at least some of her advisers were dumb. They were warned of various risks but didn't take them seriously.
    I should say I'm not really trying to pick a fight here, just pretty firm on this issue. It seems like you just disproved your prior points. That IS gross negligence. If someone tells you that doing something is bad and could have bad consequences, and you ignore them, you've consciously/voluntarily been negligent.

    In any case, pretty much my final remark (about Hillary in general) is that she's proven that she doesn't know and/or care enough about cybersecurity to be president. Not to say that Trump does, but Trump is a successful businessman who knows to delegate technical matters to people with that expertise, and to not override them.

    Edit: For the record, I don't think like our choices for president this year. I will vote for Trump, but I don't really want either of them. For that matter, I didn't really like any of the choices in the primaries except maybe Bernie. Still facepalming over the fact that dems chose Hillary over Bernie. Good god. Pretty damn sick in general of partisan politics. How about a moderate president for a change?
    Last edited by Epy; 07-14-2016 at 12:03 PM.

  5. #20
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Dunno, it's precisely dumbness that sends people to jail, daved. It's not the intention, but the actions that should dictate due process. The intention will only determine the level of the charge. And one more reason why "but no one has been indicted before" doesn't hold water. Well, this happened with other secretary of states before her and will continue to happen precisely because no one is doing their job and indict one of these people to once and for all put an end to it and leave a clear message to future ones.

    And it is just not future Secretaries of State that are off the hook. What happened here is that the lawyers of the next less important, less money-ridden, and who is seating in a much lesser chair, that unintentionally but deliberately (I love to say it) leaked top secret information and ignored the instructions and rules in place, will have a field day getting him a free green pass because before him Hilary and others before her also got away with this crap.

    To you it may seem personal. To me, Hillary is seating exactly on the right chair to be indicted. Unless you think that Secretaries of State should be held accountable to their actions with the same leniency you will give, say, the guy doing the daily backups of Malia and Sasha ipads.
    Agree 100%, especially with the last bit. To me, it's kind of BS to say that she's not guilty because the negligence wasn't willful. She was the secretary of state, how the hell do you not know about cybersecurity? She has to be playing dumb.

  6. #21
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Inside my computer
    Posts
    24,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Epy View Post
    ...I will vote for Trump...
    Are you serious? The guy who is racist, wants to close off US and belittles people and generally doesn't know what he's talking about?

    I don't live in the US, but if I did, I'd pick ANY other candidate over that idiot. He is exactly the kind of guy who would ruin USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    >> An indictment would help clear the waters around this entire issue. Either her innocence or guilt.

    If there isn't evidence of breaking the law, you don't indict just to make it more settled by going to trial. That doesn't make sense. The FBI investigated and decided that the evidence showed that there should not be a trial. The attorney general agreed. That should clear the waters, except for the people who don't want to listen to their professional opinion. (And the inevitable not guilty verdict at trial would be just as scrutinized as this decision, so that wouldn't even make things clearer after all.)

    >> That IS gross negligence

    No, it ISN'T. I mean, I honestly don't know, but that's what we have FBI investigators and attorneys general for. The gist of Comey's statement on why she shouldn't be indicted was that gross negligence has been interpreted to mean seriously poor judgment that leads to a large breach in security or providing classified information to those who aren't cleared to see it. That didn't happen here. Therefore, not gross negligence by historical precedent and interpretation.

    >> Not to say that Trump does, but Trump is a successful businessman who knows to delegate technical matters to people with that expertise, and to not override them.

    Umm... I don't think that's true at all, but it's irrelevant here. The larger point is that Clinton's behavior, while disappointing, doesn't come close to the type of behavior that should disqualify her from being considered for my vote. The things the investigation says she did are things that previous secretaries of state also did, and also the type of stuff that people and politicians do all the time. I just don't see it as a big deal.

    >> She was the secretary of state, how the hell do you not know about cybersecurity?

    I think this is a red herring. She (and her team) knew about cybersecurity. They had a reasonably secure system, especially compared to other systems in use at the time. They had very few classified messages on their system, most or all of which can be reasonably be concluded as emails that shouldn't have been sent rather than breaches in security. Again, of course this stuff sounds horrible when you embellish what actually happened so that it sounds horrible.

  8. #23
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Are you serious? The guy who is racist, wants to close off US and belittles people and generally doesn't know what he's talking about?

    I don't live in the US, but if I did, I'd pick ANY other candidate over that idiot. He is exactly the kind of guy who would ruin USA.
    Your opinion. In my eyes, Hillary is a much larger idiot. Obama himself said back in 2008 when they were competing for the dem spot that she would say anything to get elected. Julian Assange has and is going to release more dirt on her, and usually delivers. The Clinton foundation has apparently taken some questionable contribution in past years. That's enough for me. On the other hand, Trump is a successful businessman. But, as I said before, I don't like either candidate, but my choice between the two is Trump. By no means am I trying to glorify him. I would've voted for Bernie if he had beaten Hillary.

    I don't really think Trump is more racist than anyone else (everyone is racist to an extent, anyone who says otherwise is full of ........). I don't support his idea to close off the US to muslims, but at the same time don't really care that much because ........ muslims. I don't see how anyone, liberal or conservative, can back up muslims unless they simply don't know about Islam. Islam is directly against women's rights, and that's not what America is about. The Quran commands men to strike women who get out-of-line, among other things. Surah An-Nisa [4:34] - Al-Qur'&#39;'an al-Kareem - القرآن الكريم

    As far as his comments about Mexicans and building a wall, I think a wall would be a waste of money, but don't fault him for wanting to or anything he's said regarding illegals. In reality, I severely doubt that it would happen if he were elected. It's easy for people who don't live in the states that border Mexico to dismiss illegal immigration problems. Not all ____ are ____ (mexican illegal immigrants are criminals, hasty generalizations in general). That being said, there is still a fair amount of criminal activity coming over here with these illegals. Just for kicks: (U) U.S. Southwest Border Smuggling and Violence - National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 (UNCLASSIFIED)

    As a last note, the US was ruined decades ago. Lol @ thinking any particular president is going to ruin the country, we've pretty much had piece of ........ after piece of ........ since JFK was shot in 1963.

  9. #24
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    [B]>> That IS gross negligence

    No, it ISN'T. I mean, I honestly don't know, but that's what we have FBI investigators and attorneys general for. The gist of Comey's statement on why she shouldn't be indicted was that gross negligence has been interpreted to mean seriously poor judgment that leads to a large breach in security or providing classified information to those who aren't cleared to see it. That didn't happen here. Therefore, not gross negligence by historical precedent and interpretation.

    >> Not to say that Trump does, but Trump is a successful businessman who knows to delegate technical matters to people with that expertise, and to not override them.

    Umm... I don't think that's true at all, but it's irrelevant here. The larger point is that Clinton's behavior, while disappointing, doesn't come close to the type of behavior that should disqualify her from being considered for my vote. The things the investigation says she did are things that previous secretaries of state also did, and also the type of stuff that people and politicians do all the time. I just don't see it as a big deal.

    >> She was the secretary of state, how the hell do you not know about cybersecurity?

    I think this is a red herring. She (and her team) knew about cybersecurity. They had a reasonably secure system, especially compared to other systems in use at the time. They had very few classified messages on their system, most or all of which can be reasonably be concluded as emails that shouldn't have been sent rather than breaches in security. Again, of course this stuff sounds horrible when you embellish what actually happened so that it sounds horrible.
    1. I honestly don't know either I guess because I'm not a lawyer, but I do know how to read the definition of things. Grossly negligent is conscious/voluntary, non-gross would be unconscious/involuntary. If someone told her the risks, which you said yourself, and I'm sure someone did, her decision to ignore those risks is a conscious one. If no one told her then fine, I guess she's not guilty of that particular law (but IMO should be guilty of something here). Let me ask you this, what good reason was there for her or anyone else in the past or present for that matter, to use personal email to conduct official gov business? If someone can give me a good answer to that, I'll change my tune.

    2. Your opinion, which you're entitled to. Honestly don't care who you vote for.

    3. Define "reasonably secure". [s]Assange got ahold of over 30,000 of her emails from her private server: WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive[/s]
    To be fair though, that doesn't mean that if she had kept those on a government server that it would automatically be more secure. However, in using a personal email server, the security of its contents becomes her responsibility, not the US government's.
    Last edited by Epy; 07-14-2016 at 05:48 PM. Reason: Daved pointed out the emails were obtained by an FOIA request

  10. #25
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Angola
    Posts
    8,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Epy View Post
    Your opinion. In my eyes, Hillary is a much larger idiot.
    Unfortunately that's the state of these primaries, perhaps one of the worst in USA history. With two terrible candidates, it's no wonder most votes will be votes of protest for one candidate or the other. Although, at this point I believe Trump has been much more successful at gathering passionate supporters than Hillary ever will.

    But, I don't know Epy... I think it was time for an harsher lesson you could teach your politicians, if you voted independent en masse. Because, like it or not, you are a part of the very bipartisanship you fight, when you just keep on feeding it with your vote.

    --- Anyways,
    A part of me wants Trump to win. He's a complete idiot, the true moron; an abusive and ugly character that only exists in this life to polarize people around him with his xenophobic, ultra-nationalistic and thoughtless remarks. He puts Bush to shame and he's one of the biggest arseholes in power (assuming he gets there). But he will not ruin his country already poor reputation inside and abroad. Neither will he send his country down an economic crisis. Only because he will be surrounded by hawks that will keep him in check. But we can expect a more hostile USA, also inwards towards its own citizens. We know, for instance, what Trump thinks of encryption...

    But as I was saying, a part of me wants him to win. And by a good margin. The blow that will take on the DEP will hopefully be enough to send shockwaves to the graves of Jefferson and Madison. The embarrassment will weight heavy on losing to this clown, without any prior political experience, with his televangelist past, who not long ago was doing reality shows, who can't speak a sentence without inspiring anger or fear on someone, and who has the vocabulary of a 18 year old. And my only hope was that the DEP was sent straight down the gutter. Loose the damn house too! So that it finally has an opportunity to understand the ugly thing it has become and can reform and emerge a better party.


    Quote Originally Posted by Epy View Post
    (everyone is racist to an extent, anyone who says otherwise is full of ........).
    Straight from the mind of a true racist, I see.
    It's alright.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 07-14-2016 at 05:08 PM.
    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Epy View Post
    3. Define "reasonably secure". Assange got ahold of over 30,000 of her emails from her private server: WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
    Umm... Did you read that link? Assange got a hold of those emails because they were made available by the US State Department as a result of an FOIA request.

    Oops.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    Also...

    >> Trump is a successful businessman.
    You say this, but is it true? I mean, how many bankruptcies, how many failed ventures, etc, has he had? Sure, he's wealthy, and he does have some skills in generating wealth. But his business record is not what I'd look for in a top executive.

  13. #28
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Straight from the mind of a true racist, I see.
    It's alright.
    Not really, I should've put racist in quotes. What I meant is that under the colloquial definition of racism, everyone is a racist. Everyone generalizes in some shape or form. As humans, we're built to do that. Our neural networks recognize things based on what we know about them, appearance, senses, etc. and implicitly calculate the probability of those things falling into some sort of category. For instance, because of what I am saying here, the reaction of many libs here in the states would be that I automatically love guns, am against abortion, etc., which is not true. That's BS from the sad fact that politics are getting more and more partisan over time.

    True racism is the thought that any race is better/worse than any other race, or treating others differently solely because of their race, and that's not how I think. I am 100% for equality for all races, sexual orientations, gender, etc. Additionally though, I am for equality, and get ........ed when any particular group tries to get special treatment in some way. But that's a different conversation.

    Back to what I originally said ("I don't really think Trump is more racist than anyone else (everyone is racist to an extent, anyone who says otherwise is full of ........).") and what Trump said:

    "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
    So of course, his statement is open to many different interpretations. But the way I interpret it is exactly what he said. There's are criminals coming from Mexico, which, living in southern California, I can say is true. But he also says that some are good people, which is also true. I know that many just want a better life. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the criminals.

    That's how he's "racist", at least as far as that statement goes, and that's how I am "racist"--based on statistics and facts. Based on statistics/facts, there are a portion of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico who are criminals. Therefore, if you are a Mexican illegal immigrant, there's an increased chance (whatever % is based on those statistics/facts) that you are a criminal. BUT, that does not mean all illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals.

  14. #29
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    Umm... Did you read that link? Assange got a hold of those emails because they were made available by the US State Department as a result of an FOIA request.

    Oops.
    Touché, but it's no matter, I still say it was less than secure. Re-read what I said in a previous post:

    2. Caused state IT to disable spam filters because her emails were being blocked -- a clear indicator that her server is/was infected with malware (went through 3 years of hell dealing with company-wide infections and keeping our domain name off of the spam lists...that's how you get on those damn things--infected PCs sending out spam/malicious emails)

  15. #30
    Make Fortran great again
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    Also...

    >> Trump is a successful businessman.
    You say this, but is it true? I mean, how many bankruptcies, how many failed ventures, etc, has he had? Sure, he's wealthy, and he does have some skills in generating wealth. But his business record is not what I'd look for in a top executive.
    Whether or not it's true is a matter of opinion, which is what both of our statements are. "Successful" would have to be quantitatively defined in order to see whether or not it's true.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Tags for this Thread