[ExI] fbi primary, was: RE: Donald Trump

spike spike66 at att.net
Tue May 10 14:50:48 UTC 2016



From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:57 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> ] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes

>>…Indeed sir?  Did not Mrs. Clinton write a leaked email which explicitly ordered a subordinate to commit a felony?  To “…remove the security markings and send it unclassified…” is a felonious act, as is ordering or requesting a subordinate to do so, which is to commit a felony.

>…Did she?

I think so.  No one is claiming that email is a forgery.  We do need to think about what happens if a pile of yoga starts being leaked and we don’t know how much of it is genuine.  It is easy to foresee crowds of unemployed Nigerian spammers will turn to writing phony Clinton yoga email and offering archives for sale.

Heeeeeeyyyyyy, that’s an idea!  You know some yahoos would fall for that.  Big money to be made here.

>… I heard this was about talking points - some political speech to be served in an unclassified context…

Ja, the blowjob argument.  The subject of Bill’s perjury turned out to be the senate’s argument for letting him go free.  Now I am already hearing similar arguments regarding the subject of the leaked email.  However that isn’t the charge.  In Bill’s case he was charged with perjury, not receiving a BJ, or being a conspiracy victim (according to sworn testimony, Monica couldn’t have gotten his explicit consent (he was on the phone with a senator at the time the blue dress was besmirched (this makes him a rape victim (uh… sorta.))))  The charge in Hillary’s case mishandling State Department information and ordering a subordinate to do so, which isn’t a function of the contents of the document.  

>… I have also heard she had the authority to declassify said material…

We (the voters) would have bought that argument, but to perform the declassification would have required her to log on to the server in which the document existed and follow the procedure for doing that.  This she could not do, for we have learned she never activated her secure server.  Removing security markings and headings is illegal for anyone, including the author, including all persons authorized to declassify the document, including the president and everyone else.  There is a procedure for declassifying documents.  Hillary could not have done it for she did not even have the password to her own secure server.

Compounding the problem is that in this case she would be requesting a subordinate to illegally declassify a document or portion of a document, and he definitely did not have the authority to do that, with or without orders.  He could not have carried out the procedure without the requisite codes and he could not have legally had those codes and passwords.  He was being requested to do an illegal shortcut.  He physically could not carry out the act, regardless of legality, because of where he was located (in an area where he could access the server in question (they make sure there are no unguarded printers, no unguarded fax machines (all for a good reason (so bad guys cannot compromise the material on those servers (and why no one accidentally compromising anything (it would be analogous to accidentally breaking into Fort Knox and accidentally slipping a brick of gold into one’s pocket.))))))

Again we are back to the original question: do we consider this a special case?  And if so, should it have extended to Nixon?  Could not he have argued that it was a matter of national security to listen to what Ted Kennedy was plotting?  So his team bugged the offices, but in this case it was OK?  Do we make special case arguments for sufficiently high ranking government officials?  Which ones?  Which rules are to be suspended?

>…I wonder, if you go back to the 2000 & 2004 elections, how many felonies were committed…


We are dead.


>… on both sides?


There are more than two sides.  But we are still dead.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/8ac00721/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list