[ExI] my unified theory etc
spike66 at att.net
Thu May 12 04:16:58 UTC 2016
>... any scheme we could come up with still requires the kinds of password
discipline that we now think Mrs. Clinton flatly refused to perform (details
not available on request (the way they do passwords make that process a
paaaaainnnn in the aaassssss (but it also explains why Mrs. Clinton never
activated her .gov account (and another insight your question gave me: Mrs.
Clinton didn't have a secure account, never had one, so she was not reminded
every day, every single time she accessed a message that she could end up
roommates with Mr. Sterling if she mishandled the info on that server (but
her staff did (which brings up a whole sticky mess of questions in itself
(such as the obvious: how did that material get across the gap?))))))))
OK so, upon further pondering, I have some ideas that should have occurred
to me a long time ago, and some new weirdness, in light of today's
developments, CoS Mills walking out of an FBI questioning session.
The secure server user interface isn't merely user-unfriendly, it is
downright user hostile, for a good reason. They make the user repeatedly
self-identify and present passwords, acknowledge that mishandling of the
information thereon is a felony and all that. You can use your imagination
and scarcely get there, but they built it that way so no one could
accidentally get in trouble, and if someone got in trouble, they couldn't
claim it was an accident.
So now I am imagining Mrs. Clinton who was never a computer user, taking
this course on how to access this user-hostile secure server, and imagining
her just saying no, she would not do this (and perhaps that she cannot do it
(a story I would believe.)) There are no end-runs available; she requested
it, the State Department told her no, they could not do it.
So... she arranged end-runs on her own, such as the private server. This
resulted in a really weird situation: a SecState who had no legal channel
for electronic communications.
Now the weirdness: the secure servers have all these repeated
acknowledgements that mishandling is a felony, etc, but since she never
activated the account, she never checked off those boxes. Soooo... we could
have a situation where the FBI finds that Mrs. Clinton herself never did
acknowledge that bit about mishandling information, so no charges available
on that. Then she could hold a dubious but vaguely feasible legalese
argument that she did not recognize the information as classified, since her
aids had not marked it as such. If that happens, we could see Jake
Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri, Jim Margolis, Nick Merrill, Marlon
Marshall and Cheryl Mills go to prison, while Mrs. Clinton goes free to be
elected. Then as soon as she is legally enabled, she pardons them out of
She would be in for some difficulty in defending herself against the charge
that she ordered others to commit a felony, but she is already there anyway
and might beat that charge. We already know that happened, and no charges
have even been filed. Apparently that has become legal now. So, no
recommendation by the FBI to indict Clinton, her entire staff goes to
prison, I lose ten bucks to John Clark, she wins the election, fishes them
out of the tank.
Then she realizes she can now order senators murdered, and pardon whoever
did it, then declare the deceased enemies of the state. Then the surviving
senators can be told they can run along home now, their services are no
Where is the flaw in this reasoning please?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat