politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
A weather report can be classified. Something that's been published in the NY Times might be classified.
Something the Secretary of State writes themselves might be classified. Even saying "I was talking to Prime Minster whoever last week" could be classified even when there's a photo of the Sec State standing next that Prime Minister on the front page of that country's biggest newspaper.
There is no risk if someone stamps something innocuous as classified, but there's hell to pay if something that's sensitive doesn't get stamped classified. So a lot of shit is labelled classified when it doesn't need to be.
Not all classified information is about a military operation that's set to kick off in a few hours.
Hillary Clinton was very thoroughly investigated and the classified information was a big nothing-burger. Or do you honestly believe the Trump administration gave her a pass because they're benevolent?
It's illegal to use government property for campaign purposes. Obviously Clinton was working towards a presidential campaign (she was working towards it her entire life) so the laws necessitated her to have emails related to that not be on a government server (government property).
Sorry, Hilary's emails wasn't anything. You were just told that over and over again until it started to sound like there might be something to it. But it was nothing.
There can be information that's classified, then a reporter finds out about it and it gets printed in the NY Times. But that information is still classified. So you can simultaneously be discussing something that's public knowledge and also classified.
But you're upset about things like that happening because you were on active duty and probably getting Fox News blasted at you 24/7 in the mess hall and you got suckered by it. You don't want to admit you're a sucker (as your President says you are), so you're going to go on pretending that you have some special knowledge that no one else has.
Hilary Clinton is a smart woman and Trump and his gang are a bunch of morons. Your country is fucked and it's not going to get any better until y'all can start admitting that you got scammed.
That's all bipartisan system and predetermined positions. Can't attack your own camp because at the pres race you'd hurt already choosen pres candidate and would be seen as your own camp's traitor to target so-called allies. Even after she is irrelevant, for it gives a signal you can do this to everyone else, and gives free fuel to the opponent's platform. Playing favorites in cases of infosec breachea seems wild, but here we are.
Since it was dropped in the heat of the race, I can get why it was downplayed as a rep-based attack on Hilary, but she's still okay after all of that, and I fear, she is still pickable for the next pres race instead of any other better candidate.
Here's the thing about that email server: it was standard operating procedure for the White House at the time.
Email starts to be used for official communication under Bill's administration, but everyone is still trying to figure out this Internet thing back then. It was standard for the Secretary of State to run their own email server all through the Bush II administration. Hillary was simply following what was already established. It was only when John Kerry took the office that this was changed to bring their email server under White House IT staff control.
Which is what should have happened within a few years of Bush II's first term. As someone who has managed their own email server before, it's hard to setup an email server that works correctly. It's even harder to set it up in a way that doesn't immediately become a spam gateway and security hazard. As soon as the government was getting a handle on this Internet thing, all staff email servers should have been run by government IT directly.
That isn't on Hillary alone. It's a decision that crossed three different Presidential administrations and both major parties.
FOIA was followed, though. The DOJ got plenty of Hillary's emails by way of FOIA.
Ok but you skipped over the part where her technician deleted emails after getting a subpoena
Edit: also fact check, no it was not standard for any other Secretary of State to use their own server. Hilary was the only one to do that: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/