Politics

[thesameguy]

That's certainly how I took that.

Well, your Politifact link completely supports what I said, so.......

She didn't because it wasn't against the law. There may be things that happened with that email server later that were against the law, but the very premise was wrong. Just like how the actual collusion itself is not against the law, but things related to it may very well be.

If you are seriously arguing semantics, that I suggested "making an email server" is illegal rather than "setting up an email server with the intent of transmitting Government work and/or classified information so as to avoid detection and logging and in the process operated outside of the security of a government network" is illegal, then, well you win. Well done.

Edit: Or for clarity "using an existing server with the intent of transmitting Government work and/or classified information so as to avoid detection and logging and in the process operated outside of the security of a government network" is illegal

The point being the discussion is about what she did with an email server, not that email servers legally exist. I think we can all agree email servers exist legally.

[thesameguy]

And now I feel like I need to explain this again:

We know Clinton had an email server, we know 100+ documents considered classified went across it. We know that is against department policy. It may be illegal, Comey didn't weigh in - see the bit about "clear cut." It's not "clear cut" because we don't know is what else went across that server, because the only thing We the People have to work with is data that was preserved and subsequently turned over. That is PRECISELY the problem with running government business across a private server, because government controls for data preservation are not in place. The systems that help the government comply with FOIA and NARA don't work when it's not a government server. It's only possible to prosecute the crime when We the People can prove information that went across that server was subject to FOIA and NARA, which we can't do, because again, those systems don't work on private servers. Since we don't know what went across the server and we can't prove she knowingly used the system to evade NARA, it is difficult to prosecute any wrongdoing. This is pretty much the inmates running the asylum. The suspect being investigated for misuse of data is in charge of producing that data*. Do you understand the problem? If We the People could produce all the email that went across the server over ten years, maybe then we'd have a crime to prosecute.

In the same way, we know the Trump team met with Russians. We know with a fair degree of certainty that at times they talked about the election. What we don't know is what they talked about, whether foreign governments employed systems to manipulate the election, and whether they communicated information about those systems or information those systems produced to Trump's team. The only way we can get that information is if Trump's team or the foreign governments come forward with that information. The suspects being investigated for misuse of information hold the keys to that information. Does that make sense? If We the People could produce the contents of those conversations, maybe then we'd have a crime to prosecute.

Clinton = Trump
Email Server = Russians
Classified or Protected Emails = Election Manipulating Efforts
Intentional Evasion Government Oversight = Collusion

Unless Clinton/Trump produces all the information communicated across the Email Server/Russians, then We the People have no access to details about the Emails/Efforts and it's difficult to prove Evasion/Collusion so a prosecution is difficult to build. Without the actual information communicated, it's all hearsay and supposition.

And, AGAIN: I think Clinton intentionally evaded government oversight, and I think Trump colluded with the Russians. I can't prove either opinion, and I doubt the government will have any better success with Trump than it did with Clinton.





* Unrelated, but important to note, is that the email server came to light when she was being investigated for Benghazi, and government email searches for her communications came up empty. Why? Because she used a private server. So in order to investigate her in the context of Benghazi, she was required to produce her own incriminating emails. I'm not making any commentary about Benghazi, but you do understand the inherent difficulty of saying "Hey, can you give us that email where you incriminate yourself because we don't have access to it?" That situation is exactly what NARA is supposed to prevent, why not using government servers is a problem, and why someone who would choose to do that is already a little suspect. "No, officer, I did not hit that pedestrian. I'd prove it to you, but wouldn't you know it my dash cam wasn't working for that 47 seconds." Yep, nothing to see there. I have worked on hundreds of email and document productions at this point, forensically investigated servers. You know what? You don't find what they don't want you to find. If you control the data, you control the story.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yep!

Bottom line is that we had shady candidates who shouldn't be on ballots. However, each side is willing to defend candidate of their side to the death and willing to kill candidate of the other side. I just don't get why...

Can we agree that they're both crap? Okay maybe Hillary crap isn't as stinky, but she's still crappy.

[drew]

One can't help but notice the irony.

[FaultyMario]

I'll say it again. It's going to be imposible to get him thru the Russians. But he did the same with the Mexicans, and they are more inept/have worse controls on the data.

[novicius]

I'll say it again. It's going to be imposible to get Congress to get him thru the Russians.

FTFY.

[FaultyMario]

Yeah, that too.

But the Democrats haven't finished with each other yet, who knows if they'll have time to present an attractive platform in 11, 12 months.

[novicius]

Yeah that ain't happening.

[thesameguy]

I'll say it again. It's going to be imposible to get him thru the Russians. But he did the same with the Mexicans, and they are more inept/have worse controls on the data.

Very much agree - the only way through this is if some Russian somewhere flips and has something in writing. Even accepting a government connected lawyer produced official government documents as directed by the government, you'd essentially have to prove the information contained in those documents was created through government-sponsored activities and probably that those activities were illegal. If Putin himself provided a Donald Trump Sr. an official document that said "Hillary Clinton is 69 years old" sure, you'd have a letter of the law crime (foreign government providing information which could be used to influence an election) nobody would prosecute that. The nature of that information is absolutely critical - there needs to be proof the information was unique, gathered by the foreign power, and still probably that it was gathered illicitly, rather than a concoction of creative Google searches.

That said, you might be able to prosecute Junior right now purely on the basis of collusion (arguing he intended to receive stolen information to influence an election) but that's a rough case (proving intent) and it certainly wouldn't affect Trump Senior.

I spent the last eight hours listening to NPR... this was a popular topic. A lot of angry Democrats for sure, but nobody suggesting they can prove Trump Senior's collusion, only that there is a strong case for his associates. The Republicans, of course, are waving people away with a combination of "nothing to see here" and "Look at the Ukranians!"

Also a popular topic was "neo liberal" vs "the left" (eg, Clinton vs Sanders) and all the sentiments these groups carry about the election. Interesting stuff, an author whose name I don't recall at the moment suggested that the neoliberals are as a group convinced Hillary was robbed by "the Russians," whereas the left tends to believe that she represented the establishment, and Trump won because he ran on a platform of anti-establishment (even though it was lies). What's funny about that, to me, is that the neoliberals are saying "Clinton lost, because the Russians stole votes from her" whereas the left is saying "Clinton lost because we didn't vote for her." One is a guess (which may or may not be true), whereas one is a fact. I guess that makes me "the left," because I didn't vote for her because she represented the establishment. Maybe it was the Russians... but maybe it was me!!!

[Crazed_Insanity]

Wait, I thought you begrudgingly voted for her?

I'm the true left. I was just not going to vote for her no matter what.

Donald almost had me until he showed disrespect for kitty cats. Glad I also didn't vote for him because otherwise I might consider suicide now.