I mean, since it's Indiana, I doubt he was emailing anything too juicy. Probably just how to be a better theocrat. Still, between this and Good ol' Boy Sessions, the wheels are coming off the administration faster than even I thought they would.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Edit: Uh, guess that's what the title is about. Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 03-04-2017 at 10:03 AM.
It's not the fact of the private account, but the entire context that makes the difference.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Monica startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
IDK man I still think the FBI should investigate Pence and clear him of criminal action so we can spend several years vilifying him for it anyway. But I'm guessing whether or not you assume the FBI has better data restoration/computer forensics specialists than the Clintons or vice versa depends on affiliation.
I'm pretty sure it's already been established that he broke neither laws nor policies. My understanding is he used personal e-mail with the approval of the government, then turned in all of his e-mails as required when he left. Not sure what there is to investigate, since there are no actual allegations of wrong-doing.
Happy belated, BTW.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Well Clinton didn't break any laws, either. She acted with incredible stupidity because she didn't want to carry around 2 phones, but it is not a crime to do stupid things. Similarly, Mike "Anderson Cooper if you squint" Pence did a stupid thing when he used his personal email in the first place. I mean, this is more of an "old people not understanding technology" thing than a criminal thing.
I think you misread both situations. I haven't seen any allegations that what Pence did violated any policies, and he turned in all of his e-mails when he left office. He also used a public service, so the entire record of his activities is available.
Clinton, on the other hand, actually broke policy. She also used her home account to send and receive classified e-mails, which is against the law, even though Justice has chosen not to prosecute. I can absolutely guarantee that if I did something similar, I'd be prosecuted and sent to Leavenworth. She also repeatedly lied about her e-mail use, which, while not against the law, certainly raises other questions.
It's never been the fact of the e-mails that was the issue. At least not for anyone thinking rationally. The two situations don't really have that much in common other than the fact of using personal e-mail for government business...which isn't the problem.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
A sleep deprived Karnaj stammered:
Well Clinton didn't break any laws, either. She acted with incredible stupidity because she didn't want to carry around 2 phones, but it is not a crime to do stupid things. Similarly, Mike "Anderson Cooper if you squint" Pence did a stupid thing when he used his personal email in the first place. I mean, this is more of an "old people not understanding technology" thing than a criminal thing.
That was my take, was that she sucks at technology and did something stupid (and yeah, let's just say illegal - I just don't believe it was intentional) because of it. I get emails from our IT department every other day in all caps going "DON'T CLICK ON THAT THING YOU JUST RECEIVED!" It is completely believable to me that she sucks at technology. I loved her social media during the campaign, but I didn't for one second think it was her personally handling it. I don't even know if I'd believe it if she personally told me she knows what Snapchat is.
My belief is that personal perceptions of the email scandal are also affected by, say, the fact that I'm a little too young to have spent the last ~25 years soaking up the media telling me to hate her and to always assume her motives must be bad, and that's why the younger crowd tended to turn out for her a little more and were willing to let the email stuff go (in the face of Trump, at least - it's impossible to say whether a different GOP candidate may have changed that, and certainly I think it could have, especially given the breathless, frothing awe with which the media covered it)... and the older crowd didn't, because they've been told for years that she's awful and a criminal and she defended a child rapist (a story that ALSO changes drastically when you understand the complete context).
The woman literally can't pee without alt right trolls freaking out about it. We're four months out from the election and the guy is still holding "Lock her up!" rallies. Have you seen what kind of people show up to Trump rallies? Because I'm going to guess if you quizzed them on what the email scandal actually is, most of them won't be able to tell you. Something like 1/3 of Americans don't even realize that ACA and Obamacare are the same thing. And these are the same people now getting humanizing news articles crying because they just realized they voted for their health insurance or their food stamps to be taken away. A woman in Tennessee recently sang praises to TrumpCare because her premiums went down. (You know, the plan the GOP is still trying to ram through a vote on, what is it, tomorrow?)
Don't get me wrong, I think there are some educated people who know and understand what their beef is with Hillary, but I also think most people just hate her and don't really know why. I can't say that I wouldn't at least consider wiping a server so the media and the GOP don't get the details on when my last mammogram was and use it to speculate that I'm secretly dying of adamantium poisoning or something, though I would certainly consult the fuck out of my government IT people before doing so.
Edit: Also the reason people are conflating the two is because the Trump campaign whined relentlessly about Hillary's transparency and the secrecy and "omg unsecured info WHAT IF SHE GETS HACKED!!!" around her email and tried to frame themselves as OMG WE WILL BE SO TRANSPARENT and then Pence tried to fight the public release of his own and it turns out his shit was even less secure, even if the contents were less damning. And it calls into question whether or not he will resume the same practice as VP, where it will be a much bigger deal if he gets hacked again, and how transparent will he be REALLY if he didn't even want to release his emails as governor? It's basically the same argument they made against Hillary. It's admittedly a valid question with regards to Hillary, but they railed on it like they had video of her killing kittens with her bare hands - so if it's valid for her, it's valid for Pence, too.
ALSO OFF TOPIC BUT CAN WE TALK ABOUT THIS SHIT BECAUSE WHAT???? Monica fucked around with this message on 03-22-2017 at 10:54 AM.
Ivanka is officially getting an office in the White House, btw.
How the ever-living fuck is this justified?
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
Meanwhile trump is making millions off of renting out space to foreign governments and officials in his real-estate property.How the ever-living fuck is this justified?
But no one complained of the millions upon tens of millions of dollars of donations by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation, not to mention her staffers working for both organizations and setting up favors for donors at State.
Let's face it: there are no clean politicians.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Bloodsage with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
But no one complained of the millions upon tens of millions of dollars of donations by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation, not to mention her staffers working for both organizations and setting up favors for donors at State.Let's face it: there are no clean politicians.
Access does not equal favors. It is evident that certain donors to the Clinton Foundation received access to SecState Clinton, but it is not evident that any concrete benefit was obtained by those benefactors. There was no evidence of pay-to-play, or whatever you want to call it.
It is evident, however, that a sitting president is currently using the office to enrich himself and his family. I mean, this certainly doesn't come as a surprise to me, but it doesn't change the bare facts of the situation. And it's not like this came out of left field.
The worst of this was the punditry who assumed that Trump would act more presidential after assuming office--that the election was just, essentially, an affect he put on for the benefit of his base. No, he was just telling us what he would do in office, and two months into his term, here we are. He is going to be an ineffectual President at best, and a terrible one at worst.
The real problem, however, is that he does not appear to respect the office, or the job. Happily, you can look back at my post history to see my disdain for the previous Republican president. The difference, however, is that I disagreed with George W. Bush's policies and positions. I never had any doubt then, nor do I now, that he sincerely believed that he had the best interests of the country in mind when he was implementing those policies, and that he took his job seriously. I have no such notions about Trump. He will use the office to enrich himself, his family, and his friends, and the country will suffer because of it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Also, in governmnet, even the appearance of favors is illegal. But not sure how you can say there were no favors given the explicit proof that access to Clinton while SecState was provided to large donors to the foundation. Access is favors.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Monica absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I imagine it must be very nice to be able to act like all politicians are exactly the same.
Or to blithely ignore facts in reinforcing one's preconceived notions.
Noice.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage screamed this from the crapper:
So, in summary, it's okay for the Clintons to get rich from foreign money, but not Trump? Not sure how that folllows.Also, in governmnet, even the appearance of favors is illegal. But not sure how you can say there were no favors given the explicit proof that access to Clinton while SecState was provided to large donors to the foundation. Access is favors.
I'm not sure how the Clintons themselves were personally enriched by donations to their foundation. By all indications, theirs is an above-board charity. Do they pay themselves absurdly large salaries as founders/board members/executives of the foundation? Did they give themselves fat bonuses when those large foreign donations came in?
Also, Hillary Clinton is not the President. She never will be President. Donald Trump is. Now that he is, he is rightly held to a higher standard, because of the responsibility and power he holds as President.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Quoth Karnaj:
I'm not sure how the Clintons themselves were personally enriched by donations to their foundation. By all indications, theirs is an above-board charity. Do they pay themselves absurdly large salaries as founders/board members/executives of the foundation? Did they give themselves fat bonuses when those large foreign donations came in?Also, Hillary Clinton is not the President. She never will be President. Donald Trump is. Now that he is, he is rightly held to a higher standard, because of the responsibility and power he holds as President.
I thought we were talking about Clinton's e-mails? Though I'm not sure how turning foundation donations into access to the SecState is "above board."
My only point here is that the e-mail scandal isn't about the fact of her not using her official e-mail as per policy. It's about the deliberate (at best, reckless, but most probably deliberate) use of a private, unclassified account to transmit classified information, including some at the very highest levels of classification, and then lying about it. And lying about turning over all of the official e-mails, too. And wiping the server in hopes of not getting caught.
Nothing Pence did even remotely rises to that level.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Drysart:
So how about all those under-the-table Russian connections by high ranking officials all over the Trump campaign and administration? How are those either the fault of the Clintons or normalized because of something the Clintons did?
Nothing to do with anything, and I haven't said that anything Trump did is the fault of the Clintons. Nice "logic." All I've done is point out that Pence's e-mails and Clinton's aren't equivalent.
On the subject of the "Russian connection," though, that's just a scare tactic used by the left to excuse their massive defeat, since there's zero evidence of any material interference in the election. Exposing the Clinton duplicity--from attempts to discredit Sanders to getting debate questions in advance--doesn't exactly qualify as manipulating the election results. Unless it's your contention that the public somehow doesn't have a right to know about such things.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Bloodsage liberally with Old Spice!
I thought we were talking about Clinton's e-mails? Though I'm not sure how turning foundation donations into access to the SecState is "above board."My only point here is that the e-mail scandal isn't about the fact of her not using her official e-mail as per policy. It's about the deliberate (at best, reckless, but most probably deliberate) use of a private, unclassified account to transmit classified information, including some at the very highest levels of classification, and then lying about it. And lying about turning over all of the official e-mails, too. And wiping the server in hopes of not getting caught.
Nothing Pence did even remotely rises to that level.
And my point is that since neither of them committed a crime, both are equally stupid. And yes, this is probably a situation where law hasn't caught up with the technology yet, but the act of sending classified information to yourself(I.E. to your personal email account) is not, in and of itself, a criminal act. It is a monumentally stupid act, but as I have said, stupidity is not criminal. To be prosecuted for such, you either need to deliberately share classified information with someone who does not have clearance (see David Petreaus for an example), and/or fail to take reasonable steps to secure the information while it is in your possession(leave your unlocked, unencrypted phone at a restaurant, let's say).
And yes, Hillary (or rather, her IT staff) did a piss-poor job of securing her private email server. But the evidence that this was done to deliberately expose classified information simply is not there, so stupid as it may be, it's not criminal.
As for Mike "Socks 'n' Sandals" Pence, his use of a major email provider like AOL (of all things!) is just as stupid as a private server, given the massive data breaches that have occurred on such services in recent years. You could, if you were so inclined, lock down a private server so tightly that data breaches are essentially impossible without zero-day exploits, against which there is not a practicable defense. A large email service can offer no such assurances, and given that accounts on such services are at a nontrivial risk of being compromised, it really should not longer be expected of them.
The sad truth is that any electronic communication protocol or service, unless properly hardened, no longer carries with it a realistic expectation of privacy. I presume that government email services are properly secured, which is why they want you to use it. Not using it exposes you to to unnecessary risk, and consequently is a monumentally stupid act. Karnaj fucked around with this message on 03-24-2017 at 05:24 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Bloodsage came out of the closet to say:
All I've done is point out that Pence's e-mails and Clinton's aren't equivalent.
And that Trump collecting money from foreign sources is okay because Clinton did it too.
And I didn't say anything about interference in the election. Nobody thinks Russia was out there stuffing ballot boxes, and arguing about that is really just setting up a strawman and knocking it down. I was asking about why it seems nobody on the right seems to care that now several high ranking people close to Trump both during the campaign and in his White House have admitted to concealed ties to Russia and other foreign governments. I suspect the answer as to why it's okay will involve Clinton somehow.
