(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, in this case, sunlight is equally being applied to people involved with the Trump admin AND the Obama admin...

I'm not at all convinced that it is, certainly at least not yet. James Comey recited as facts certain things that would be sufficient to convince me, if I were a juror, that Hillary Clinton committed multiple federal felony offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt--beyond any doubt, as a matter of fact. I can see that it might have been difficult to obtain a conviction from a jury comprised of people who did not understand the national defense information security system. I would tend to include Hillary herself in the number of those who did not, and on a prospective basis I would argue very strongly that the system whereby politicians gain access to classified information is in dire need of severe changes.

To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all. I see no indication so far that such is going to be the case. I tend to fault republicans, who held majorities in both houses of congress for two years and did nothing.

So what are your feelings about the news that Kushner has been using WhatsApp to conduct official government business?

And, what is yours?

Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

So, twice the penalty Hillary got?

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, in this case, sunlight is equally being applied to people involved with the Trump admin AND the Obama admin...

I'm not at all convinced that it is, certainly at least not yet. James Comey recited as facts certain things that would be sufficient to convince me, if I were a juror, that Hillary Clinton committed multiple federal felony offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt--beyond any doubt, as a matter of fact. I can see that it might have been difficult to obtain a conviction from a jury comprised of people who did not understand the national defense information security system. I would tend to include Hillary herself in the number of those who did not, and on a prospective basis I would argue very strongly that the system whereby politicians gain access to classified information is in dire need of severe changes.

To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all. I see no indication so far that such is going to be the case. I tend to fault republicans, who held majorities in both houses of congress for two years and did nothing.

So what are your feelings about the news that Kushner has been using WhatsApp to conduct official government business?

And, what is yours?

Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

So, twice the penalty Hillary got?

Bad day for the Democrats. Mueller report delivered to Barr.

No more faux angst about the need to protect the Mueller investigation.
No more "we must protect Mueller". Seems he didn't need protecting.

It seems telling that the people eagerly awaiting this report are the Trump supporters.

(03-22-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not at all convinced that it is, certainly at least not yet. James Comey recited as facts certain things that would be sufficient to convince me, if I were a juror, that Hillary Clinton committed multiple federal felony offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt--beyond any doubt, as a matter of fact. I can see that it might have been difficult to obtain a conviction from a jury comprised of people who did not understand the national defense information security system. I would tend to include Hillary herself in the number of those who did not, and on a prospective basis I would argue very strongly that the system whereby politicians gain access to classified information is in dire need of severe changes.

To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all. I see no indication so far that such is going to be the case. I tend to fault republicans, who held majorities in both houses of congress for two years and did nothing.

So what are your feelings about the news that Kushner has been using WhatsApp to conduct official government business?

And, what is yours?

Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

So, twice the penalty Hillary got?

Not sure. You seem invested and concerned about the security implications of Clinton’s actions. What about Kushner?

(03-22-2019 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So what are your feelings about the news that Kushner has been using WhatsApp to conduct official government business?

And, what is yours?

Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

So, twice the penalty Hillary got?

Not sure. You seem invested and concerned about the security implications of Clinton’s actions. What about Kushner?

Interpret what I say as you wish, then use your misinterpretation to set up a straw man. How Ladish of you.

Here s what I am concerned with, in the words of Owl69:

"To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all."

(03-22-2019 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And, what is yours?

Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

So, twice the penalty Hillary got?

Not sure. You seem invested and concerned about the security implications of Clinton’s actions. What about Kushner?

Interpret what I say as you wish, then use your misinterpretation to set up a straw man. How Ladish of you.

Here s what I am concerned with, in the words of Owl69:

"To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all."

What straw man? The only thing I pressured was that you were concerned with the security implications of Clinton’s actions. Are you saying you’re not concerned about those?

I then asked you how you felt about the Kushner news. Can you not articulate how you feel about it?

(03-22-2019 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

So, twice the penalty Hillary got?

Not sure. You seem invested and concerned about the security implications of Clinton’s actions. What about Kushner?

Interpret what I say as you wish, then use your misinterpretation to set up a straw man. How Ladish of you.

Here s what I am concerned with, in the words of Owl69:

"To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all."

What straw man? The only thing I pressured was that you were concerned with the security implications of Clinton’s actions. Are you saying you’re not concerned about those?

I then asked you how you felt about the Kushner news. Can you not articulate how you feel about it?

Already did.

(03-22-2019 07:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, twice the penalty Hillary got?

Not sure. You seem invested and concerned about the security implications of Clinton’s actions. What about Kushner?

Interpret what I say as you wish, then use your misinterpretation to set up a straw man. How Ladish of you.

Here s what I am concerned with, in the words of Owl69:

"To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all."

What straw man? The only thing I pressured was that you were concerned with the security implications of Clinton’s actions. Are you saying you’re not concerned about those?

I then asked you how you felt about the Kushner news. Can you not articulate how you feel about it?

Already did.

No you didn’t - all you did was ask questions and talk about potential punishments relative to Clinton. I asked how you felt about the news, not what punishment he should receive. You’ve offered 0 on how you feel about the Kushner news.

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

Depends on whether or not he transmitted any classified information. If he did, it might or might not be worse, depending on how much. If he didn't, then definitely not as bad.

(03-22-2019 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

Depends on whether or not he transmitted any classified information. If he did, it might or might not be worse, depending on how much. If he didn't, then definitely not as bad.

I had been reading that the simple act of conducting official business on behalf of the US on such a machine and service was problematic. Is that not the case?

(03-22-2019 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

Depends on whether or not he transmitted any classified information. If he did, it might or might not be worse, depending on how much. If he didn't, then definitely not as bad.

I had been reading that the simple act of conducting official business on behalf of the US on such a machine and service was problematic. Is that not the case?

Not as problematic as storing and transmitting classified information via non-secure means.

IIRC the applicable statutes provide that the penalty for conducting official US business over such a machine is administrative--your boss calls you into his/her office, yells and screams at you, and puts an adverse comment in your personnel file--whereas the penalty for hazarding classified information can extend up to death in certain circumstances--and depending on some facts that have not been clarified, Hillary's could be a capital case.

(03-22-2019 10:50 AM)uconnbaseball Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2019 10:41 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote:  . Unfortunately, only one such Democrat exists and she is under fire from HuffPost, etc for not being liberal enough.

Her name? I cannot think of any Democrats who are not campaigning on the twin issues of 1) get Trump and 2) increasing the Democrat's voting base.

Klobuchar. She pissed off a lot of college students by stating that she does not believe in free college for all. I am sure she is critical on Trump but she is not selling out to AOC and other left-wing extremists.

She votes with Trump 31% of the time; not as centrist as I would like but still fairly moderate. She is not a sheep.

And to complete the package, her split fingered fast binder has a wicked counter break *and* it drops completely off the table.

I’ve been listening to the Democratic Party propaganda outlets, CNN and MSNBC, to see if the Democrats would b accepting of the results of the Muellr investigation.

If it shows no collusion/conspiracy with Russia, they will not.

Ironic for the party that just days before the el cation was asking if Trump would accept the results

I’ve been listening to the Democratic Party propaganda outlets, CNN and MSNBC, to see if the Democrats would b accepting of the results of the Muellr investigation.

If it shows no collusion/conspiracy with Russia, they will not.

Ironic for the party that just days before the election was asking if Trump would accept the results

(03-22-2019 09:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

Depends on whether or not he transmitted any classified information. If he did, it might or might not be worse, depending on how much. If he didn't, then definitely not as bad.

I had been reading that the simple act of conducting official business on behalf of the US on such a machine and service was problematic. Is that not the case?

Not as problematic as storing and transmitting classified information via non-secure means.

IIRC the applicable statutes provide that the penalty for conducting official US business over such a machine is administrative--your boss calls you into his/her office, yells and screams at you, and puts an adverse comment in your personnel file--whereas the penalty for hazarding classified information can extend up to death in certain circumstances--and depending on some facts that have not been clarified, Hillary's could be a capital case.

Was actually talking about this with my brother-in-law (PhD physicist, has to travel with manacled briefcase and a security officer accompaniment for work).

Using an unauthorized device for work with no classified information means yelling by boss, suspension, potential for removal of clearance, potential loss of position (last two odds are higher to amount of use and/or additional times being in that position).

Transferring classified material to an unauthorized or unsecured device means all of the above (no second chances) and a potential jail term even if inadvertent (misdemeanor count). A count for each and every item/device pair. And, the item can mean each page of a document with something designated in that page as classified. If you transfer a 90 page document with on the average one classified item of para. per page, this adds up to a bucketload of problems (90 x 3-9 mos = a shitload of fed time).

Transferring classified material with the intent to harm the interests of the United States is a felony count for each and every item so transferred. And, the item can mean each page of a document with something designated in that page as classified.

So problematic? Yes, definitely.

Considering the two actions, and considering what Hillary skated off to the park with, kind of idiotic to make a comparison of the two.

Was traveling all week and just got caught up with Friday's stuff. MSNBC looks like a funeral hit it.

This comment kind of struck it for me:

Quote:Two plus years, thirty million dollars, our fbi and doj compromised, thousands of fake news stories, millions of people all entranced in a false story of Russia collusion based on oppo research that was always unsubstantiated and preposterous

I think that pretty much sums it all up in a nice, tight comment. We should be proud....

(03-24-2019 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on what I’ve heard security experts (per the description given about them) say, it’s way worse. Not only does the use of the service keep our own intelligence community and other government agencies out of the loop, his phone is more susceptible to hacking. It appears to be a much greater security concern.

Depends on whether or not he transmitted any classified information. If he did, it might or might not be worse, depending on how much. If he didn't, then definitely not as bad.

I had been reading that the simple act of conducting official business on behalf of the US on such a machine and service was problematic. Is that not the case?

Not as problematic as storing and transmitting classified information via non-secure means.

IIRC the applicable statutes provide that the penalty for conducting official US business over such a machine is administrative--your boss calls you into his/her office, yells and screams at you, and puts an adverse comment in your personnel file--whereas the penalty for hazarding classified information can extend up to death in certain circumstances--and depending on some facts that have not been clarified, Hillary's could be a capital case.

Was actually talking about this with my brother-in-law (PhD physicist, has to travel with manacled briefcase and a security officer accompaniment for work).

Using an unauthorized device for work with no classified information means yelling by boss, suspension, potential for removal of clearance, potential loss of position (last two odds are higher to amount of use and/or additional times being in that position).

Transferring classified material to an unauthorized or unsecured device means all of the above (no second chances) and a potential jail term even if inadvertent (misdemeanor count). A count for each and every item/device pair. And, the item can mean each page of a document with something designated in that page as classified. If you transfer a 90 page document with on the average one classified item of para. per page, this adds up to a bucketload of problems (90 x 3-9 mos = a shitload of fed time).

Transferring classified material with the intent to harm the interests of the United States is a felony count for each and every item so transferred. And, the item can mean each page of a document with something designated in that page as classified.

So problematic? Yes, definitely.

Considering the two actions, and considering what Hillary skated off to the park with, kind of idiotic to make a comparison of the two.

But..but..but Lad heard this from security experts. I presume the experts were on the Most Respected Name in News.

Five results of Mueller-rama:

1) Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no criminality arising from that famous meeting Trump Jr. and Kushner had with the Russian lawyer.

2) Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia that gives rise to a criminal offense meriting prosecution.

If the Democrats nonetheless continue their quest to find collusion, they will seem to most observers to be grasping straws.

3) Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

4) Trump did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

5) Trump did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. “There were no such instances,” Barr wrote.

What do 1-5 tell you about 'intense media speculation'?

The mainstream media, it seems, was consistently off-base in its coverage of the Mueller investigation. A combination of hysteria and wishful thinking ensured that it would be.

(list and contents paraphrased and/or taken from another source).

Yay. We should be proud.

Kind of makes the rabid salivating by James Brennan stand out as a pretty partisan action. From his position of service at the top of the Obama administration, Brennan was of course a key participant in the peddling of alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Yay. We should be proud.

(03-24-2019 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Depends on whether or not he transmitted any classified information. If he did, it might or might not be worse, depending on how much. If he didn't, then definitely not as bad.

I had been reading that the simple act of conducting official business on behalf of the US on such a machine and service was problematic. Is that not the case?

Not as problematic as storing and transmitting classified information via non-secure means.

IIRC the applicable statutes provide that the penalty for conducting official US business over such a machine is administrative--your boss calls you into his/her office, yells and screams at you, and puts an adverse comment in your personnel file--whereas the penalty for hazarding classified information can extend up to death in certain circumstances--and depending on some facts that have not been clarified, Hillary's could be a capital case.

Was actually talking about this with my brother-in-law (PhD physicist, has to travel with manacled briefcase and a security officer accompaniment for work).

Using an unauthorized device for work with no classified information means yelling by boss, suspension, potential for removal of clearance, potential loss of position (last two odds are higher to amount of use and/or additional times being in that position).

Transferring classified material to an unauthorized or unsecured device means all of the above (no second chances) and a potential jail term even if inadvertent (misdemeanor count). A count for each and every item/device pair. And, the item can mean each page of a document with something designated in that page as classified. If you transfer a 90 page document with on the average one classified item of para. per page, this adds up to a bucketload of problems (90 x 3-9 mos = a shitload of fed time).

Transferring classified material with the intent to harm the interests of the United States is a felony count for each and every item so transferred. And, the item can mean each page of a document with something designated in that page as classified.

So problematic? Yes, definitely.

Considering the two actions, and considering what Hillary skated off to the park with, kind of idiotic to make a comparison of the two.

But..but..but Lad heard this from security experts. I presume the experts were on the Most Respected Name in News.

F*** me for asking a question, huh?

(03-24-2019 10:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Five results of Mueller-rama:

1) Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no criminality arising from that famous meeting Trump Jr. and Kushner had with the Russian lawyer.

2) Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia that gives rise to a criminal offense meriting prosecution.

If the Democrats nonetheless continue their quest to find collusion, they will seem to most observers to be grasping straws.

3) Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

4) Trump did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

5) Trump did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. “There were no such instances,” Barr wrote.

What do 1-5 tell you about 'intense media speculation'?

The mainstream media, it seems, was consistently off-base in its coverage of the Mueller investigation. A combination of hysteria and wishful thinking ensured that it would be.

(list and contents paraphrased and/or taken from another source).

Yay. We should be proud.

Kind of makes the rabid salivating by James Brennan stand out as a pretty partisan action. From his position of service at the top of the Obama administration, Brennan was of course a key participant in the peddling of alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Yay. We should be proud.

I could be wrong but I kind of feel that if #1 thru #5 were all correct, then Trump would have inundated us with victory tweets by now. I think it's very possible that 3 thru 5 are possible but #1 and 2 may not be true. All along, I've been pretty constant in my opinion that I think about as much of this report, as any thoughts of trying to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her dealings as Secretary of State. And I don't think we should necessarily go after Trump's children, or Trump himself (Mueller sounds like he wants the New York Attorney General's office to do the dirty work now). I feel like all of this is anti-productive for the country.

But I also feel that if the Mueller Report had nothing, Trump would not be silent about it.