"I Didn't Mean To"

[Tim Wright]

Well, I guess "I didn't mean to" is now a legal defense. FBI to
recommend not prosecuting Hillary.

I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse. I guess I
was lied to.

I wish Canada were warmer in the winter.
--
I never said most of the things I said.
-Yogi Berra


Tim W

[Les Albert]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:23:34 -0500, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well, I guess "I didn't mean to" is now a legal defense. FBI to
>recommend not prosecuting Hillary.
>I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse. I guess I
>was lied to.
>I wish Canada were warmer in the winter.

Go to Mexico instead. They're building some sort of wall ....

Les

[Tim Wright]

What really aggravates me is that this whole situation is making me
angry. I don't like being angry. It's not like I didn't expect the
bitch to get away with it in the first place. No one should be above the
law.

It wouldn't surprise me if she nominated the AG for her running mate.

[bobg]

Cheer up - the OTHER unlikely thing can still happen, where the GOP finds
the right candidate and replaces Trump!

[Tim Wright]

We can only hope. That would require politicians with balls. Nope, its
hopeless.

[bobg]

It would require a replacement candidate, too. Bad luck, that.

[Tim Wright]

Maybe I should change my name to Not The Donald and run a write in
campaign. The only thing stopping me is the fear that I'd win. Don't
want the job.

[Alfalfa Bill]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:23:50 AM UTC-5, Tim Wright wrote:
> Well, I guess "I didn't mean to" is now a legal defense. FBI to
> recommend not prosecuting Hillary.
>
> I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse. I guess I
> was lied to.
>
> I wish Canada were warmer in the winter.

Many laws have a "specific intent" requirement. It would appear that this statute has a specific intent requirement that the perpetrator intends to distribute classified information to people not entitled to receive it. The FBI spokesman said she acted with extreme careless but not with intent.

My take is that (1) Hillary is paranoid, but (2) people really are out to get her for decades, and (3) Bill has grown increasingly erratic in recent years and Hillary is afraid of something stupid he might say or do. For those reasons Hillary wants as much as possible to control the information about her and Bill.

[John Mc.]

I keep telling you folks- Vote for me as Benevolent Dictator. In six month
you'll be surprised at the changes. (Hint invest in orange jumpsuits and
guillotine blades)

John Mc.
Banksters beware

[Bill Turlock]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:31:06 -0700 (PDT), bobg <byo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Cheer up - the OTHER unlikely thing can still happen, where the GOP finds
>the right candidate and replaces Trump!

and he wins, and puts the beat-down on Hilarious!

[Bill Turlock]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:17:19 -0500, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

>Maybe I should change my name to Not The Donald and run a write in
>campaign. The only thing stopping me is the fear that I'd win. Don't
>want the job.

You Win!! That's the first & best req for the job.

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 7/5/2016 3:28 PM, Alfalfa Bill wrote:
> My take is that (1) Hillary is paranoid, but (2) people
> really are out to get her for decades, and (3) Bill has
> grown increasingly erratic in recent years and Hillary
> is afraid of something stupid he might say or do. For
> those reasons Hillary wants as much as possible to
> control the information about her and Bill.

Hillary Clinton is the future Richard Nixon. She will
eventually go down the same road of covering something up
and get caught red handed if she is elected.

I would further be surprised if Trump could serve an entire
term. He will either finally say or do something that will
get him either impeached or resign... OR he will find out
he is NOT going to get his way no matter how good a negotiator
he believes himself to be and he will resign in a tantrum.

In this sense, the VP picks are going to be very important.


--
Sanford

[Boron Elgar]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:23:34 -0500, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well, I guess "I didn't mean to" is now a legal defense. FBI to
>recommend not prosecuting Hillary.
>
>I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse. I guess I
>was lied to.
>
>I wish Canada were warmer in the winter.

Ain't no law she broke.

[Tim Wright]

I just can't believe that Trump would be willing to put all his holdings
in a blind trust for the duration.

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 7/5/2016 8:56 PM, Tim Wright wrote:
> I just can't believe that Trump would be willing to put all his holdings
> in a blind trust for the duration.

They are not in a blind trust NOW. The family is running them... or so
he says. Just like that Clinton Foundation money from the Saudis
and a bunch of other people will not influence her decisions... no sir!


--
Sanford

[Opus the Penguin]

"Sanford M. Manley" <ans...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hillary Clinton is the future Richard Nixon. She will
> eventually go down the same road of covering something up
> and get caught red handed if she is elected.

Nixon was an amateur.


--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet

[bobg]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-4, Tim Wright wrote:

<snip>

> I just can't believe that Trump would be willing to put all his holdings
> in a blind trust for the duration.
>
> --

Yes, that's the big uncertainty about a Trump presidency. That, and does
the chair in the Oval Office have good enough lumbar support?

[Richard Hershberger]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:28:37 PM UTC-4, Alfalfa Bill wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:23:50 AM UTC-5, Tim Wright wrote:
> > Well, I guess "I didn't mean to" is now a legal defense. FBI to
> > recommend not prosecuting Hillary.
> >
> > I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse. I guess I
> > was lied to.
> >
> > I wish Canada were warmer in the winter.
>
>
>
> Many laws have a "specific intent" requirement. It would appear that this statute has a specific intent requirement that the perpetrator intends to distribute classified information to people not entitled to receive it. The FBI spokesman said she acted with extreme careless but not with intent.

There also is a large element of its being nearly impossible to function entirely within the security rules. Those rules are cumbersome and clunky, making them incompatible with acting quickly. One explanation I have read of the failure to prosecute is that if they started prosecuting this sort of thing, essentially every midling-to-senior government official since forever would be liable, making it impossible to function. What we have is a de facto compromise balancing the competing interests of security and having something to secure.

> My take is that (1) Hillary is paranoid, but (2) people really are out to get her for decades, and (3) Bill has grown increasingly erratic in recent years and Hillary is afraid of something stupid he might say or do. For those reasons Hillary wants as much as possible to control the information about her and Bill.

Point (2) is important. People really genuinely are out to get her, and have been for a quarter century. That's got to affect you. But if we give in and decide that she is therefore unqualified, then we are declaring that the crazies win. Sure, if she clearly has gone around the bend, that is another matter. But what I see is perfectly rational accommodations to a peculiar situation.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Osmium]

"Boron Elgar" <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehlonb9ge3bkd1n1b...@4ax.com...

This is from the FBI statement made yeaterday:

"Comey said the FBI investigated whether there was any evidence that
"classified information was improperly stored or transmitted" on Clinton's
server "in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle
classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,
or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified
information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." It also
investigated "whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection
with the personal email server by any foreign power, or other hostile
actors."

It would be nice to have a reference to actual US code, but this is probably
the best a "civilian" can do with reasonable effort. . My reading says she
did break the law. To wit, "... *OR* in a grossly negligent way". Emphasis
added. Or means or; the discussion on intent is misdirected and ignores what
a carefully constructed speech says.

But it's only a felony.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/

[John Mc.]

The GOP has been trying to pin something on her and Bill for years.
Problem has always been there IS a whiff of something less than upright
about many of their dealings. But for the most part the opposition is
making a mountain out of a molehill. You could find similar problems in
many politicians "resumes". Don't like it? Vote the bums out.

John Mc.

[Les Albert]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:03:48 -0400, "John Mc." <jo...@thetdcogre.com>
wrote:

>On 7/6/2016 9:38 AM, Richard Hershberger wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:28:37 PM UTC-4, Alfalfa Bill wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:23:50 AM UTC-5, Tim Wright wrote:

>>>> Well, I guess "I didn't mean to" is now a legal defense. FBI to
>>>> recommend not prosecuting Hillary.
>>>> I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse. I guess I
>>>> was lied to.

>>>> I wish Canada were warmer in the winter.

>>> Many laws have a "specific intent" requirement. It would appear that this statute has a specific intent requirement that the perpetrator intends to distribute classified information to people not entitled to receive it. The FBI spokesman said she acted with extreme careless but not with intent.

>> There also is a large element of its being nearly impossible to function entirely within the security rules. Those rules are cumbersome and clunky, making them incompatible with acting quickly. One explanation I have read of the failure to prosecute is that if they started prosecuting this sort of thing, essentially every midling-to-senior government official since forever would be liable, making it impossible to function. What we have is a de facto compromise balancing the competing interests of security and having something to secure.

>>> My take is that (1) Hillary is paranoid, but (2) people really are out to get her for decades, and (3) Bill has grown increasingly erratic in recent years and Hillary is afraid of something stupid he might say or do. For those reasons Hillary wants as much as possible to control the information about her and Bill.

>> Point (2) is important. People really genuinely are out to get her, and have been for a quarter century. That's got to affect you. But if we give in and decide that she is therefore unqualified, then we are declaring that the crazies win. Sure, if she clearly has gone around the bend, that is another matter. But what I see is perfectly rational accommodations to a peculiar situation.

>The GOP has been trying to pin something on her and Bill for years.
>Problem has always been there IS a whiff of something less than upright
>about many of their dealings. But for the most part the opposition is
>making a mountain out of a molehill. You could find similar problems in
>many politicians "resumes". Don't like it? Vote the bums out.

I agree with all you wrote above. The only thing that seems not to
have been asked of Mrs. Clinton is *why* did she set up her own
private email servers. Was she afraid of the state dept. servers
being hacked? Was she afraid of being spied upon by her own state
dept.? Why did she feel the need for her own private servers? Or has
that question been answered and I missed it?

Les

[Heather]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:23:34 -0500, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well, I guess "I didn't mean to" is now a legal defense. FBI to
>recommend not prosecuting Hillary.
>
>I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse. I guess I
>was lied to.
>
>I wish Canada were warmer in the winter.

If you think that Hillary was the only one to use a private email
provider you are sadly mistaken. (Hint:* They were not all Democrats
either.)


* I have neither the time nor the inclination to find the relevant
information at the moment but my source was far more reliable than
Murdoch and his minions.

--
Heather

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Richard Hershberger]

My recollection, which is probably wrong, is that upon taking office she was handed some ridiculous obsolete piece of shit portable electronic device and told that this was what she would be using for the duration. To which she replied "fuck no." But to implement that "fuck no" she had to circumvent the official system.

Considering that this was bog standard practice among high government officials of either party at the time, the whole thing is unremarkable except as an indictment of the crappy IT systems officially in place.

For actual intent to conceal, you have to go back to the previous administration, which used RNC servers, and erased the data. Oddly enough, the usual suspects aren't calling for criminal prosecutions for this. I wonder why not?

Richard R. Hershberger

[Les Albert]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:15:16 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
<rrh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 2:19:24 PM UTC-4, Les wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:03:48 -0400, "John Mc." <jo...@thetdcogre.com>

>> >The GOP has been trying to pin something on her and Bill for years.
>> >Problem has always been there IS a whiff of something less than upright
>> >about many of their dealings. But for the most part the opposition is
>> >making a mountain out of a molehill. You could find similar problems in
>> >many politicians "resumes". Don't like it? Vote the bums out.

>> I agree with all you wrote above. The only thing that seems not to
>> have been asked of Mrs. Clinton is *why* did she set up her own
>> private email servers. Was she afraid of the state dept. servers
>> being hacked? Was she afraid of being spied upon by her own state
>> dept.? Why did she feel the need for her own private servers? Or has
>> that question been answered and I missed it?

>My recollection, which is probably wrong, is that upon taking office she was handed some ridiculous obsolete piece of shit portable electronic device and told that this was what she would be using for the duration. To which she replied "fuck no." But to implement that "fuck no" she had to circumvent the official system.
>Considering that this was bog standard practice among high government officials of either party at the time, the whole thing is unremarkable except as an indictment of the crappy IT systems officially in place.
>For actual intent to conceal, you have to go back to the previous administration, which used RNC servers, and erased the data. Oddly enough, the usual suspects aren't calling for criminal prosecutions for this. I wonder why not?

I found the following on http://tinyurl.com/zjggvlq (Quora.com) that
answers the question, "Why did Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, and
Condeleeza Rice use private email for official State Department
business? Why mix work and personal email?":
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary benefits of a self-hosted server are control over what
information is disclosed and secrecy.

By using a separate non-government server and set of email addresses,
it was easier to duck Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and
inquiries by oversight/adversaries/journalists/investigators. It is
much, much easier to do so under the arrangement she set up versus the
proper method other cabinet secretaries who started the same day used,
such as Ray LaHood, namely using .gov email for work and personal
email for personal correspondence, or even having a personal email
account, but hosted by others.

She designed a situation whereby independent verification was
impossible.

Once the personal email server was spun-up, no third party was
archiving the communication, nor could be fully involved in a check
for veracity or completeness without her letting them do so. No
political enemy or ally or neutral party could reach into her
electronic correspondence, period, to see anything she didn't want
them to see. These conditions are not true if she had used a .gov
email address for work. Questions involving the Secretary's
correspondence? It would be entirely up to her, not a third party, to
supply relevant data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mists are clearing.

Les