And if that is what really happened then, yes, it deserves condemnation.

But you can refer to my very first post in this thread for more on that.

Nothing has changed since then. We have a press report based on unnamed “sources”.

Is the story true? Given the track record the only honest answer is “I don’t know”.


Again, I’m not defending anything. I’m just being cautious about the veracity of the news reports.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

If trump doesn't trust American intel community....don't give him or his money grubbing relatives any intel. Let them get from bibi, pooty, fat bastard(which one) or saudi prince.

that's an upgrade from not caring. good.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"I never said there was such thing as a partial clearance and I agree there is not, but I don;t know why you think that I did.

I was correcting slowguy when he said that "That interim clearance is a full clearance". I pointed out that does not apply to SCI information, which matches your experience. "



This whole discussion follows posts 1 & 2. Kay referred to a "partial clearance" and slowguy corrected saying that an interim clearance is not "partial" but a "full clearance," while also recognizing that there are different levels of clearance.


I think it was pretty clear that slowguy didn't mean to imply that an interim clearance got you access to ALL classified documents, but neither does the finalized clearance.






At the end of the day, this is all semantics. Everyone agrees that different levels of clearances are required for different materials, and that an interim clearance is enough to get access to lots of TS information but that other TS information may require the clearance to be finalized, or that you receive a higher level.

Call it peanut butter if you want.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6875640#p6875640

Your statements are inconsistent. Does it deserve condemnation, or do you not care?

I'm guess your mental gymnastics will state: "both" or something asinine. Maybe time to post a gif of a yawning cat.

I condemn!

There. Feel better now?

That showed Trumo!

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Beyond the pissing contests herein, might I intrude:


This old thread is now brought forward and current by the recent, non attribution sourced NYT and Wapo reporting of Gen Kelly writing a memo for the record claiming he was not the responsible party for giving Kushner an TS/SCI Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance authorization. What is the NYT's batting average on these sources? Not too bad.

The intelligence agencies, who source the products deemed to be sensitive and have access restricted to a select few who have a need to know and be authorized to be read in, reached the conclusion that Jared should not have access. Gen Kelly endorsed their conclusion. Were concerns and the negative endorsement to the request for clearance valid? Yes; political? Yes; personal? Maybe.

Somebody in the WH security clearance office signed off approving TS/SCI clearance disregarding previous negative endorsements. Why? Someone higher than chief of staff Kelly told him/her to do it.

Kelly, suspecting future loss of memory by others and missing documents, wrote his own CYA document.

Laws broken? Nope. National security endangered? How is that peace in the middle east working out? Is MBS working out? Are Kushner's finances in the black and clean as a whistle?

Jared could in no way do his job without said clearance authorization and access. He got it and is acting in the best interest of his father-in-law.

Just one more entree added for the Democratic Congress to chew on.

I think he always had the clearance. I quickly searched and couldnt find anything where this was mentioned. I think an IT guy doing someone that high ups work would have a clearance.

As I said I am not sure about him. You failed to mention Platte River or the deletion of 30k emails under a subpoena.

You were the one who originally brought it up.

edit: actually that was your entire argument. That the person who set up her server didnt have clearance. Now you are saying, lets not discuss that guy.

Actually it wasn't my entire argument. I also talked about the deleted emails under subpoena. Plus the person that originally setup the server was Justin Cooper who didn't have clearance or expertise in computer security.

This was your initial argument: You do realize that she gave unfettered access to the guy that setup her email server and then that guy deleted 30k, IIRC, emails after a subpoena was issued. So yes she gave her password to classified documents to someone that didn't have clearance to see those documents.

your arguments were based on giving someone access to classified information, and then with that access the guy deleted emails.

I am going to assume Mills, HRC chief of staff had clearance. I doubt her original email server set up had classified info on it because it was her home email server before she was SOS, which is what the entire controversy was about. If the set up originally was for classified information, I feel like this would have been a bigger deal, and would have shown that she had intent.


If your arguments are now just about the deleted emails, sure but that is a completely different question from my original premise. The original premise was clinton mismanaged information she had rights to see (as would her head of IT and chief of staff) and didnt give access to others which is completely different than giving rights to someone to view documents that the shouldnt have.

I agree that my first post was confusing. There are two issues that I was talking about.

The guy that setup the server didn't have clearance or security background. He had access to the server up until Platte River took over, so he had access to all the classified emails that were on the server.

The guy from Platte River that deleted the emails while under subpoena didn't have clearance either.

ETA: You also said she didn't break the law. The last time I checked deleting evidence while under subpoena was illegal.

In 2014, months prior to public knowledge of the server's existence, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two attorneys worked to identify work-related emails on the server to be archived and preserved for the State Department. Upon completion of this task in December 2014, Mills instructed Clinton's computer services provider, Platte River Networks (PRN), to change the server's retention period to 60 days, allowing 31,830 older personal emails to be automatically deleted from the server, as Clinton had decided she no longer needed them. However, the PRN technician assigned for this task failed to carry it out at that time.

Last time I checked deleting emails years before a subpoena is issued is not a illegal. It is not Hillary's fault the technicition forgot and then when the remember tried to cover up their mistake.

She didn’t delete the emails. She didn’t direct the deletion of the emails under subpoena. She directed the deletion of emails way before the subpoena was issued

Also did cooper have access to the emails once she was sos?

Pretty much everything your have been arguing is just wrong.

So are you saying that if someone in the Trump administration does something illegal and Trump doesn't know about he shouldn't be help accountable? The buck stops with him if something illegal happens in his administration he should be held accountable same with Hillary.

Yes Cooper had access to the emails once she was SOS.

Her underlings broke the law and you are trying to say shouldn't be held accountable.

Well, if trump tells someone specifically to do something legal and then they go and do something illegal instead, I would mostly be surprised trump told someone to do something legal.

Wait. So now you are arguing that clinton should be held accountable for her underlings breaking that law? I agree that people who broke the law should be accountable. However, from all accounts, this does not appear to be HRC. My analogy still stands, a bank security guard not locking the vault (case 1) vs. the bank security guard giving the keys to the vault to a friend, even if locking the vault (case 2).

In case number 1, the person acted carelessly. If someone were to rob the bank, they are partially to blame. They are fully to blame for not following protocol. But the didnt do something illegal, no matter how stupid you want to argue the person was in their actions.

In case number 2, the person committed an overt act, by giving the keys away. This is the major distinction.

Link to cooper having access to info once she was SOS?

Here is a link that says that Platte River didn't have clearance. I am looking for the article I read about Cooper still have access and if I find I will post. But from this link it is clear that Hillary gave access to someone that didn't have clearance.


Yes I think Hillary should be held accountable for her underlings breaking the law just like I do with Trump and all other public officials.

  


Gotcha. The article you posted said that the material presented to the remote server had already been redacted for work emails.

So even if she was irresponsible with not being deligent in deleting the emails, it wasn’t like she turned over access to everything.

Also I am not sure if any of the marked emails were actually on that sever. It appears that the emails on that server were the ones that got “washed”. So we don’t actually know what was in those emails.

That might be true by itself, but when you constantly argue back at anyone else who does complain, that pattern sure starts looking a lot more like a defense to anyone else...

I think it was pretty clear to anyone familiar with the laws that pertain to handling of classified information that Sec Clinton's actions violated those laws. Whether or not Mr. Comey explicitly stated as much, and whether or not he chose to recommend that those actions be prosecuted really doesn't have any bearing on whether the actions were illegal. Prosecutors choose not to prosecute illegal acts all the time, due to lack of evidence, higher priorities, and a variety of other reasons, as I'm sure you know very well.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)