dagblog - Comments for "Let us face the matter squarely"

I absolutely agree that our

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:27:09 +0000

In reply to That's where we disagree.. I

I absolutely agree that our government over-classifies information but we are talking about a particular class of information produced in a situation which often, very often, has secret or sensitive material transmitted. In the case of emails involving State Department communications it simply does not make sense to consider them all non-secret until someone gets around to classifying the ones secret which should then be so classified. That is a sequence problem if it were to be done as you suggest. When some significant part of expected communications can be known with certainty to deserve a level of classification then it is not an excuse to say it wasn't secret when it arrived. It is only after the fact that over-classification becomes a fault which should be corrected, IMO.

I've read enough of your posts that I think if this wasn't a partisan election issue you would agree.

That is absolutely wrong, not that I expect my saying so to convince you. I read your posts too.

Yes, thanks.

Ramona — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 20:52:44 +0000

In reply to Lulu, you might find this Dan

Yes, thanks.

Thanks, barefooted. That did

LULU — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:25:47 +0000

In reply to Lulu, you might find this Dan

Thanks, barefooted. That did seem balanced and fair.

Lulu, you might find this Dan

barefooted — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:34:08 +0000

In reply to If I were a Hillary fan who

Lulu, you might find this Dan Abrams article a bit more balanced, though the conclusion is much the same.

That's where we disagree.. I

ocean-kat — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:16:49 +0000

In reply to If I were a Hillary fan who

That's where we disagree.. I think government documents should be considered not secret until classified one way or the other. If there is a disagreement between agencies of the government the lessor classification should apply. There should be a well staffed declassification agency whose purpose is to look through government documents and release them to the public unless there is a clear and compelling reason for classification. Every document before at least 1916 should be released to the public.

I'm not at all concerned about Hillary's email server. I'm concerned about the government's over classification and deliberate misclassification of documents. I've read enough of your posts that I think if this wasn't a partisan election issue you would agree.

Well, it rather addresses

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:45:15 +0000

In reply to If I were a Hillary fan who

Well, it rather addresses this in so doing -

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.

Why far-fetched? Because this is standard fare government. Bradley Manning walked out of a "secure facility" with a bunch of secrets burned on a Lady Gaga CD, Eric Snowden with flash drives. Did they fix these security holes once revealed? No. Is there a big worry? Not as long as the CIA thinks classifying info on rotary phones is "critical" or reclassifying info from Obama public speeches on drones, nope.

But you've got a sad on because Josh didn't use the occasion to say Hillary's been a naughty girl and needs a spanking.

If I were a Hillary fan who

LULU — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 12:58:06 +0000

In reply to Here's Josh Marshall's at TPM

If I were a Hillary fan who ever believed that she would get indicted over anything. then Josh's article would help to ease any fear that the rumors and bad reporting had created. If Josh's article had explored the wisdom, judgment, ethics, etc, of Hillary's use of a private email account to conduct business which should have been considered secret until classified one way or another, then it would have been worth the time taken to read.

Here's Josh Marshall's at TPM

ocean-kat — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 04:11:29 +0000

In reply to Let us face the matter squarely

Here's Josh Marshall's at TPM take on the email "sacndal."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-wages-of-derp-are-derp-lots-of-it

HIllary has 50% and Bernie 49

Flavius — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 03:24:41 +0000

In reply to This is all I got right now

HIllary has 50% and Bernie 49.

Cruz has won the R primary and Trump is just barely ahead of Rubio.

This is all I got right now

Richard Day — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 03:00:06 +0000

In reply to Let us face the matter squarely

This is all I got right now Flavius:

Reagan had a secret: