WWTBAM Bored

SSS will love this article, which agrees with everything he's been posting for two years.
Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler?

OTOH, Trump tweeted minutes ago:

Donald J. Trump wrote:Heading to Helsinki, Finland – looking forward to meeting with President Putin tomorrow. Unfortunately, no matter how well I do at the Summit, if I was given the great city of Moscow as retribution for all of the sins and evils committed by Russia over the years, I would return to criticism that it wasn’t good enough – that I should have gotten Saint Petersburg in addition! Much of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people and all the Dems know how to do is resist and obstruct! This is why there is such hatred and dissension in our country – but at some point, it will heal!

He sounds more like Russia's unwitting dupe than its pawn, and he's becoming unhinged.

jarnon wrote:SSS will love this article, which agrees with everything he's been posting for two years.
Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler?

If Putin gets a chance to show Trump the queen of diamonds during their private meeting, it's game over.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
She did not. Give a date if you think so. Link to the video.

She did during the Benghazi hearing, but not anything related to the campaign. That is what I am referring to. She was interviewed,in private, not under oath, by the FBI.

Lying to the FBI is just as criminal as lying under oath, as some of trumps associates have found out, with more to come.

But the FBI says as long as you weren't intending to break the law, it's O.K.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
She did during the Benghazi hearing, but not anything related to the campaign. That is what I am referring to. She was interviewed,in private, not under oath, by the FBI.

Lying to the FBI is just as criminal as lying under oath, as some of trumps associates have found out, with more to come.

But the FBI says as long as you weren't intending to break the law, it's O.K.

Deliberately exposing classified data is a crime. Accidentally exposing it is not.

For example, deliberately disclosing the location of nuclear submarines to a foreign government is a crime because it is classified. Unless, of course, you happen to have the authority to declare that information not classified, and you exercise that authority as soon as you reveal the information. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Lying to the FBI is just as criminal as lying under oath, as some of trumps associates have found out, with more to come.

But the FBI says as long as you weren't intending to break the law, it's O.K.

Deliberately exposing classified data is a crime. Accidentally exposing it is not.

For example, deliberately disclosing the location of nuclear submarines to a foreign government is a crime because it is classified. Unless, of course, you happen to have the authority to declare that information not classified, and you exercise that authority as soon as you reveal the information. --Bob

What about whataboutism, bob-tel? Doesn't apply to you?
"Accidentally exposing it is not." It certainly is, bob-tel, unless you're Hillary Clinton. But we've been through that before, and you are actively ignoring it, as is your wont.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: "Accidentally exposing it is not." It certainly is, bob-tel, unless you're Hillary Clinton.

No it's not, regardless of whether you're Hillary Clinton or anyone else. Here is the text of the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 798:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The next paragraph of the Act defines "classified information" as information that "at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution"

So, to be a crime, the information must be classified by a government agency, must be knowingly and willfully transmitted, and must fall into one of the categories of information listed in this section. Once again, Flock's and other Hillary haters' "understanding" of the law is incorrect.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: "Accidentally exposing it is not." It certainly is, bob-tel, unless you're Hillary Clinton.

No it's not, regardless of whether you're Hillary Clinton or anyone else. Here is the text of the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 798:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The next paragraph of the Act defines "classified information" as information that "at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution"

So, to be a crime, the information must be classified by a government agency, must be knowingly and willfully transmitted, and must fall into one of the categories of information listed in this section. Once again, Flock's and other Hillary haters' "understanding" of the law is incorrect.

We did this before, and you lost. You are citing the wrong thing, sir. But it doesn't matter. You don't care that Hillary destroyed 31,000 emails. You don't care that the democrat party refused to let the FBI examine the server that was hacked, and they let them get away with that. You don't care that the dems let two Pakistani brothers have full access to their servers and the servers of many other officials, and those two brothers and their families were allowed to escape back to Pakistan. But that's ok, we're busy trying desperately to find some crime that trump committed.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: "Accidentally exposing it is not." It certainly is, bob-tel, unless you're Hillary Clinton.

No it's not, regardless of whether you're Hillary Clinton or anyone else. Here is the text of the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 798:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The next paragraph of the Act defines "classified information" as information that "at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution"

So, to be a crime, the information must be classified by a government agency, must be knowingly and willfully transmitted, and must fall into one of the categories of information listed in this section. Once again, Flock's and other Hillary haters' "understanding" of the law is incorrect.

We did this before, and you lost. You are citing the wrong thing, sir. But it doesn't matter. You don't care that Hillary destroyed 31,000 emails. You don't care that the democrat party refused to let the FBI examine the server that was hacked, and they let them get away with that. You don't care that the dems let two Pakistani brothers have full access to their servers and the servers of many other officials, and those two brothers and their families were allowed to escape back to Pakistan. But that's ok, we're busy trying desperately to find some crime that trump committed.

Move on.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
No it's not, regardless of whether you're Hillary Clinton or anyone else. Here is the text of the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 798:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The next paragraph of the Act defines "classified information" as information that "at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution"

So, to be a crime, the information must be classified by a government agency, must be knowingly and willfully transmitted, and must fall into one of the categories of information listed in this section. Once again, Flock's and other Hillary haters' "understanding" of the law is incorrect.

We did this before, and you lost. You are citing the wrong thing, sir. But it doesn't matter. You don't care that Hillary destroyed 31,000 emails. You don't care that the democrat party refused to let the FBI examine the server that was hacked, and they let them get away with that. You don't care that the dems let two Pakistani brothers have full access to their servers and the servers of many other officials, and those two brothers and their families were allowed to escape back to Pakistan. But that's ok, we're busy trying desperately to find some crime that trump committed.

Move on.

That's what Soros wants...

flockofseagulls104 wrote: But that's ok, we're busy trying desperately to find some crime that trump committed.

There's no desperation here. Everything that's coming out has been well documented. The desperation is by people clinging to any strain of illogic and wishful thinking that somehow Trump's version of all this is correct.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You don't care that the dems let two Pakistani brothers have full access to their servers and the servers of many other officials, and those two brothers and their families were allowed to escape back to Pakistan.

This one was new to me, but not surprisingly, it was an FBI investigation that resulted in no charges (although Imran Awan did plead guilty to credit fraud charges). Poor judgment on the Democrats' part... probably; some nefarious conspiracy ... not.

But in the right wing world that you inhabit Flock, FBI investigations that result in no charges are proof of a nefarious Democratic deep state conspiracy, while investigations that result in dozens of indictments and well-documented charges are "fake news" or a "witch hunt."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/p ... fraud.html

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:But the FBI says as long as you weren't intending to break the law, it's O.K.

Deliberately exposing classified data is a crime. Accidentally exposing it is not.

I've explained this before but everyone forgot. What Clinton did wrong was using her private unclassified email, instead of the State Dept. unclassified email system, for work-related messages. It violates a number of government rules, in particular that all correspondence must be archived for future historians.

When the emails were reviewed before public release, some words or sentences were redacted because they were judged to be classified, mostly in emails that she received or forwarded. If Clinton happened to notice such an infraction, she should have warned the original author to be more careful. I've seen errors like that when I worked for a defense contractor. I've heard of a few extreme cases where the server had to be wiped clean to remove all traces of the classified information, but I've never seen that myself.

Clinton was ridiculed for not knowing what portion markings like (C) and (S) mean. They identify paragraphs that by themselves have a lower classification than the document was a whole. A paragraph can't have a higher classification than the whole document, so portion markings in an unclassified email are meaningless. If somebody quotes a sentence from a classified document in an unclassified email, he should make sure the sentence isn't classified and remove the portion marking.

All these issues are exactly the same on government or private email systems. Clinton made matters worse by using a private server instead of a commercial email service like Gmail. I don't know if the private server was less secure, but it looked bad.

None of these bad practices are crimes. If Clinton had sent information that she knew was classified in her private email, or copied something from a classified document without looking it over, that could be criminal.

I'm done with my little lesson. The Bored partisans can ignore it and return to hurling insults back and forth. Social media are the same way nowadays. No wonder we end up with politicians who are good at attacking their opponents and not much else.

Impeach Rob Rosenstein!

jarnon wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:But the FBI says as long as you weren't intending to break the law, it's O.K.

Deliberately exposing classified data is a crime. Accidentally exposing it is not.

I've explained this before but everyone forgot. What Clinton did wrong was using her private unclassified email, instead of the State Dept. unclassified email system, for work-related messages. It violates a number of government rules, in particular, that all correspondence must be archived for future historians.

When the emails were reviewed before public release, some words or sentences were redacted because they were judged to be classified, mostly in emails that she received or forwarded. If Clinton happened to notice such an infraction, she should have warned the original author to be more careful. I've seen errors like that when I worked for a defense contractor. I've heard of a few extreme cases where the server had to be wiped clean to remove all traces of the classified information, but I've never seen that myself.

Clinton was ridiculed for not knowing what portion markings like (C) and (S) mean. They identify paragraphs that by themselves have a lower classification than the document was a whole. A paragraph can't have a higher classification than the whole document, so portion markings in an unclassified email are meaningless. If somebody quotes a sentence from a classified document in an unclassified email, he should make sure the sentence isn't classified and remove the portion marking.

All these issues are exactly the same on government or private email systems. Clinton made matters worse by using a private server instead of a commercial email service like Gmail. I don't know if the private server was less secure, but it looked bad.

None of these bad practices are crimes. If Clinton had sent information that she knew was classified in her private email, or copied something from a classified document without looking it over, that could be criminal.

I'm done with my little lesson. The Bored partisans can ignore it and return to hurling insults back and forth. Social media are the same way nowadays. No wonder we end up with politicians who are good at attacking their opponents and not much else.

So how does trump's use of an unsecured mobile phone for his tweeting, email, and phone calls compare?

jarnon wrote:They'd do better with innocent-sounding names like Anna Chapman.

Or Maria Butina.

Russian woman with close ties to NRA charged with spying in US for Moscow

silverscreenselect wrote:Here is the text of the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 798:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The next paragraph of the Act defines "classified information" as information that "at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution"

So, to be a crime, the information must be classified by a government agency, must be knowingly and willfully transmitted, and must fall into one of the categories of information listed in this section. Once again, Flock's and other Hillary haters' "understanding" of the law is incorrect.

Oh, you mean like the classified documents that ended up on Wiener's laptop?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/29/politics ... index.html

Estonut wrote: ]Oh, you mean like the classified documents that ended up on Wiener's laptop?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/29/politics ... index.html

But there was no indication that Abedin "had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law," Comey added, and investigators couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent. The emails weren't marked as classified, though the FBI later found classified information contained in some emails recovered from Weiner's laptop.

Bob Juch wrote:So how does trump's use of an unsecured mobile phone for his tweeting, email, and phone calls compare?

You and I don’t know what security features are on his phone to prevent hacking and so on. I don’t think he uses it for official business like Clinton did.

As I expected, Estonut and SSS ignored my explanation and are continuing to exchange the same meaningless talking points.

jarnon wrote:

jarnon wrote:They'd do better with innocent-sounding names like Anna Chapman.

Or Maria Butina.

Russian woman with close ties to NRA charged with spying in US for Moscow

This could prove to be a big headache for both Trump and the NRA. Butina is actually in police custody, so, unless she cops a plea, there will be a trial. There's a good chance she served as a funnel for Russian government funds to the Trump campaign through the NRA, and that Donald Trump, Jr., was involved. Get ready for some more "fake news" arrests and indictments to come.

I'd also add that this story will have traction with the general public because Butera is rather striking looking and the social media "Red Sparrow" comparisons are already running rampant.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:So how does trump's use of an unsecured mobile phone for his tweeting, email, and phone calls compare?

You and I don’t know what security features are on his phone to prevent hacking and so on. I don’t think he uses it for official business like Clinton did.

There are no security features and he does use it for official business.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Here is the text of the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 798:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The next paragraph of the Act defines "classified information" as information that "at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution"

So, to be a crime, the information must be classified by a government agency, must be knowingly and willfully transmitted, and must fall into one of the categories of information listed in this section. Once again, Flock's and other Hillary haters' "understanding" of the law is incorrect.

Oh, you mean like the classified documents that ended up on Wiener's laptop?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/29/politics ... index.html

You really are the king of whataboutism, aren't you?

silverscreenselect wrote:

jarnon wrote:

jarnon wrote:They'd do better with innocent-sounding names like Anna Chapman.

Or Maria Butina.

Russian woman with close ties to NRA charged with spying in US for Moscow

This could prove to be a big headache for both Trump and the NRA. Butina is actually in police custody, so, unless she cops a plea, there will be a trial. There's a good chance she served as a funnel for Russian government funds to the Trump campaign through the NRA, and that Donald Trump, Jr., was involved. Get ready for some more "fake news" arrests and indictments to come.

I'd also add that this story will have traction with the general public because Butera is rather striking looking and the social media "Red Sparrow" comparisons are already running rampant.

Where did you get this 'good chance' crap from? Why would trump need money from the russian government? He spent far less money than clinton did. I would think that would show up in campaign expenditure reporting?

I don't get this whole russian handler line of attack, either. trump is for fracking and developing our oil and natural gas resources, directly competing with russia's main source of income. Did vlad tell trump to do that? He famously objected to the german-russian pipeline. Did vlad tell him to do that. He has not lifted any sanctions on russia. Did vlad tell him to do that? Where are you people coming from?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:He has not lifted any sanctions on russia.

Comrade Donny hasn't lifted the sanctions Congress imposed on Russia (with a total of five no votes) because he's somehow never gotten around to following the law by actually imposing them. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:He has not lifted any sanctions on russia.

Comrade Donny hasn't lifted the sanctions Congress imposed on Russia (with a total of five no votes) because he's somehow never gotten around to following the law by actually imposing them. --Bob

And most of the sanctions that were in place against Russia were imposed during the Obama administration, the same administration that Trump blamed for the election interference investigation. "witch hunt."

Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton would be as in awe of Putin as Trump has been, or would have been easier for Putin to deal with? Putin made a very smart choice in which candidate to back in the Presidential race.