tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post1000363436477828912..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Lock her up!Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-16076109064254395052018-12-17T22:31:13.045-08:002018-12-17T22:31:13.045-08:00Cryptozoology
@Ron
>Maybe it's Bigfoot. I ...<b>Cryptozoology</b><br /><br />@Ron<br />>Maybe it's Bigfoot. I hear there have been recent sightings in the justice department.<br /><br />Likely seen with disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok and disgraced former FBI director James Comey before they were fired.<br /><br />Then we have this:<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRWDP-PWunE" rel="nofollow">Bill Clinton and Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-46091164914835884442018-11-30T16:10:54.782-08:002018-11-30T16:10:54.782-08:00> the case that seems most similar to Hillary&#...> the case that seems most similar to Hillary's in the sources I can find is that of Bryan Nishimura<br /><br />Very different cases. Nishimura clearly intended to appropriate classified material. Hillary clearly did not.<br /><br />Yes, Hillary was likely getting the benefit of the doubt from the Obama administration. It begs credulity to think she's getting the same consideration Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-4197368105357984042018-11-30T15:16:41.564-08:002018-11-30T15:16:41.564-08:00@Ron:
If the privilege conferred by Senate confir...@Ron:<br /><i> If the privilege conferred by Senate confirmation was not enough to protect Patraeus from being prosecuted by the Obama justice department, I see no reason to believe that it's suddenly enough to protect Hillary from being prosecuted by the Trump justice department.</i><br /><br />This would be valid reasoning if what Petraeus did was similar to what Hillary did. But it wasn&#Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-60610730941151432422018-11-30T14:17:12.713-08:002018-11-30T14:17:12.713-08:00@Peter:
> My theory is "the threshold for...@Peter:<br /><br />> My theory is "the threshold for prosecuting high officials is higher than the threshold for prosecuting ordinary Federal employees".<br /><br />I don't doubt that this is true, but that's not the question. The question is whether this can account for the Trump administration not prosecuting Hillary. The answer to that is clearly no. If the privilege Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-49754094560759002242018-11-30T12:17:44.957-08:002018-11-30T12:17:44.957-08:00@Ron:
your theory is objectively false
My theory ...@Ron:<br /><i>your theory is objectively false</i><br /><br />My theory is not "high officials never get prosecuted at all". My theory is "the threshold for prosecuting high officials is higher than the threshold for prosecuting ordinary Federal employees".<br /><br />Yes, high officials have been prosecuted in the past. But that doesn't disconfirm my theory. To test my Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-63733296248680457772018-11-30T11:53:31.888-08:002018-11-30T11:53:31.888-08:00> I did give an answer; you (and Don) just didn...> I did give an answer; you (and Don) just didn't agree with it.<br /><br />No, it's not that we disagreed. It's that your theory is objectively false:<br /><br />"My guess: because there is a long-standing unwritten policy of not prosecuting high officials (basically, the ones that have to be confirmed by the Senate) for things that ordinary Federal employees would be Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-78608951199059855722018-11-30T11:26:34.387-08:002018-11-30T11:26:34.387-08:00@Ron:
I'll ask you the same question I asked P...@Ron:<br /><i>I'll ask you the same question I asked Peter, which he couldn't answer</i><br /><br />I did give an answer; you (and Don) just didn't agree with it. Someday (though probably not for many years) maybe we'll know all of the facts, and we'll be able to see whose answer was right.<br /><br /><i>this is not about what the rules are or were. This is about what Donald Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-5462840667527155292018-11-29T23:04:39.029-08:002018-11-29T23:04:39.029-08:00@Publius:
> I would speculate someone, or seve...@Publius:<br /><br />> I would speculate someone, or several individuals, are protecting her.<br /><br />Yeah? Like who?<br /><br />Maybe it's Bigfoot. I hear there have been recent sightings in the justice department.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-64533959072584550702018-11-29T22:30:31.516-08:002018-11-29T22:30:31.516-08:00Two Tracks
@Ron:
>: if this is true, why hasn&...<b>Two Tracks</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>: if this is true, why hasn't the Trump administration made good on his campaign promise and locked Hillary up? If there really is slam-dunk evidence that she violated the espionage act (or some other law), why not prosecute her?</i><br /><br />Unknown at this time. I would speculate someone, or several individuals, are protecting her. Who and Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-74010558688710619282018-11-27T17:59:53.227-08:002018-11-27T17:59:53.227-08:00@Publius:
> classified information contained i...@Publius:<br /><br />> classified information contained in Clinton’s emails was in fact compromised by foreign intelligence services<br /><br />I'll ask you the same question I asked Peter, which he couldn't answer: if this is true, why hasn't the Trump administration made good on his campaign promise and locked Hillary up? If there really is slam-dunk evidence that she violated Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-31853801870049755552018-11-26T02:18:02.652-08:002018-11-26T02:18:02.652-08:00Hillary State Department video on cyber security
...<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDBix0AlJ2E" rel="nofollow">Hillary State Department video on cyber security</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download" rel="nofollow">Inspector General report on Comey and Clinton</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://tinyurl.com/y9bo55u7" rel="nofollow">Commentary: But her emails? You’re dang right her emails.</a><br /><Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-23862948930731795652018-11-22T13:00:35.240-08:002018-11-22T13:00:35.240-08:00@Peter:
> the system in general is a lot more ...@Peter:<br /><br />> the system in general is a lot more of a mess than I thought<br /><br />Welcome to reality.<br /><br />But this is not about what the rules are or were. This is about what Donald Trump said that they *should be* when he was running for president. And he said, loudly, repeatedly, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thaNhEAKF_U" rel="nofollow">unambiguously</a>, Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-15099607406579222502018-11-22T12:33:39.131-08:002018-11-22T12:33:39.131-08:00@Ron:
Hm. Looking at your link and other articles...@Ron:<br /><br />Hm. Looking at your link and other articles, it seems like the system in general is a lot more of a mess than I thought. Some agencies are apparently a lot more permissive than mine is. Disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising.<br /><br />In all my time as a Federal employee, I've never found having separate mobile devices for home and work to be a significant problem.Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-4734886717824165442018-11-22T12:23:25.916-08:002018-11-22T12:23:25.916-08:00https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907
...https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907<br /><br />"When she became secretary of state, the controlling interpretation of the 1950 Federal Records Act was that officials using personal email accounts must ensure that official correspondence is turned over to the government. Ten months after she took office, a new regulation allowed the use of private emails only if federal records Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-41507005361264588402018-11-22T12:16:22.715-08:002018-11-22T12:16:22.715-08:00@Ron:
at the time that Hillary did it, using a per...@Ron:<br /><i>at the time that Hillary did it, using a personal server for government business was not against the rules</i><br /><br />It wasn't? When did the rules change? I've been a Federal employee since 2005, and it's always been against the rules I was given.<br />Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-56407504074666906502018-11-22T11:50:17.654-08:002018-11-22T11:50:17.654-08:00@Peter:
> shouldn't Hillary have been fire...@Peter:<br /><br />> shouldn't Hillary have been fired? <br /><br />No, because at the time that Hillary did it, using a personal server for government business was not against the rules, and the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-57906292858267944102018-11-22T11:30:24.945-08:002018-11-22T11:30:24.945-08:00@Ron:
neither one of them should be locked up. (Bu...@Ron:<br /><i>neither one of them should be locked up. (But Ivanka should probably be fired.)</i><br /><br />Then, since what Hillary did was at least as bad as what Ivanka did (I'm not here saying it was worse, just that it was at least as bad), shouldn't Hillary have been fired?Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-52112311274765343772018-11-22T09:43:07.163-08:002018-11-22T09:43:07.163-08:00@Peter:
> I thought you were saying that Trump...@Peter:<br /><br />> I thought you were saying that Trump should call for her to be locked up.<br /><br />Seriously? Are you really that incapable of recognizing rhetorical irony?<br /><br />No, I am not saying that Trump should call for Ivanka to be locked up. I am pointing out how absurd and hypocritical it is for him to call for Hillary to be locked up and not Ivanka. At the risk of Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-77354756875074905032018-11-21T21:57:03.867-08:002018-11-21T21:57:03.867-08:00@Ron:
the reason we have no knowledge is because t...@Ron:<br /><i>the reason we have no knowledge is because there has been no investigation</i><br /><br />So you're saying Trump should call for an investigation? I thought you were saying that Trump should call for her to be locked up. If you're saying there should be an investigation, I agree. But that isn't what your article said.<br />Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-55395899269769700922018-11-21T21:44:05.509-08:002018-11-21T21:44:05.509-08:00> We have no knowledge that that has happened.
...> We have no knowledge that that has happened.<br /><br />It might not have happened yet. Classification after the fact is something that might happen in the future.<br /><br />But the reason we have no knowledge is because there has been no investigation. And the reason there has been no investigation is because this is the Dear Leader's daughter.<br /><br />> Some was marked<br /><Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-50884268236748854152018-11-21T20:28:15.920-08:002018-11-21T20:28:15.920-08:00@Don:
Peter asked: "If you find a source that...@Don:<br /><i>Peter asked: "If you find a source that says this happened, by all means post a link."</i><br /><br />That wasn't in reference to some of Hillary's emails being classified after the fact. I am not disputing that that happened. It was in reference to the possibility Ron raised that some of *Ivanka's* emails might be classified after the fact. We have no Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-10713235664690769702018-11-21T19:38:54.046-08:002018-11-21T19:38:54.046-08:00Ron said: "many of the "classified"...Ron said: "<i>many of the "classified" documents on Hillary's server were not in fact classified at the time. They were only classified after the fact</i>"<br /><br />Peter asked: "<i>If you find a source that says this happened, by all means post a link.</i>"<br /><br />I don't think it's that hard to find. I remember this being reported at the time. Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-5659342045390822282018-11-21T18:15:18.455-08:002018-11-21T18:15:18.455-08:00@Ron:
So because Ivanka's lawyer's spokesm...@Ron:<br /><i>So because Ivanka's lawyer's spokesman said it, it must be true? No investigation needed?</i><br /><br />You gave the article as your only source. The spokesman's quoted statements are the only information the article gives about classified information. If you suspect that the spokesman was lying or mistaken, that doesn't mean you have evidence that Ivanka's Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-81059051306849575212018-11-21T17:27:47.815-08:002018-11-21T17:27:47.815-08:00@Peter:
> a spokesman for Ivanka's counse...@Peter:<br /><br />> a spokesman for Ivanka's counsel said none of her emails contained classified information<br /><br />I see. So because Ivanka's lawyer's spokesman said it, it must be true? No investigation needed?<br /><br />I'm pretty sure that if I dig through the archives I can find a similar claim coming from Hillary's people.<br /><br />Also, don't forget Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-62822812937730575502018-11-21T17:00:32.226-08:002018-11-21T17:00:32.226-08:00And just to reiterate one more time: I think both ...And just to reiterate one more time: I think both Ivanka and Hillary (and many other government officials over the years, some in high positions--two of the people listed in the nbcnews article I linked to before were CIA directors, fer cryin out loud) should have known better and shouldn't have been allowed to give lame excuses for why they didn't follow the rules. I just don't thinkPeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.com