• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Audacity of Hopelessness

People being mad about emails being stolen and made public is totally legit. That should concern everyone. But I'm not sure what on earth you can do to unring the bell. It just sucks.

If the emails involve someone running for president and reveal corruption then I think there is no question the release is legit. What about something like the Panama Leaks- they revealed corruption at a business and involved private email accounts. I would find it more disturbing if a news organization sat on that info to protect the powerful.
 
I don't recall too much concern from the left when Sarah Palin's Yahoo account was hacked back in 2008.
 
CIA leaks should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. This, more than intelligence, is what they do. Partisan in the extreme. A shadow of what they used to be. Look for a lot of this in the next four years.
 
If the emails involve someone running for president and reveal corruption then I think there is no question the release is legit. What about something like the Panama Leaks- they revealed corruption at a business and involved private email accounts. I would find it more disturbing if a news organization sat on that info to protect the powerful.

Oh, I don't disagree with the release if it involves illegal activity.

But the broader principle is folks are getting at are the implications that can occur if it targets one side and not another. That is of real concern.
 
CIA leaks should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. This, more than intelligence, is what they do. Partisan in the extreme. A shadow of what they used to be. Look for a lot of this in the next four years.

Not to mention John Brennan owes Obama a massive debt (article in the anti-Trump Guardian, about Obama's double standard when it comes to who gets prosecuted for leaks):
Since joining Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, the CIA director and former White House counter-terrorism and homeland security coordinator, John Brennan, has been Obama’s liaison to the secret world of US intelligence. It has rewarded Brennan tremendously: not only does he now run the agency he served for decades, his position appears secure even after he obstructed a Senate inquiry into Bush-era torture. Perhaps his most ironic aspect of that obstruction was an attempt to get the Justice Department to investigate Senate staffers for allegedly removing classified information.
Yet while Brennan was still a White House official, on 7 May 2012, he talked about having “inside control” of a plot by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to place a bomb on a US-bound plane. Brennan’s confirmation occurred on an official conference call with ex-counter-terrorism officials who now recycle intelligence-community talking points for TV news outlets.

“We were confident that we had inside control over the – any plot that might have been associated with this device,” Brennan is quoted in a transcript later obtained by Judicial Watch, in which he attempts to assure the media personalities that the danger from the bomb was marginal. Subsequent media reports promptly stated that the US and its allies had infiltrated the terror group.

Months later, when Brennan testified before the Senate intelligence panel for his CIA confirmation hearing, the long-time intelligence official denied he had in fact confirmed the AQAP infiltration. Yet he confirmed that he had said the US had “inside control” of the plot and lamented that the operation “got out to the press before that operation was, in fact, concluded”.

In March 2013, the Senate confirmed Brennan as CIA director by a 63-34 vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning
 
If the emails involve someone running for president and reveal corruption then I think there is no question the release is legit. What about something like the Panama Leaks- they revealed corruption at a business and involved private email accounts. I would find it more disturbing if a news organization sat on that info to protect the powerful.
Even if the leaked emails had revealed illegal activity, which they didn't, that wouldn't have excused or legitimized the clearly partisan electioneering of the hacking and email publication. You seem to be ignoring and dismissing the very public encouragement that Trump gave for this act. No matter what was released about Trump, Hillary never made any public calls for Trump's campaign privacy to be illegally broken on her behalf.
 
Last edited:
Even if the leaked emails had revealed illegal activity, which they didn't

I'll address the rest of your post in a moment. But, to be clear, under Federal law it is illegal for individuals or corporations or other governmental entities to give anything of value to a government official in return for or expectation of return for anything that provides personal gain or value. You cannot do these things directly and you cannot do them indirectly (i.e. funnel the delivery or receipt through a third party). And, naturally, it is also illegal for government officials to engage in these actions as a recipient. The consequences for violating these laws are severe. The pattern of behavior outlined in this detailed breakdown of a single email are alarming. It does not take much effort using google to come up with additional evidence of relationships discussed in this video that demonstrate additional actions which would be considered illegal under Federal law.

 
Last edited:
Even if the leaked emails had revealed illegal activity, which they didn't, that wouldn't have excused or legitimized the clearly partisan electioneering of the hacking and email publication. You seem to be ignoring and dismissing the very public encouragement that Trump gave for this act. No matter what was released about Trump, Hillary never made any public calls for Trump's campaign privacy to be illegally broken on her behalf.

1 - I presume you are not suggesting that illegal activity uncovered in the Clinton campaign should not have been disclosed. Because the public should know about illegal acts of someone running for President regardless of the source of the disclosure.

2 - You are correct that we cannot excuse illegal activity that causes a disclosure. But that does not hinge on whether such activity focuses on one or both sides of a political campaign. It hinges on the simple fact hacking is illegal.

3 - Whether someone publicly or privately encourages others to hack an opponent is problematic. You seem to be focused only on the potential for public encouragement.
 
No. The public doesn't have the "right" to know that. If we had the right to know it, we would know it about every political candidate, and not just the one you happen to hate.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act the public does have the right to see unclassified correspondence from public officials while serving in office. We know Hillary took extraordinary measures to circumvent FOIA by taking the unprecedented step of setting up an unauthorized private server and then wiped it clean after withholding thousands of work related emails that otherwise would have been in the public domain. Along the way she placed all of her subordinates at the State Dept. at risk by not giving them an authorized way to transmit classified information to her (their boss). In at least one instance, an employee was instructed to remove a classified header before transmitting. When her email configuration was questioned, employees were told to stop asking questions. It was also assumed that since she was sending out directives to all state department employees describing the importance of information security she was for sure abiding by the rules. Of course after being caught she threw many of the career State Department employees under the bus by saying she relied on them to know what was classified and what was not. Don't you love the boss who fucks over the rank and file to save his/her skin? She then wiggled out of trouble with the FBI by claiming not to know about paragraph markings on classified documents. Really? It was her obvious lies and the way she held hundreds of State Department employees at ransom that led to the scathing press conference from Comey. By dragging in all of the people who transmitted classified material to her unauthorized server, she was telling Comey that if he came after her he needed to come after everybody.

The Russian hacks are disturbing but in an odd way Hillary got what she deserved.
 
I did enjoy the recent ramblings of a psychopath aka Donald Trump and his letters to Scotland on wind farms, all thanks to the FOIA.
 
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act the public does have the right to see unclassified correspondence from public officials while serving in office. We know Hillary took extraordinary measures to circumvent FOIA by taking the unprecedented step of setting up an unauthorized private server and then wiped it clean after withholding thousands of work related emails that otherwise would have been in the public domain. Along the way she placed all of her subordinates at the State Dept. at risk by not giving them an authorized way to transmit classified information to her (their boss). In at least one instance, an employee was instructed to remove a classified header before transmitting. When her email configuration was questioned, employees were told to stop asking questions. It was also assumed that since she was sending out directives to all state department employees describing the importance of information security she was for sure abiding by the rules. Of course after being caught she threw many of the career State Department employees under the bus by saying she relied on them to know what was classified and what was not. Don't you love the boss who fucks over the rank and file to save his/her skin? She then wiggled out of trouble with the FBI by claiming not to know about paragraph markings on classified documents. Really? It was her obvious lies and the way she held hundreds of State Department employees at ransom that led to the scathing press conference from Comey. By dragging in all of the people who transmitted classified material to her unauthorized server, she was telling Comey that if he came after her he needed to come after everybody.

The Russian hacks are disturbing but in an odd way Hillary got what she deserved.

Karma?
 
Back
Top