Monday, July 18, 2016

Political dumpster diving so you don't have to.

I don't know of a way to link to YouTube videos that start and stop at particular times and run on this page. Embedding an entire clip is simple enough but not embedding a segment so far as I know. Thus, please bear with having to click on each image, having a new page open for each clip, and having to make note of the time periods for each video clip that are relevant for my purposes (indicated after the names of the individuals below).

Aux barricades!

Hillary Clinton, candidate for president (2016), on retroactive classification (unh huh) of government documents, 7/2/16 (0:02-0:45 mins):

Since she received classified documents from other agencies (see excerpt from Dir. Comey's press conference below), to believe Hillary's version you have to believe that other federal agencies removed classification markings before sending classified documents to Her Grace -- an absurdity -- or that "someone" on Hillary's staff or a contractor (with unknown security clearances) removed those markings. Really?

Xavier Becerra (D-CA), on subsequent classification of government documents, 7/3/16 (5:50-6:59 mins.):

Rep. Becerra here either has a horrible memory, is recklessly making statements on a red-hot national issue he's not examined, or he is lying with a straight face.

James Comey, FBI Director on the documents on Hillary's server being classified at the time, 7/5/16 (4:08-4:43 mins.):

You have to love the Director's emphasis on "at the time."

Since emails pass through various portals on their way to their addressees and copies of what passes through those portals (non-government in Hillary's case) is possibly retained on their servers (at least outside of the E.U.), I wonder whether the investigation of Hillary's emails included subpoenaing those backup files to determine what each email looked like as it left that last portal before arriving at her server.

This "marked as classified" evasion is just garbage and Comey did not address it in his press conference. If U.S. law prevents retention then so be it but unencrypted emails still pass over the web whether or not they're retained.

Not my thing but it seems unlikely there's no retention since Google apparently keeps a record of every search any user makes. If there's no record or copy, hypothetically speaking, it's a certainty that there are existing capabilities to read email if the link immediately above is accurate. But then, who'd be interested in the email communications of the United State Secretary of State?

I'm under the impression that state of the art opinion is that you lose any practical (v. legal) right to privacy as regards the content of your email as you are in essence publishing your unencrypted email for the perusal of strangers when you hit "send."

Comey's being coy about the "marked as classified" issue and what I've discussed here, not least because a deliberate removal of classification markings writes a whole new chapter in the law on the (immaterial) element of her intent. Maybe Hillary's emails were encrypted and Guccifer thus did have to hack into her servers themselves.

At this point, who outside of the FBI and Hillary knows?

H/t: 5 MINUTES AGO for first two videos and LesGrossman2015 for the last one.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.