The no spin truth about Russian "meddling."

[altair1013]

@dantes

They were personal devices. Not government property.

Swing and a miss.

They were used for government business.

HOMERUN!!

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

The NIST document places the responsibility for making sanitization decisions with the department, and ultimately with the department head.

As SoS, was Clinton not the “head” of the State Dept?

She is not allowed to destroy government property on her own volition.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

…so?

You’re not following.

[altair1013]

@TheDoctorIsIn

The NIST document places the responsibility for making sanitization decisions with the department, and ultimately with the department head.

As SoS, was Clinton not the “head” of the State Dept?

Not according to Hillary. She won’t even admit to doing it. She’s in full cover up mode.

[zeitgeist]

All that long list fo references is no excuse for his hypocrisy and wrongdoing

[WuWei]

Weight - US Code or NIST paper?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I’ve been interning (every law student has to do it) with a small government agency this summer, and for the last few weeks I’ve spend most of my time pouring over government IT policy and updating the agency I work for’s policy. I’ve been neck-deep in NIST SPs, like the one I posted - and I’ve seen nothing at all that implies that Department heads have to ask permission before implementing federally mandated sanitization procedures.

[dantes]

So what? That doesn’t make them property of the government.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

NIST paper has legal teeth. FISMA made it law.

See 44 U.S. Code § 3553(a)(1), 40 U.S. Code § 11331 and 15 U.S. Code § 278g–3.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Now you’re just trolling.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I’ve been interning (every law student has to do it) with a small government agency this summer, and for the last few weeks I’ve spend most of my time pouring over government IT policy and updating the agency I work for’s policy. I’ve been neck-deep in NIST SPs, like the one I posted - and I’ve seen nothing at all that implies that Department heads have to ask permission before implementing federally mandated sanitization procedures.

I gave you the Code. Believe what you will.

[dantes]

This whole exercise is academic. The devices weren’t government property. The code you cited does not apply.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I know the code. If destruction of the devices is mandated by another section of the code, then to follow that mandate is not “depredation”, and therefore not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

“Depredation” has been defined legally to mean “plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste”. United States v. Jenkins, 554 F.2d 783, 786 (6th Cir. 1977); cf. Deal v. United States, 274 U.S. 277, 283 (1927)

[WuWei]

@dantes

This whole exercise is academic. The devices weren’t government property. The code you cited does not apply.

yeah, you believe she bought them on ebay.

[WuWei]

Cite the code that mandates destruction by the user.

[altair1013]

@dantes

This whole exercise is academic. The devices weren’t government property. The code you cited does not apply.

If they were not government property then it was illegal to store government info on them. Especially classified info. There is no scenario that makes her actions legal. And she knows it. Why else would she be covering it up?

[dantes]

eBay or any other of hundreds of places where one can but a BlackBerry. Unlike you, I read the FBIs report where they talked about it. They were private devices.

[dantes]

Please cite the law that says it’s illegal to store non-classified government emails on a private device.

[peek-a-boo]

@Forcefield

A lot of people smarter than you with access to infinitely more information disagree.

That doesn’t even make any sense??? What exactly has Trump done wrong? Please don’t play the collusion theme again. There is virtually nobody but serious Trump haters who are still singing that tired old song.