Conquer Club

So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

rishaed wrote:So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

Worst part of all was that the american government was also spying on foreign businesses so their own multinationals could gain competitive advantage.

rishaed wrote:So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

I'm not sure I understand. Snowden deliberately gave confidential information away to foreign powers. Clinton was arguably careless. Snowden fled investigation. Clinton has faced multiple federal investigations, and a much higher level of public and political scrutiny.

Have I missed something here? Back in the day, pre-Trump Republicanism, leaking military secrets to Russia, then fleeing the country to Russia, lower-t trumped anything Clinton did.

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

I'm not sure I understand. Snowden deliberately gave confidential information away to foreign powers. Clinton was arguably careless. Snowden fled investigation. Clinton has faced multiple federal investigations, and a much higher level of public and political scrutiny.

Have I missed something here? Back in the day, pre-Trump Republicanism, leaking military secrets to Russia, then fleeing the country to Russia, lower-t trumped anything Clinton did.

Snowden, despite certain things had the motives in the interest of the American people.. At least in part. Clinton, sure she got investigated and basically "found guilty", but had no consequences. Ask DirtyDishSoap what would have happened if he mishandled sensitive information.
The key here is the fact that both of them leaked/misused "sensitive/classified" information in the eyes of the gov./public, but the responses from the govermental agencies judicial branch were completely different. Imagine if the reaction from the government was oh... I'm gonna investigate you snowden.... Find you "guilty" of misusing information, but i'm not gonna do anything to you. Or if he was actually protected under the whistleblower policy instead of how the government handled it.

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

I'm not sure I understand. Snowden deliberately gave confidential information away to foreign powers. Clinton was arguably careless. Snowden fled investigation. Clinton has faced multiple federal investigations, and a much higher level of public and political scrutiny.

Have I missed something here? Back in the day, pre-Trump Republicanism, leaking military secrets to Russia, then fleeing the country to Russia, lower-t trumped anything Clinton did.

Snowden, despite certain things had the motives in the interest of the American people.. At least in part. Clinton, sure she got investigated and basically "found guilty", but had no consequences. Ask DirtyDishSoap what would have happened if he mishandled sensitive information.

The key here is the fact that both of them leaked/misused "sensitive/classified" information in the eyes of the gov./public, but the responses from the govermental agencies judicial branch were completely different. Imagine if the reaction from the government was oh... I'm gonna investigate you snowden.... Find you "guilty" of misusing information, but i'm not gonna do anything to you. Or if he was actually protected under the whistleblower policy instead of how the government handled it.

Your "key here" breaks down when you treat "leaked" and "misused" and all the rest as interchangeables. They really aren't equivalents.

He's in trouble because he leaked secrets to foreign powers, she's in trouble because foreign powers could have attacked her and found something.

I do think the Clinton thing is serious, but dear god, if you think she's done anything like Snowden, you're wrong on every level.

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

I'm not sure I understand. Snowden deliberately gave confidential information away to foreign powers. Clinton was arguably careless. Snowden fled investigation. Clinton has faced multiple federal investigations, and a much higher level of public and political scrutiny.

Have I missed something here? Back in the day, pre-Trump Republicanism, leaking military secrets to Russia, then fleeing the country to Russia, lower-t trumped anything Clinton did.

Snowden, despite certain things had the motives in the interest of the American people.. At least in part. Clinton, sure she got investigated and basically "found guilty", but had no consequences. Ask DirtyDishSoap what would have happened if he mishandled sensitive information.

The key here is the fact that both of them leaked/misused "sensitive/classified" information in the eyes of the gov./public, but the responses from the govermental agencies judicial branch were completely different. Imagine if the reaction from the government was oh... I'm gonna investigate you snowden.... Find you "guilty" of misusing information, but i'm not gonna do anything to you. Or if he was actually protected under the whistleblower policy instead of how the government handled it.

Your "key here" breaks down when you treat "leaked" and "misused" and all the rest as interchangeables. They really aren't equivalents.

He's in trouble because he leaked secrets to foreign powers, she's in trouble because foreign powers could have attacked her and found something.

I do think the Clinton thing is serious, but dear god, if you think she's done anything like Snowden, you're wrong on every level.

Oh I don't think she's done anything like snowden.
Snowden at least was attempting to alert the American people to the fact that their government was illegally spying on them.
Clinton was blatantly being stupid, and or using information for her own ends. Now then the President gets even more sensitive information. If she's already put information in a comprimising situation once before, why give her the chance to do it again.
And while leaked and misused are not quite interchangeable, the difference lies in the reaction from our own government. Snowden was a whistleblower, and ran because he knew what the government was going to react with. Did he give super sensitive information over to russia/china ect. According to the government yes. Me, Well im not so sure. And if he did its most likely b/c we forced him into a situation to do so if he wanted to live outside of prison/execution.
The FBI's reaction to Clinton is infuriating b/c they have effectively by doing what they have done put her above the law.

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

I'm not sure I understand. Snowden deliberately gave confidential information away to foreign powers. Clinton was arguably careless. Snowden fled investigation. Clinton has faced multiple federal investigations, and a much higher level of public and political scrutiny.

Have I missed something here? Back in the day, pre-Trump Republicanism, leaking military secrets to Russia, then fleeing the country to Russia, lower-t trumped anything Clinton did.

Snowden, despite certain things had the motives in the interest of the American people.. At least in part. Clinton, sure she got investigated and basically "found guilty", but had no consequences. Ask DirtyDishSoap what would have happened if he mishandled sensitive information.

The key here is the fact that both of them leaked/misused "sensitive/classified" information in the eyes of the gov./public, but the responses from the govermental agencies judicial branch were completely different. Imagine if the reaction from the government was oh... I'm gonna investigate you snowden.... Find you "guilty" of misusing information, but i'm not gonna do anything to you. Or if he was actually protected under the whistleblower policy instead of how the government handled it.

Your "key here" breaks down when you treat "leaked" and "misused" and all the rest as interchangeables. They really aren't equivalents.

He's in trouble because he leaked secrets to foreign powers, she's in trouble because foreign powers could have attacked her and found something.

I do think the Clinton thing is serious, but dear god, if you think she's done anything like Snowden, you're wrong on every level.

Oh I don't think she's done anything like snowden.
Snowden at least was attempting to alert the American people to the fact that their government was illegally spying on them.
Clinton was blatantly being stupid, and or using information for her own ends. Now then the President gets even more sensitive information. If she's already put information in a comprimising situation once before, why give her the chance to do it again.
And while leaked and misused are not quite interchangeable, the difference lies in the reaction from our own government. Snowden was a whistleblower, and ran because he knew what the government was going to react with. Did he give super sensitive information over to russia/china ect. According to the government yes. Me, Well im not so sure. And if he did its most likely b/c we forced him into a situation to do so if he wanted to live outside of prison/execution.
The FBI's reaction to Clinton is infuriating b/c they have effectively by doing what they have done put her above the law.

Snowden leaked a lot more than got put out. He genuinely put a lot of people in danger with what he dumped. He literally didn't discriminate between stuff that would blow a whistle, and what would kill a whistle blower, or an agent.

The FBI's reaction is pretty much what anyone would expect. Hillary wasn't leaking secrets to the Russians. That's infuriating to the Trumpists.

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:So i'm going to bring up the last person to "leak" or "mishandle" "Confidential Information."
Edward Snowden:
Info leaked:
US Government breaking own constitution by spying on its own citizens without due process.
Spying on Merkel one of our closest allies by tapping her telephone wires.
A few other things I'd have to look up. Feel Free to fill in the blanks.
Result: Forced into asylum. Called a "traitor" and told to return back to the states to face due process.

Clinton: Unsafe information practices. Caused hacked emails and potential mass information leak.
Result: Slap on wrist. Presidential Candidate.

I smell bribes and hypocrisy. Not to mention corruption.

I'm not sure I understand. Snowden deliberately gave confidential information away to foreign powers. Clinton was arguably careless. Snowden fled investigation. Clinton has faced multiple federal investigations, and a much higher level of public and political scrutiny.

Have I missed something here? Back in the day, pre-Trump Republicanism, leaking military secrets to Russia, then fleeing the country to Russia, lower-t trumped anything Clinton did.

Snowden, despite certain things had the motives in the interest of the American people.. At least in part. Clinton, sure she got investigated and basically "found guilty", but had no consequences. Ask DirtyDishSoap what would have happened if he mishandled sensitive information.

The key here is the fact that both of them leaked/misused "sensitive/classified" information in the eyes of the gov./public, but the responses from the govermental agencies judicial branch were completely different. Imagine if the reaction from the government was oh... I'm gonna investigate you snowden.... Find you "guilty" of misusing information, but i'm not gonna do anything to you. Or if he was actually protected under the whistleblower policy instead of how the government handled it.

Your "key here" breaks down when you treat "leaked" and "misused" and all the rest as interchangeables. They really aren't equivalents.

He's in trouble because he leaked secrets to foreign powers, she's in trouble because foreign powers could have attacked her and found something.

I do think the Clinton thing is serious, but dear god, if you think she's done anything like Snowden, you're wrong on every level.

Oh I don't think she's done anything like snowden.
Snowden at least was attempting to alert the American people to the fact that their government was illegally spying on them.
Clinton was blatantly being stupid, and or using information for her own ends. Now then the President gets even more sensitive information. If she's already put information in a comprimising situation once before, why give her the chance to do it again.
And while leaked and misused are not quite interchangeable, the difference lies in the reaction from our own government. Snowden was a whistleblower, and ran because he knew what the government was going to react with. Did he give super sensitive information over to russia/china ect. According to the government yes. Me, Well im not so sure. And if he did its most likely b/c we forced him into a situation to do so if he wanted to live outside of prison/execution.
The FBI's reaction to Clinton is infuriating b/c they have effectively by doing what they have done put her above the law.

Snowden leaked a lot more than got put out. He genuinely put a lot of people in danger with what he dumped. He literally didn't discriminate between stuff that would blow a whistle, and what would kill a whistle blower, or an agent.

The FBI's reaction is pretty much what anyone would expect. Hillary wasn't leaking secrets to the Russians. That's infuriating to the Trumpists.

Source or it didn't happen. Well it probably happened, but still you can't shoot at a guy and then not to expect him to run for cover. Also I'm curious about the fact that he literally left Hong Kong just before the extradition went through. Aka (you didn't give him time to go through the stuff completely.) Also I'm somewhat against government policing government. That circle jerk aint gonna put nobody in goverment thats powerful in jail. And unless you got proof on snowden at least partially: I'm just gonna write you off as swallowing the gov's super ultra hate on snowden and the long run on Clinton.
Also did you infer that i was a "Trumpist"? I'm somewhat shocked and angry about that.

If I had mishandled information, I would have been kicked out of the service. Let's say that I use an unencrypted fill for a radio frequency, and I'm giving out a 10 digit grid of a route my platoon is taking, if the message were to be intercepted, I would have been investigated, tried by UCMJ, and found guilty of gross negligence. Easily would have been kicked out, worst case scenario, stuck at Fort Leavenworth for an untold amount of time.

Hillary did get a slap on the wrist for this. She even lied about it or told a shitty half-truth or completely deflected the question and threw it on one of her ambassadors. Watching her trial was one of the most frustrating things I've put myself through. She, at the very least, should have been forced to drop her candidacy. The fact that she is flaunting around like nothing happened despite her 2000-3000 mistakes over the course of 4 years (Correct me if I'm wrong, not looking into the specifics.) Is just a slap in the face to me and to the system. May as well be screaming "The justice system doesn't work!" or "If you have enough of a political standing, you too could say "I'm just an idiot" and get away with anything!"

DirtyDishSoap wrote:If I had mishandled information, I would have been kicked out of the service. Let's say that I use an unencrypted fill for a radio frequency, and I'm giving out a 10 digit grid of a route my platoon is taking, if the message were to be intercepted, I would have been investigated, tried by UCMJ, and found guilty of gross negligence. Easily would have been kicked out, worst case scenario, stuck at Fort Leavenworth for an untold amount of time.

Hillary did get a slap on the wrist for this. She even lied about it or told a shitty half-truth or completely deflected the question and threw it on one of her ambassadors. Watching her trial was one of the most frustrating things I've put myself through. She, at the very least, should have been forced to drop her candidacy. The fact that she is flaunting around like nothing happened despite her 2000-3000 mistakes over the course of 4 years (Correct me if I'm wrong, not looking into the specifics.) Is just a slap in the face to me and to the system. May as well be screaming "The justice system doesn't work!" or "If you have enough of a political standing, you too could say "I'm just an idiot" and get away with anything!"

You do understand, that serving in the US armed forces is placing you in harm's way, if you reveal sensitive intel. Anyone who is stupid enough to leak intel while in the US arm forces, better be sure not to get caught.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:If I had mishandled information, I would have been kicked out of the service. Let's say that I use an unencrypted fill for a radio frequency, and I'm giving out a 10 digit grid of a route my platoon is taking, if the message were to be intercepted, I would have been investigated, tried by UCMJ, and found guilty of gross negligence. Easily would have been kicked out, worst case scenario, stuck at Fort Leavenworth for an untold amount of time.

Hillary did get a slap on the wrist for this. She even lied about it or told a shitty half-truth or completely deflected the question and threw it on one of her ambassadors. Watching her trial was one of the most frustrating things I've put myself through. She, at the very least, should have been forced to drop her candidacy. The fact that she is flaunting around like nothing happened despite her 2000-3000 mistakes over the course of 4 years (Correct me if I'm wrong, not looking into the specifics.) Is just a slap in the face to me and to the system. May as well be screaming "The justice system doesn't work!" or "If you have enough of a political standing, you too could say "I'm just an idiot" and get away with anything!"

And the above, my friends, is why someone in the American government leaked Hillary's emails to wikileaks. That person(s) felt the exact same way as DDS expresses and did something about it.

Ole Bern and Hillary will still harp about "The Russians did it! The Russians did it!" trying to distract from the content of the emails. I hope more damning stuff comes out and I don't give a shit if it's a Snowden like person or even the Russians who do it.

bernie wrote:You do understand, that serving in the US armed forces is placing you in harm's way, if you reveal sensitive intel. Anyone who is stupid enough to leak intel while in the US arm forces, better be sure not to get caught.

And you STFU about trying to explain to DDS what serving in the armed forces means you fucking moron. You haven't served shit except some french fries and hamburgers out of the McDonalds drive thru window you waste of human excrement.
He knows more about what it means to serve than you ever will.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:If I had mishandled information, I would have been kicked out of the service. Let's say that I use an unencrypted fill for a radio frequency, and I'm giving out a 10 digit grid of a route my platoon is taking, if the message were to be intercepted, I would have been investigated, tried by UCMJ, and found guilty of gross negligence. Easily would have been kicked out, worst case scenario, stuck at Fort Leavenworth for an untold amount of time.

Hillary did get a slap on the wrist for this. She even lied about it or told a shitty half-truth or completely deflected the question and threw it on one of her ambassadors. Watching her trial was one of the most frustrating things I've put myself through. She, at the very least, should have been forced to drop her candidacy. The fact that she is flaunting around like nothing happened despite her 2000-3000 mistakes over the course of 4 years (Correct me if I'm wrong, not looking into the specifics.) Is just a slap in the face to me and to the system. May as well be screaming "The justice system doesn't work!" or "If you have enough of a political standing, you too could say "I'm just an idiot" and get away with anything!"

You do understand, that serving in the US armed forces is placing you in harm's way, if you reveal sensitive intel. Anyone who is stupid enough to leak intel while in the US arm forces, better be sure not to get caught.

But that isn't the question here. It's making an unknowingly bad mistake that could cost you your career. She didn't leak anything intentionally, and the scenario I laid out for you would fit the bill as well. She was caught, but slapped on the wrist for it. Can't really twist it in any shape or form.

Edit - I think I see where you're getting confused. We use (Not sure if we still do, probably not.) Encrypted (The channel and signal will continuously bounce around every set amount of minutes, up to the radio man.) Radio channels if we're relaying sensitive information to one another. So again, I'm not freely "giving" this information to whomever is listening if the channel is open and not encrypted. It's incredibly likely that channel would be intercepted if it wasn't encrypted, which is what I'm trying paint the picture for you earlier. Again...It's not "freely" giving information, just an incredibly idiotic mistake that almost no one makes.