Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Fryfan

Impeachment thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

@Captroop the only issue I see with all of this is the Sargent-At-Arms can jail(kick them out of the house indefinitely) their sorry asses.

It looks like the democrats may be trying to play your last couple sentences.

EVERYONE should! That's my point! This is no longer about politics. This is an outrage in every sense of the word.

My concern is the talking point out of this is people are going to say, "the Democrats are slamming these Republicans over this."

NO! Fugging EVERYONE should be calling for their heads!

Republicans! You wanted to ban all Muslims from the U.S. because of National Security! You want a Border Wall because of National Security! Bringing a phone into a SCIF is an enormous lapse of National Security.

Ask anyone who works in DOD, DHS, or DOE how serious a breach of security this is. Ask them if someone would keep their job if they tweeted from inside a SCIF. Ask them if they would be trusted with sensitive information ever again. And we're supposed to accept it because it was a political stunt?

Censure and remove. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


UPDATE: We are in the SCIF and every GOP Member is quietly listening.

Meanwhile, Adam Schiff, clearly peeved that he will no longer be able to hide his impeachment sham, is threatening Ethics punishment for all of us.

His fake intimidation can’t hide his lies–Open the process!”

- Signed I just broke the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

So one party is physically obstructing justice now. Tell me more about both sides, chuds

The party that's been shouting non-stop about due process is *checks notes* intentionally disrupting and delaying due process.

 

In other "digging your own grave" news:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things for clarification to those that don't know:

SCIF = Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ie a physically secure environment where SCI can be handled discussed

SCI = the highest form of classified material - yes further controls under SAP (Special Access Programs) can further restrict information but they can be used at the lower SECRET levels so aren't inherently more restrictive than SCI

Bringing a non secure UNCLAS device like a cellphone is breaking security protocols and is, at least a security infraction and knowingly transmitting using it is more likely a security violation. If no classified information is disclosed the punishment is usually less severe and it is unlikely that anyone's clearance would be taken however, that's not set in stone and takes in many other factors (both mitigate and disqualifying).

It's not against any LAW but again is at least a security infraction and more likely a security violation. No one is going to be removed from their office in the House over this and some may be slapped on the wrist by the Ethics committee but I seriously doubt anything comes from this obvious political stunt.

I would love for obstruction charges or some such to be brought against them but I doubt the Dems have the willpower to do it and it would likely be exactly what the Repubs want. This is political theater and likely nothing more.

Not trying to damper anyone's outrage, just giving my perspective.

Edited by Moorgan
Special not Secure in SAP
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Moorgan said:

A couple of things for clarification to those that don't know:

SCIF = Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ie a physically secure environment where SCI can be handled discussed

SCI = the highest form of classified material - yes further controls under SAP (Special Access Programs) can further restrict information but they can be used at the lower SECRET levels so aren't inherently more restrictive than SCI

Bringing a non secure UNCLAS device like a cellphone is breaking security protocols and is, at least a security infraction and knowingly transmitting using it is more likely a security violation. If no classified information is disclosed the punishment is usually less severe and it is unlikely that anyone's clearance would be taken however, that's not set in stone and takes in many other factors (both mitigate and disqualifying).

It's not against any LAW but again is at least a security infraction and more likely a security violation. No one is going to be removed from their office in the House over this and some may be slapped on the wrist by the Ethics committee but I seriously doubt anything comes from this obvious political stunt.

I would love for obstruction charges or some such to be brought against them but I doubt the Dems have the willpower to do it and it would likely be exactly what the Repubs want. This is political theater and likely nothing more.

Not trying to damper anyone's outrage, just giving my perspective.

This is incorrect. Non-compliance with security directives is a Federal criminal offense. And their actions could actually constitute espionage:

"...including harboring or concealing persons; gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information; gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign governments; photographing and sketching defense installations; unauthorized disclosure of classified information (18 U.S.C. 792 through 18 U.S.C. 795, 18 U.S.C. 797 and 18 U.S.C. 798), the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783), the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 through 50 U.S.C. 426) and, when appropriate, the Atomic Energy Act (Sections 224 through 227); ?

 

From "SECURITY POLICY FOR SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI) WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF STATE FACILITIES"

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/12FAM/12FAM0710.html

Edited by Captroop
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans crying about closed door testimony again. But let's go back a couple years to the infamous Benghazi hearings...

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy, the man who led an 11-hour public congressional hearing on the Benghazi consulate attack, said Monday that he believes such hearings are “utterly useless”—now that they’re used to investigate President Trump’s inner circle.

Gowdy, now a Fox News contributor, joined Fox & Friends to weigh in on last week’s House Oversight Committee hearing involving former Trump “fixer” and personal attorney Michael Cohen.

“What we learned this past week is how utterly useless public congressional hearings are,” the South Carolina Republican said. “I think two closed-door sessions this past week on the Senate and House side with the intelligence committees were very helpful. That is why they’re bringing Cohen back.”

In October 2015, Gowdy was the point man who grilled Hillary Clinton during 11 hours of questioning before the House Select Committee on Benghazi over the terrorist attack that killed four Americans in 2012, when the then-presidential candidate was secretary of state. Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, chaired that committee and the House Oversight Committee at the time.

“The closed-door hearings are constructive,” Gowdy continued. “You get an hour to ask questions as opposed to five minutes.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Moorgan said:

If no classified information is disclosed the punishment is usually less severe and it is unlikely that anyone's clearance would be taken however, that's not set in stone and takes in many other factors (both mitigate and disqualifying).

Most of them don’t have clearance to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captroop said:

This is incorrect. Non-compliance with security directives is a Federal criminal offense. And their actions could actually constitute espionage:

"...including harboring or concealing persons; gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information; gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign governments; photographing and sketching defense installations; unauthorized disclosure of classified information (18 U.S.C. 792 through 18 U.S.C. 795, 18 U.S.C. 797 and 18 U.S.C. 798), the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783), the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 through 50 U.S.C. 426) and, when appropriate, the Atomic Energy Act (Sections 224 through 227); ?

 

From "SECURITY POLICY FOR SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI) WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF STATE FACILITIES"

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/12FAM/12FAM0710.html

Yeah bringing it into the SCIF isn't against the law. Using it with the subsequent disclosure of classified is...which is what I said. It's about the information that leaves the SCIF for the law to be involved. Bringing the device in...not against the law. Tweeting UNCLAS info while in SCIF...not likely against the law. Using the device in reference to any classified info...yeah big time against the law.

So yeah tweeting UNCLAS stuff in a SCIF is a big no no but no one is going to jail over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Most of them don’t have clearance to begin with.

True. I'm speaking in general. Elected officials don't need clearances. Their staffers do but not them themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moorgan said:

True. I'm speaking in general. Elected officials don't need clearances. Their staffers do but not them themselves.

In essence but not dealing with Intelligences matters. 85% of the house or senate for that matter are not authorized to see and deal with intelligence matters until voted on by the intelligence committee to move for full view. Gaetz is just pissed he’s the first congress person to be removed in a long time, and very well took down a ton of his colleagues as pointed out. What they did is clearly a violation of the law, as their daddy tries to do. 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s frankly what Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler and Cummings did right. Keep it in an inclosed format that infuriates the republicans because they can’t play their usual games. 

Then it goes the Nadler and committee. Then it goes public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...