More Clinton emails released, including some she deleted
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — An additional 165 pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department surfaced Monday, including nearly three dozen that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee failed to hand over last year that were sent through her private server.
The latest emails were released under court order by the State Department to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch. The batch includes 34 new emails Clinton exchanged through her private account with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin. The aide, who also had a private email account on Clinton's home server, later gave her copies to the government.
The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. They include a March 2009 message where the then-secretary of state discusses how her official records would be kept.
"I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State," Clinton wrote to Abedin and a second aide. "Who manages both my personal and official files? ... I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want."
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/775550d62ef8487a975a2a1c1c8b1100/more-clinton-emails-released-including-some-she-deleted
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ericson00
(2,707 posts)i don't care what she did with any email, EVER!!
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It's another to make a blanket statement like that about the conduct of the candidate.
I do care about what a mess that was. I'm both a lawyer and an IT professional, and I really can't get over how bizarre it is that a United States Secretary of State funneled all of her official email through an email server maintained on her own personal property. With very crappy encryption.
It's basically the same as an ambassador 20 years ago bringing a hard copy of every single fax and cable sent to the embassy during that ambassador's tenure. And making sure everyone knew. And then, later, when the Embassy demanded it all back, the ambassador burned about a third of it because the ambassador decided it was personal and not official.
If people like you declare, loudly, an active disinterest in anything having to do with such a subject, how do you suppose Trump fanatics will regard his very, very substantial problems of just about every kind? Reasonable scrutiny or treatment of all criticism as unwarranted and cheap attacks?
Why elect people to high public office without demanding they address substantive concerns about prior conduct, especially conduct from a prior period of holding high office? We might as well just hold lotteries and select officeholders at random...
spooky3
(34,438 posts)"Disinterested", which has a particular legal meaning, when s/he likely means "uninterested."
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/disinterested-not-the-same-as-uninterested/
Sorry to play Grammar Police, but it's a pet peeve.
As to the substance, I'm in the camp that believes that there may have been good reasons for her decisions and until I see evidence of real issues resulting from these decisions, I think at worst it wasn't the best decision she could have made. I get it that you don't see it that way but I hope you can understand how others viewing the same situation as you can judge it differently.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I can't recall a time when the legal meaning of a 'disinterested party' ever came into play in my practice, so it faded a bit out of my vocabulary since law school 
.
Still, sorry for the error - I used the word to put particular emphasis on the seemingly active nature of the poster's quite strongly expressed lack of interest in the subject. 'Uninterested' just didn't seem to fit.
I do understand what you're saying, also, but... well, I wouldn't have written a post on the subject at all if not for the first reply, which seemed to me a lot more like arrogance than a statement indicating 'lack of interest.' If you're really not at all interested in something, you tend not to bother to make unsolicited comments to the effect on Internet discussion forums.
spooky3
(34,438 posts)Response to RiverNoord (Reply #6)
Post removed
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I work for a small engineering business, about 20-25 engineers. We're good at what we do. IT is not what we do. There are 2 of us who have some modest knowledge of networking and IT. Some of the older engineers have near zero knowledge of servers, VPN, and all that crap. But it doesn't matter. They're good at what they do, which is engineering.
Do I care that Hillary Clinton had her people set up an email system that she could use? Not one bit. Her job was diplomacy and foreign policy.
Darb
(2,807 posts)And dismissed.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)And dismissed.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)kekek
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your originality is both clever and unique.
Darb
(2,807 posts)And dismissed. The post is still just concern trolling. Cannot change that.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Would you speak like that with someone in person, where you might be likely to be called to the mat for it? You didn't 'note' my 'concern,' you just wanted to rudely put it down.
Do you give two shits about how statements like yours are just plain destructive? Or is that the idea?
Darb
(2,807 posts)Concern noted. And dismissed.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)that I dont mean that a few more out of the thousands were found to have been missed but rather relevant as in proving she actually did something criminal which so far not a single email has done.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)incredibly bad judgement.
How many things did the Cheney administration do that might not have been technically illegal but were nonetheless perversions of the basic concepts of holding office of the public trust? Where can you even start?
People aspiring to high office should conduct themselves with a far greater regard for the value of what is entrusted to them by the people of their country when they are elected to office. Let that slip long enough and we get people like Donald Trump actually running for the Presidency under the banner of a major political party.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)The poster your are replying to isn't running for the office of the president of the united states. If he/she were, your question would have important implications, just as his/her question about HRC does
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It's a post on DU - the exact same thing as your response to me...
And I've never run for state or federal office. Nor have I held state or federal office. I've especially not held a federal office, the nature of which puts me in the position of managing a vast amount of highly sensitive data. I'm certainly not a career politician whose spouse was in fact a President of the United States, with all of the security protocols that, as a spouse of a President, would be required to adhere to. And, to top it all off, I'm not seeking the office of the President of the United States in an election being held a mere three years after I made this 'bad judgement' concerning the regard I have for highly sensitive government information.
Hell, if she would come out and say 'it was bad judgement on my part' or some such thing, I could probably get past it. She's said this instead:
“As I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility."
So it was 'a mistake', 'even though it was allowed' (it wasn't actually 'allowed' at all), and she only recognizes it was a 'mistake' in hindsight. That's bullshit - she knew what she was doing, and if she can't own up to it then what sense does it make putting her in the office of the Presidency?
Again, this is entirely in her court - I know how to properly apologize for mistakes I've made that may have caused others harm, and when it should be done I just do it. Nothing really special there, just common decency.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)
Darb
(2,807 posts)And dismissed again.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
Skittles
(153,147 posts)LOL, you are too funny
Response to Skittles (Reply #63)
cstanleytech This message was self-deleted by its author.
Midnight Writer
(21,745 posts)But who was damaged by Hillary Clinton's self admitted bad judgement? Who was hurt? And yes, I will go there: At this point, what difference does it make?
She violated a change in Department rules that was communicated in a memo.
The State Department was aware of what she was doing, as evidenced by the fact that they were communicating with her through her private server, and the fact that State Department IT guys were working on her server.
I ask again. Who was damaged by this specific action. Can you name a single individual?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It doesn't matter the substance of the email. If it was state business and the emails were intentionally destroyed during any goventment agency's investigation, that would be evidence of a felony.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)do you only care because she was not your preferred choice to be Democratic nominee for the upcoming election?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)That's the only reason I've ever cared. The FBI is still conducting its criminal investigation of her email and server use. She's out nominee and we are not out of the woods yet.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)by law to conduct investigations but this investigation will only become a criminal issue for her if they should suddenly find something inside her emails that proves she broke a crime but so far to the discouragement of those who hate her (mostly Republicans) they havent found shit.
Could they? Sure but then again I could also hit the powerball this week and go to Disneyland, unlikely of course but not impossible.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Whether there is more remains to be seen. Whether the FBI recommends charges against Hillary it any of her staff is not yet known.
There is evidence of wrong doing and potential criminal violations alteady known to the public. Your powerball apology is silly. I hope there is no more, but this OP added more, new, evidence of wrong doing.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)My hope is that there are no charges recommended.
I don't know why you are wishing me luck except to try to make it personal and about me.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)This is not a trifling matter. And it's not a goddamn conspiracy issue. Hillary Clinton, during her term as Secretary of State of the United States, used a computer that was her own personal property to handle all of her official email. It's a fact. If there was a 'conspiracy,' it was on the part of Clinton, her 'IT consultant,' and all others among her staff who knew about it (many also used it for their official communications).
She once said it was 'allowed.' State came back and said - um.. nope, we definitely didn't allow it. She didn't ask us, and skipped out on email security briefings. (Think that was an accident?). She said that, in hindsight, it was a 'mistake.' She's lying, period. It's not a simple matter to set up and maintain a personal email server operating under your own registered domain, at least not one handling the kind of volume that hers did. If you buy the idea that she didn't know it was highly irregular at the time then you think she's unbelievably stupid and naive. She had reasons, and people have been deposed by the FBI to find out why. Even the IT guy who maintained it won't talk, even though he has accepted an immunity from prosecution deal. There were reasons why she did what she did, she knows what they were, and she feeds the public a line of complete BS about it.
That's why it's a problem. It's not 'conspiracy,' it's what actually happened, and how it's being handled by her loyalists after the fact.
Wishing someone 'good luck' on such a subject is not only arrogant, it's naive. If you are going to write anything about it like you have, how about you just explain your reasoning as to why, knowing the facts, you believe it to be of no consequence or importance. 'Nothing to see here' always means there's something to see there, and someone doesn't want it seen. And your posts come across as 'nothing to see here, but have fun poking around and making a mess of things for Clinton, asshole.'
Finally, what happens when a President Clinton discovers that a staffer she is close with, who has access to classified information, violated email security protocol? It's a serious question, with probable answers, at this time, that aren't OK.
randome
(34,845 posts)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It appears that a lot of people need for it to be a non-issue to the extent that they have to attack anyone who doesn't look at it like that. It threatens their highly coveted perspectives of Hillary Clinton, just as Bernie Sanders' campaign did.
She's the Democratic candidate. I don't give a shit about what Republican candidates like Donald Trump have done, with respect to whether they are worthy candidates for an office, because I automatically assume they aren't. It's the candidates that I might vote for that I consider worthy of scrutiny. And if something not so pleasant emerges about the candidate, I lose respect for the candidate if he/she absolutely will not address the subject with a fair degree of candor.
Elliot Spitzer? He was a popular Democrat who paid for the... company of young female prostitutes while he was actually the Attorney General of New York State. I don't care at that point what good things he might have done while in office - he's obviously someone who will violate the trust of the public while in public office, because that's exactly what he did.
And that made me more angry than a Utah anti-gay Republican who trolls for casual gay sex in public restrooms. Because I expect hypocrisy from them. I don't vote for them. They aren't members of my political party.
tblue37
(65,319 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I care about this purely as a question of the ethics/morals, or lack of the same, of a candidate for the office of the Presidency.
Absolutely and only.
But it, and a wide range of other substantive matters raising similar questions, certainly did play a role, in my case, in my desire to see a different person become the Democratic nominee for the Presidency. Not the other way around.
The fact that I'm far from the only Democrat with such concerns worries me. A lot. If a long-term politician who's had almost 70 years for her values and ethics to develop as fully as they are likely to in one person's lifetime can't just own up to a problem like this, and instead uses dismissive language to make it seem like so much nothing, well... It's not something that goes unnoticed by everyone. Especially the campaign of someone like Donald Trump, who doesn't even pretend he's ethical or decent.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)No harm, no foul. No damage has been done by her using a private server. No crime has been committed. What she did was not unethical. It was practical, it caused no damage.
This is really nothing but a hunt for a way to smear her without any substance.
This is as big a time waste as the Benghazi committee.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)And, while the roommate is out of town for a few days, you leave all doors to your residence wide open.
When the roommate gets back, all of the doors are open. You get asked why and your answer is 'was anything stolen? If not, it's all cool right?'
Is it?
I have no doubt that foreign intelligence services and some amateur hackers had intercepted a lot of her email traffic. Especially countries like China and Israel, with sophisticated cyber-intelligence services. The reaction of the Chinese cyber-intelligence officer who discovered it had to be something like 'No way! Do you all see what I see? OK, I'm not crazy, then. So... we'll just scoop up everything and see what we can do with it.'
I don't know who or what was damaged as a result, because, thankfully, the most sensitive stuff hasn't been released, at least by U.S. official sources. The Chinese claim to have tons of it and I believe them.
So she left the door open for years. If, in fact, nothing was stolen, is it still all right?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I have no doubt that foreign intelligence services and some amateur hackers had intercepted a lot of her email traffic. Especially countries like China and Israel, with sophisticated cyber-intelligence services.
What evidence do you have of this?
None, of course, because there is none.
You are condemning her based on your personal speculation. You choose to believe China? That is on you, too.
You have nothing, of course. Pardon if we don't all join in on your claim without evidence.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)1: I don't know that there are truly any crimes involved.
2: Anyone who understands the bare fundamentals of cybersecurity would recognize the reality that if a U.S. Secretary of State, for four years, was using a private Microsoft Exchange server without digital signatures, or keeping on top of the most current encryption implementations, or using advanced encryption techniques while communicating with ambassadors and high-level staffers, that Secretary of State's emails are just like blood in the water in the midst of shark-infested waters.
Our own NSA likely has most of her emails stored somewhere. The Chinese definitely do - they are (perhaps) second to us in terms of their cyberintelligence capabilities, and there's no way they wouldn't simply snatch up as much as they could gather - it was a computer in a private residence, and they may have gone so far as to implement a straight-up packet sniffer on her line to the ISP. Without adequate security protocols in place to protect TCP/IP communications, especially in a residential setting, they're easily snooped on.
The reality of this is just like the reality of the 'theory of evolution.' Christian fundamentalists like to push the notion that, because it's a 'theory,' it's really meaningless. In reality, it's a theory because not all aspects of human evolution have been established as scientific fact to the extent that the scientific community can say 'this is exactly how it happened from the moment that the earliest member of genus homo can be said to have existed.' The general thrust of the theory is considered scientific fact for just about all purposes.
When blood is in the water and hungry sharks are nearby, sooner or later someone swimming in the area will be bitten.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Speculate away.
Have fun with that. The rest of us will go on with our lives, and worry about real problems.
So your bar for whether the conduct of a public official is acceptable or not is if it constitutes criminal behavior?
Whether crimes were committed or not is irrelevant to me on this subject - the whole situation is just bizarre and certainly represented either, or all of the above, extreme recklessness, arrogance, or a deeply inappropriate sense of personal ownership of information she held in the public trust.
There's no need to speculate - it happened.
And as for real problems - I'm an IT director, and this kind of thing constitutes the sort of 'real problem' that really stands out to me. From an IT security perspective, well, it's really, really hard to even imagine an official or company officer with access to vast amounts of sensitive information doing what was done there. It just doesn't make any sense without highly questionable motives.
And this is not fun. Not in the slightest. It's ugly. But I believe that democratic forms of government fail when citizens sacrifice what would be their normal ethical perspectives regarding personal conduct in order to stomach voting for people who have engaged in conduct that violates their ethical standards.
Go far enough down that road, and we get the government we deserve...
kwassa
(23,340 posts)A close friend was on the Clinton Whitehouse staff, and would endlessly complain about the very poor quality of the Whitehouse email system, after working in the corporate world. She would really have to kiss up to IT to get any help at all. Others here on DU that have worked for the State Department have their own huge complaints about the government email, more concerned with security and firewalls than actually working, about the difficulty of signing in and working remotely. My sister worked remotely for the Department of Agriculture, and had a special laptop that had a security card that needed to be inserted in the laptop in order to work. The card would go bad, and she would be unable to work for a week at a time, and have to drive sixty miles to the nearest Ag office to get a new card. That is government IT at work, or at not working. This happened in 2016, not the Clinton administration.
Most people work online with what they know and what is comfortable to them. The vast world of email users are not techies, they learn a particular application, and are loath to change that and move to a new one. They are also into efficiency and simplicity, qualities not emphasized in government bureaucracies.
Hillary also clearly stated a long time ago that she would use secure telephones, or face-to-face meetings for situations where classified information was being transmitted. I also read almost twenty years ago, or perhaps longer, that she didn't believe in putting things in writing because it would come back to haunt people in public hearings and lawsuits. I think she relied very little on email, unlike the rest of us.
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #10)
Post removed
psychopomp
(4,668 posts)The email problem HRC has goes to the heart of HRC's perspectives on secrecy, transparency, authority and personal responsibility. HRC's response to the problems she has gives voters a good look at how HRC would deal with real problems that could be encountered in a potential presidency. The tone-deaf response from the campaign and resistance to any open discussion with what is left of the press is very disturbing.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Well expressed.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,012 posts)adigal
(7,581 posts)Because of her high unfavorables, being seen as "more of the same," and untrustworthiness, she is tied or very close in polls with Trump in Ohio, PA, VA and Florida. I don't get why the campaign seems to be blowing this off.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)one wants to glance over the Benghazi reports that completely vindicated her. It took several years and wasted millions to satisfy a republican witch hunt that tried to find something - anything. They spend more on that than trying to find out what happened on 911.
And the result was that Hillary is completely innocent, but was assumed to be guilty.
In fact, if Hillary was as unscrupulous as people say, how are so many people not afraid of continuing to attack her? it's like the WMDs under Hussein. If he had them, why was cheney and his goons predicting a cakewalk of an invasion?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Of course you care. You just want the rest us not to. Sorry to disappoint you.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I care
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)even consider discussing these -{distasteful} facts"
To be oppressive.
Since when does progressiin ever result
from oppression?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)This is the same candidate who has held public office for many years, lots of time to develop a public record of official conduct, and who is, in fact, running on that record. While having a PAC called 'Correct the Record,' which targets unfavorable social media commentary regarding the candidate.
Am I the only one who finds that Orwellian and disturbing?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Do you think that it is ethically consistent to hold different officials to different standards based on their party affiliation or your personal feelings about them?
That's two radically different questions.
Of course it's ethically consistent to hold different officials to different standards as it concerns whether I will vote for them or not.
That's sort of the whole point. I don't personally, concerning whether I might or might not provide support to a candidate, hold something like Donald Trump to the same standards of conduct of a Democratic candidate for the Presidency.
Why? I know I'm not going to vote for the bastard, and I know he's an arrogant, erratic, egomaniacal con man, so what's the point of even trying to consider him in the context of standards of conduct? It's the candidate in the position of possibly getting my vote that merits scrutiny. That's just human nature.
The second part of your question is sort of... a non-question? Is it 'ethically consistent' to hold different officials to different standards based on one's personal feelings about them? If your 'personal feelings' about a candidate are based, in fact, on concerns about the candidate's behavior on an ethical level, then the question itself is just a paradox.
Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)Sweep the davenport steps on her next visit.
Love you.
HILLARY.
Its the smoking gun I tell you.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)
Mike Nelson
(9,951 posts)...her email sounds perfectly reasonable. Hillary was rightfully concerned and I hope it continues into her tenure as President.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)and address it point blank, without evasions, I might just find it possible to vote for her.
Using a personal, privately owned computer kept on her personal property as her exclusive email server while Secretary of State was bizarre and reckless. I'm both a lawyer and IT professional who, in addition to many other duties, maintains my company's email server. It's no small affair if there are even marginal risks of exposure of email dialogue with lawyers or modest, but still valuable, trade secrets. Even with high-quality encryption and the use of digital signatures on sensitive email communications, there are risks.
But for the chief diplomat of the United States to do that required something more than a casual disregard for security - there was some personal benefit she perceived in having thousands of communications, with no greater protection for super-sensitive stuff compared to 'Merkel's suit was really sharp last night,' funneled through her own personal 'clintonemail.com' email server.
No IT people I know, including all of those who are liberal/progressive like me, can make sense of it, other than either 'branding' the State Department as a sort of personal fiefdom or the potential for bartering power later on. Both are ugly as hell.
psychopomp
(4,668 posts)It may be that words like "server" and "encryption" just put some people to sleep. However, it is inconceivable that the nation's top diplomat and architect of foreign policy would choose to have all communications routed through a home-brew computer in the basement. The HC4Prez campaign's response (or lack thereof) has been just as alarming.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)and the 'don't talk about it except by being carefully dismissive' position came out as the least damaging one. And it's turned out to be the case.
Most people have been exposed to stories of major data breaches, and more than a few have personally been affected by one, but by being dismissive the campaign has somehow convinced people that the whole thing is just another right-wing smear campaign.
In this case, it was a right-wing smear organization that jumped on the subject, but I never would have guessed that what came out as actual fact as a result would be so nuts.
glowing
(12,233 posts)to access these e-mails as well.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)well, you might as well just send all your emails directly to the intelligence agencies of all nations that might be interested in their content and cut out all of the cyber-intelligence middlemen...
Kingofalldems
(38,450 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Most Democrats do not.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)and a huge percentage of republicans care. We need more than just dem votes to win the election.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Two - if most Democrats really don't care about subjects like this, then we're really not a very healthy political party.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)I imagine you have your fingers in your ears repeating that line that right now. It is a good way to escape an argument that you have lost, I did it all the time as an 8 year old
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)
sheshe2
(83,739 posts)Have you tried it?
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)It looks good! If you have one, please do share!
sheshe2
(83,739 posts)
Lol~ Enjoy!
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,450 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,450 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)for Bernie in the form of an announcement from the FBI issuing an indictment against Hillary for something but I think they are going to be in for a world of disappointment.
Why? Because I dont believe the FBI would play games like this an not make an announcement about if Hillary was the focus of a criminal case considering how close we are to the election and it would be a political hot potato for them to do that and one that could cause them a severe burn.
Now if I was going to bet I would bet more that someone was either sold access to the server and or provided copies of her emails from the server and given the IT guy was granted immunity I kinda lean towards him being involved in it in some way.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Turning a blind eye is a dangerous game to play. I don't want someone doing that with my future. I'm saying if because I am no judge.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Mika
(17,751 posts)In new poll, support for Trump has plunged, giving Clinton a double-digit lead
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-new-poll-support-for-trump-plunges-giving-clinton-a-double-digit-lead/2016/06/25/0565bef6-3a31-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)ur the meme u posted disproves ur own proposition "There's a lot of Democratic voters who care."
it shows that only RWNJ's are the only ones that give a shit about her emails....geeez
Mika
(17,751 posts)But, the poll isn't approve or disapprove her private emails on private servers.
The poll is - do you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton is handling questions about her use of personal email while SoS.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)
TwilightZone
(25,462 posts)Try 31%, based on multiple polls, not just Gallup.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification
And about half of them lean right.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)as INDEPENDENT. Try instead to think of a group of people, "non-Republican-non-Democrat" Would that help?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Does that help?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/08/republican-colin-powell-deals-death-blow-hillary-clinton-email-scandal.html
If you missed it -
republican-colin-powell-deals-death-blow-hillary-clinton-email-scandal
snip -
If Hillary Clinton broke the law, as some Republicans are claiming, then Colin Powell also broke the law.
The more that is revealed about the use of private email, the more it looks like Republicans are trying to make something out of nothing. It has been a bad day for the Republican Clinton email scandal, and it is only going to get worse for the Republican Party as they continue to go down what looks like a dead end.
AAAAHHHHHH
Wisc Progressive
(51 posts)If one is looking for cheerleading, the politicusUSA is a fun read. This is not accepted as a serious source of information at DU?!?!?!
WTF?!?!?!?!
I don't criticize anyone that wants a pro-Hillary and Democratic Party spin for stoppin' by there and reading whatever... but there is nothing that even begins to approach journalism there. Cite if when you need a "pick-me-up" after a Dem has a bad day, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that this report is factual.
My comment is not meant to challenge Clinton -- there are reasons to say similarities with Powell exist, but there are also legit reasons to say there are differences in the situations.
But we don't accept BreitBart as the arbitrator of truth here, so why is a site that has been pro-Clinton and just as biased as anyone on the right held out as "proof".
Don't believe me? Then read PoliticusUSA daily for a while -- it is just another flavor of advocacy bloggin (NOTE: I didn't use the word "journalism" because when we allow it to degrade to cheerleading, we have no credibility when we call our the wingnuts).
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)considering all the lies being spewed by an opposing political party - Stephanopolis has an interview with Colin Powell - I see it as important in the debate re email crapola...to shed light even if it was 3/15...I choose who, what, where when and how..you, sir or madam choose what where when and how..I agree to disagree with you on my expressing my opinion...
floriduck
(2,262 posts)
videohead5
(2,171 posts)Those so called 22 top secret e-mails were sent to Hillary from state.gov.a system not authorized for classified information.her server was secured just not for classified information.it is also a fact the state.gov has been hacked.most of the e-mails sent to Hillary was from a state.gov address.the FBI only looks at non-secured systems.it does not matter if it was her server or a private account.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)home server for any reason. Clinton's statements on why she did have changed over time. Apples and oranges between the two SOS.
lapucelle
(18,248 posts)The Secret Service did in 2002 for use by a former president and his family.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)if you think all of it is secured.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Rules. So it's not necessary for me to know how much government servers are protected. There were rules and even the Inspector General acknowledged that. I'll assume he and his team know more about it that any of you responders.
Stop making excuses for our candidate. The facts are what they are.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)was anymore secure than the governments NIPERnet. If we want to send sensitive information it's done through secure servers, not the regular system. Plus many of us forward our gov emails to public servers if we are on leave so we can stay in the loop.
Stop trying to make noise over a non issue.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)lapucelle
(18,248 posts)It was installed in the Clinton residence in 2002 (for use by a former POTUS and his family) under the direction and supervision of the Secret Service, the agency charged with executive branch cyber security.
Fox news didn't mention that? I wonder why?
Response to k8conant (Original post)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
DoBotherMe
(2,339 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But I am not in a position to give an opinion.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)in the 1990s, I can confirm this.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)they lied to frame Hillary to destroy her chances to become President. The republicans didn't care about our safety or protecting lives.
But the emails are nice and shiny and once again there will be as much there as in Benghazi.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)That's why Republicans are falling over themselves to jump on this issue.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Response to floriduck (Reply #50)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)"A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Her strange use of a computer she owned privately to process all her official email? That's different. Doing that was bizarre, and that she must have assumed it would not be noted is even more bizarre. I'm a Democrat, and part of the reason is that I have a degree of common sense and strive to conduct myself decently. And I never, ever could have imagined doing something like that.
Of course, I work with computers for a living (including my company's email server). Maybe it's only in that context that a person recognizes just how truly bizarre it was.
johnp3907
(3,730 posts)
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)teabaggers and the conjobs?
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)fifty2tees
(2 posts)But more importantly I care about DEFEATING TRUMP. Some people are uncomfortable with Hillary on some issues, but it the alternative is plain scary ... and inaction gives more power to Trump. I created this video and this Kickstarter campaign to help spread the word to VOTE.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/stupidity/the-power-of-stupidity
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)version of Whitewater - a "scandal" that exists only in the minds of its creators. "Judicial Watch" is a conservative RW group.
That's all you need to know.
On to defeating Trump!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)sangfroid
(212 posts)You betcha I want to know if there is a problem with my Party's presumptive delegate. Remember Thomas Eagleton? He didn't share his mental health issues with George McGovern until after he was nominated VP. Then the Party had to go through an embarrassing and damaging replacement exercise. It was one of the factors that hindered McGovern. Do we really want to go through that again because a few people "don't care, don't care, don't care."
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)If she didn't want to have people rummaging thru her private emails, why would she use her private email for both public and private business??
I don't think she did anything illegal unless they wind up finding some damning email she deleted, which I don't think there is one.
However they do sort of show how sort of helpless she was on using the net, sending faxes etc, which is sort of amazing to me, how somebody can be so smart yet not know how to do common stuff. As long as you trust your aids it's ok not to know I guess.
I'd like to know about Trump. Has he ever surfed the net? Sent an email? If he has to rely heavily on staff then I don't think he can use it to attack her.
jimw81
(111 posts)allowing on use of non official emails accounts as long as they keep records. As IT professional, im more outrage that IG report showed as that their isn't any attempt to upgrade our govt servers from being hack. Ask your self this question, does Kerry really use his state.gov account or at the pentagon?
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)A small engineering firm "who wasn’t worried"
It might have been edited from the original reply..
I am an engineer and the company I work for has strict computer security and data handling policies and protection of the companies.intellectual property is paramount. Our laptops have encrypted hard-drives and we have very secure network and a.document security classification system that require mandatory annual training. Some confidential hard documents have to locked in special secure cabinets when not on use.
If we violate security protocol we get walked to the door.
This is not a trivial matter. She was the Secretary of State handling state secrets. Not only are there skilled free lance hackers out there but government (foreign) sponsored hackers out there that are extremely skilled. Looking for opportunities.
I could imagine that some of the documents being handled might have involve matters of life and death and or information that in the wrong hands could harm the country such as comprising military operations etc..
Response to k8conant (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)some were retained only on Hillary's account and some only on Abedins.
But both of them turned over everything they had, which is how the discrepancy came to light.
MFM008
(19,804 posts)Why even mention it?
why bring it up?
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)this RW TP and totally-fabricated "scandal" on DU needs to have their head examined, IMO.
Note to Mods: Isn't this against the new rules? Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
While the AP is considered "mainstream," this story continues to encourage those who believe in the "indictment fairy" and "Judicial Watch" is as RW as they come.
I would simply "Alert" on this, but then no one would learn except for perhaps one single poster and this TP would continue to be posted when it should not.
Can we not leave this TP to the RW who will continue their self-appointed mission of smearing our candidate? Let's get down to the real work of defeating Trump.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Your response deserves a K&R.
videohead5
(2,171 posts)I really don't see any reason why Hillary was trying to hide them.they were just missed when they were searching Hillary's e-mails.I see nothing in them that is a big deal.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)I just released many of my e-mails today. Most were deleted and many were ohhh worse then what Sec Clintons would have been. I was not under a State Department order, I was just doing a... ...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
and there you have it........as our friend Bernie would say...ENOUGH
tenderfoot
(8,426 posts)eom
TrogL
(32,822 posts)No, not in Washington.
I have been in the IT industry since the time of the dinosaurs. I've programmed using punched cards. We're talking here is document management and information security. These days everybody's heard of it and all businesses and government use it as a matter of course.
Back in this day, the concepts were in their infancy. Nobody knew what they were doing. I was running government email systems on infrastructure that would make my hair fall out today. (Actually, it did, from tearing it out)
"Hillary should have known?"
Hell, I didn't know and I was doing it for a living.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)OMG, alert the media!!!!!!!!!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Case law is pretty clear on this.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Given how "clear case law" is on this topic.
Should be any second I guess.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)If you use a personal device like a phone for business. Your employer if it wanted to, could go to court and gain access to your data.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)If an employer can establish that someone is using personal device for work they can definitely get a court order. I'm not talking about a one off or someone calling work to check their schedule.
A few years ago we had a branch manager accused of favoring a particular staff member. An investigation was launched and it was found that the she was using both her work supplied and personal phone to communicate with staff. The company I worked for was able to go to court and force the her provider to had over text and phone logs. We got everything not just the work related ones.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And regardless ... the email in the OP simply indicates that she wanted to keep her personal email, private.
The OP apparently things that desire is some kind of "gotcha" ... of course its not.
Its just another weak attempt to manufacture a scandal where none exists.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Although it's unclear if others have that same right at the State Dept. The issue is the fact that these aren't personal and are clearly work related.
I won't get into the motives of the op.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)ok.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... has a copy of that email.
Which means the government has it.
That email that some dopes are upset Hillary deleted.
So let's review, Hillary sent an email about wanting to keep her personal email private. Thus creating a copy of the email. At least one copy actually. Then later she deleted her copy thinking it personal. But the government still has copies of it.
Again .... OMG, alert the media!!!!
harun
(11,348 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... is dead ... much like the indictment fairy.
SixString
(1,057 posts)...nevermind.
creon
(1,183 posts)I doubt that any laws were broken. If it were clear that laws were broken, and Clinton broke them, it would have gone forward by now. This has gone on at a very slow pace; very slow for a situation in which an indictment results.
Maybe something will come of it. But, I doubt it.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But, that is a very low bar. It is clear that rules that facilitate FOIA compliance were broken. Hopefully, that will not be somehow construed as illegal.
My hope is that the thing that does come of it is a lesson learned and we see an administration so transparent that FoIA requests are barely even needed.
creon
(1,183 posts)Of course I do not know what the FBI has - or does not have - so the "I doubt it" has to be viewd in that context.
It is my understanding that the FOIA rules were improved. It seems that there is, now, a a presumption of 'open' .
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Furthermore, I don't give a fig about Hillary's emails. I didn't even get that riled up over Republicans' emails.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)
k8conant
(3,030 posts)
chillfactor
(7,574 posts)this story has been beaten to death... Hillary will be our nominee...please support her...
sangfroid
(212 posts)suddenly we have another issue: the presumptive nominee's (PN) spouse has a private meeting with the AG in the midst of an FBI investigation of the PN. What a hoot! Even MSNBC has to get tough with her surrogates, who of course had nothing useful to say.
I tells ya, it's death by a thousand cuts!
