Is there any other legitimate reason for the Clinton server other than blocking transparency?

[TipTok]

[Press Virginia]

1. Fantasy baseball?

[JackRiddler]

24. Binge watching?

[XemaSab]

95. Pron?

[JackRiddler]

102. Warcraft.

[Glamrock]

107. Fantasy football?

Ooh ooh! I know! Amazon/EBay addiction.

[JackRiddler]

109. Second Life.

As a Reality TV star within it. Coming January 2017.

[Ferd Berfel]

119. Porn

I'm goin with Porn

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. No. Some will tell you that having her own server was safer than having it at State.

But they don't know the first thing about data security. So no, there was no legitimate reason for this.

[TipTok]

3. Whenever this topic comes up...

... I always look for the HRC crowd to jump in and really explain why.

In the end, it comes down to something along the lines of 'She is Hillary and she deserves a pass'.

Irritating...

[JackRiddler]

25. Was this dreadful lack of security at State addressed?

[tk2kewl]

26. safer is the absolutely stupidest argument

her intention was clearly to operate in the shadows.

i bet she has a recurring nightmare where she finds herself completely naked in the middle of campaign speech without even a podium to hide behind.

[Silver_Witch]

4. She did not want to be inconvenienced.

She was advised not to use her Blackberry and did anyway. She didn't want to carry two devices. She did what she wanted. Pure and Simple.

[IdaBriggs]

19. At one point she was carrying three devices. Bad cover up line on her part. nt

[JackRiddler]

27. Don't buy this.

This is the management of American empire, so to speak. There are many mostly dubious reasons to want a private network immune to FOIA and closed to other officials. That this could be kept secret is hubris.

[VulgarPoet]

50. She wasn't even trying to keep it secret.

I remember hearing tell of a firm not related to the government that put this server up for her. The only way you can keep something like that perfectly secret is to build it and network it yourself, have it air gapped, encrypted out the ass, AND CLOSE YOUR UNNECESSARY BLOODY PORTS. Hell, the SIPRnet computers in my workcenter are more secure than what hers was, and hers no doubt held State information!

[JackRiddler]

51. Speaking of SIPR...

I'm surprised her side hasn't brought up Manning as a justification for a separate server.

[VulgarPoet]

64. Isn't it funny?

They scream and rant and rave that Snowden and Manning need to hang when their leaks exposed America for the heinous shit we've done, and then want to give Clinton a pass? Hypocrisy and elitism.

[JackRiddler]

65. I'm guessing they don't want to talk about the State Department cables, period?

Can't be good to draw attention to a few hundred thousand documents online. They don't know all of what's in there themselves.

[morningfog]

28. That doesn't hold.

[spin]

5. Convenience? ...

It probably was much more convenient to have your own server to keep your private email about yoga classes, your daughter's wedding and donations to the Clinton Foundation private. It also would help a person avoid those irritating FOIA requests.

[merrily]

6. No. No reason, other than lack of transparency, to take

to take two years and lawyer up to comply with an FOIA request or a subpoena, either. No reason, other than lack of transparency, to wipe a server after an FOIA request. No other reason, other than lack of transparency, to lie under oath to a Grand Jury. No reason, other than lack of transparency, to prefer an 18-month sentence for contempt of court to answering three questions about Bill Clinton's involvement in Whitewater.

[fun n serious]

8. Whitewater? Really?

smh

[merrily]

11. OMG, someone made a factually accurate statement about Whitewater!

This is series!!11!1!

Any sensible sounding theory on why someone would take a sentence of 18 months in jail, rather than answer 3 question about Bubba? Cause McDougal's rationale was not even close to believable, except to sheeple.

[Yurovsky]

21. Time has only made that scandal stink worse...

It's pretty clear that the Clinton political machine in Arkansas stepped way over the legal and ethical line in their financial dealings. Look how many people in their inner circle fell on their swords and went to jail - and contrast that with essentially ZERO in the Obama's inner circle.

You don't have to be a crook be an effective political leader. That's something the Clinton's never embraced. They've always been more of the "what can we get away with" school of politics.

America deserves better. America deserves Bernie!

[merrily]

92. I don't think time made it stink worse. I think the brainwashing wore off.

In my case, anyway. So many of us were brainwashed to think this was all right wing persecution. They got Genifer Flowers to speak up. (Maybe, but they didn't get him to have an affair with her.) They (BROCK) got Paula Jones to sue. (Maybe, but they didn't get him to solicit her for a bj.) They investigated Whitewater until they found out about Monica through Linda Tripp. (Maybe, but they didn't get him to have an "inappropriate relationship" in the Oval Office with a young White House intern.) And it was even somehow okay for the President of the United States to lie to a Grand Jury while under oath.

I bought it. I bought every bit of it. And, then, over time, the stuff that had been drummed into my head wore off and then

[Jack Bone]

41. "Wipe a server?" do you mean with a rag? nt

[HereSince1628]

9. blocking transparency of federal records act and FOIA is a legitimate reason?

I wouldn't have thought so.

[randome]

16. And yet the latest report says she complied with record retention policies.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[IdaBriggs]

20. Uh, no, it said the OPPOSITE of that. nt

[randome]

23. Oh, right. It said she mitigated that by printing out the emails and handing them over.

Not the best-case scenario but still nothing worth getting the pitchforks out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

31. She did not mitigate either. Her mitigation was a lie.

[randome]

33. The report used the word 'mitigated'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

36. The report said she claimed to have mitigated,

But it did not withstand scrutiny.

[randome]

42. If NARA says it's okay, why isn't it okay with you?

“NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure.”

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JackRiddler]

32. Pitchforks?

I wish those would come out about American foreign policy generally. But that doesn't mean the private server was not a real violation of existing law, however comparably tame to the usually normal workings of the State Department and the intelligence agencies that have colonized it during the entire postwar era.

[randome]

35. Office policies are a little different from violations of law.

I don't pretend to understand why she chose this route. It seems dumb to me. But she broke no law.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

39. She clearly violated the law. FOIA is not office policy.

[randome]

43. And still no one cares. Except Judicial Watch. I wonder why that is?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

44. That is not true. So far John Kerry, the state IG, the FBI, the DOJ,

And two federal judges have found enough evidence of intentional wrong doing to allow and conduct investigation.

Saying this is a rw judicial watch issue is red herring denial.

[tazkcmo]

57. Which is it?

She broke no laws or nobody cares? Either one is a bold claim that you can't really back up. While the OIG investigated departmental policy violations (and found a minimum of 5) and not federal law violations, the FBI is actively looking into that. I'll take their word over yours that no laws were broken especially since gross negligence is obviously a federal infraction.

As for nobody cares, that's a totally unsubstantiated claim. More accurate to say, "Nobody is surprised." because this kind of gray area navigation is a Clinton trademark.

[choie]

58. Maybe you don't care if

A public servant is hiding from FOIAs, but many of us do.

[Demsrule86]

62. She violated no law

and Bernie won't be the nomimnee...call a wambulance.

[morningfog]

63. Who the FUCK mentioned Bernie?

Not me. Goddamn, ya'll are one trick straw men.

This is not about Bernie. I don't expect him to be the nominee. That is the fucking problem. We are going with a nominee who has clearly violated federal records law. That's at a minimum.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. I love when the rules imposed by the federal government on employees become "Office policy".

She didn't break the law, she broke the rules!

That never fails to make me guffaw.

[IdaBriggs]

38. Are you actually this unaware of what the report says or do you honestly

believe that selectively cherry picking pieces will save her?

FACTS:

She DID NOT COMPLY with the policies while in office - period.

She DID NOT comply when she left office by turning her work product in for archiving - period.

When she did FINALLY "work to mitigate" TWO YEARS LATER, she FAILED TO DO SO COMPLETELY because she didn't even turn everything in (and apparently altered records to boot).

Then she lied to the public in interviews, speeches and debates about all of these things repeatedly.

That is the OPPOSITE of HONEST, TRANSPARENT OPEN GOVERNMENT.

Bring on the pitchforks.

[randome]

45. You must be running out of fairies to chase by now.

Every SOS has been in violation in some way or another. No one gives a shit because: 1) the laws are so complex that no one could possibly be perfect and 2) each SOS has the option (i.e. loophole) of deciding which communications are private and which are public.

Every time you say Clinton 'lied', it's about some minutiae of the law that no one fully understands anyways. It's very clear by now that the voters see things this way because, whether you like it or not, they continue to vote for her. All your complaining and CAPS-locks on DU won't change that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[IdaBriggs]

54. One of us is right and one of us is wrong.

If Hillary becomes President, that means you are.

If Hillary gets indicted or drops out, that means I am.

Truth will out. The process continues. In the meantime, your opinions do not get to override facts and reality.

She lied, she did not comply, and she hasn't been transparent.

Will America care? That remains to be seen.

[yodermon]

82. You forgot one scenario: No indictment but Trump pounds her on it and wins.

Her supporters just don't seem to understand how this EXACERBATES her high untrustworthiness public opinion. If they're foaming at the mouth over a DUer making a damn TIMELINE they'll need straighjackets once Trump actually starts hitting her on this because he hasn't even warmed up yet.

[morningfog]

30. What report are you reading. I suggest you read the IG report.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

Particularly pages 26-27, which explicitly say she did not comply.

[randome]

49. In the report, NARA -which is responsible for preserving public records- said it was mitigated.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

60. The OIG said the it could not be determined whether it was actually mitigated.

This is the rub. Hillary and her inner circle did so much government business off the books and then self-selected what to turn over to State. There is no way verify that the federal records were retained and their practice was in violation of the law.

[randome]

105. So no conclusion then. Which means, of course, that Clinton is guilty of...something.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

110. I'm correcting your inaccuracies. I make no supposition about what the FBI will uncover

as they dig deeper that the OIG and access more people and documents.

[Fuddnik]

37. except for the 30,000 or so, she deleted.

Mission Accomplished: No records retained.

[randome]

48. And yet those 30,000 were recovered and what did they prove she was trying to hide?

Nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Recursion]

10. Sure: it's a "scandal honeypot". Same with the transcripts.

They are both bullshit non-issues that, at worst, will be a slight political hit for her, but distract people who should be concentrating on the bigger weaknesses of her candidacy from bringing them up.

[oberliner]

12. The government servers had been hacked previously

Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/

[Lars39]

18. And that's with round the clock teams trying to keep it secure.

Basement server sure didn't.

[oberliner]

29. And round the clock hackers working like crazy to get in

Again, that could be one possible reason. It might not be a great argument. Obviously, Hillary wishes she had not done it the way that she did. But the motives for doing so might not have been nefarious.

[Lars39]

46. It's not the motives that count, it's the deed.

[Amishman]

99. so my bank should keep its cash reserve under the lunchroom sink since no one would look there?

Less secure is less secure, this 'but no one would expect it' excuse is pure nonsense.

And her motives are pretty freakin clear from the report, her own words: 'I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible'. Those private emails were so important that she was willing to complicate her official duties in order to better shield them from any outside attention. It also shows you her priorities.

[oberliner]

118. She definitely screwed up

There is no question about that.

[JoePhilly]

13. To hide evidence of the murders of Vince Foster and Chris Stevens.

Who both hid money from Whitewater.

[IdaBriggs]

22. DRINK! Hillary supporter brings up Vince Foster! nt

[TheKentuckian]

14. Of course not. She just isn't into accountability to the public or

government transparency.

[merbex]

15. No n/t

[IdaBriggs]

17. No. The lie about convenience was easily disproven by the

"Walk three blocks, retrieve your phone from security check-in, go into the super secure room, use phone, turn phone back into security guard with check in procedures, then walk back three blocks to office."

As opposed to "use work computer at desk".

[Jitter65]

34. Convenience and more security. State Department systems are notoriously insecure, outdated.

Avoiding FOIA is another reason but there are other ways to avoid FOIA that I am sure she knew about. I just really think it was mainly for security and convenience.

[99Forever]

40. Bullshit

[Ferd Berfel]

121. Let me second that - bullshit.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. It was a monumentally bad move from a security standpoint--just want to make that clear.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. No.

[JackInGreen]

52. Simplicity

and to try and make that system simpler cuz you know better than ANYONE else speaks volumes about her attitude on regulation. She won't follow the law or the legislature as long as she thinks she can get away with it and it's 'for a good cause' (for her own cause)

[Jester Messiah]

53. Legit? No. But some are less shady than others.

Could be as easy as "The IT department at State is shit, I need something that works now, so I'm going to go through outside channels." It breaks a bunch of regulations, but her intentions may not have been bad. That said, violating regulations has to have consequences, because they very often exist for good reason.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. "Vote for Hillary... She's less shady."

Ought to be a bumper sticker.

[Jester Messiah]

84. Heh.

Not one I'd sport. She's shady as hell. I'm just trying to come up with a "least bad" explanation for the sheer thought exercise of it.

[ljm2002]

85. So she hired a guy whose degree is in Political Science...

...to set up and run her private server. Yeah, sure, that makes sense... not.

If she was concerned that State's servers were insecure, she would have hired someone with expertise in computer security. And claiming she is ignorant of such things, just undermines her capability in general. She has, after all, called for a Manhattan Project to enhance the government's capability to spy on all of us. So which is it -- is she knowledgeable, or is she ignorant of computer security issues?

[Jester Messiah]

101. Ignorant or arrogant, possibly both. n/t

[leveymg]

55. Convenience. By continuing to use her single unsecure Blackberry, she kept one hand free to >

[Hoyt]

56. Don't think there was any nefarious motive.

I'll trust this before some "Berner" looking for a way forward:

Why did Clinton use her own email account?

When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience. It enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule.

That is the only reason she used her own account.

Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time.

As Clinton has said, in hindsight, it would have been better to just have two accounts. While she thought using one account would be easier, obviously, that has not been the case.

Was it allowed?

Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.

The 2009 National Archives regulation in place during her tenure required that "[a]gencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." The regulation recognizes the use of non-government email accounts.

As she has stated, Clinton's practice was to email government officials on their ".gov" accounts, so her work emails were immediately captured and preserved. In fact, more than 90% of those emails should have already been captured in the State Department’s email system before she provided them with paper copies.

A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren't in effect when Clinton was in office, 'she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,' said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."

Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.


More at:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. You'll trust H Clinton's website over the word of data security professionals?

You're free to do that, of course, but you're not correct in your assumptions.

[Hoyt]

73. Yeah, most of the data security folks I've known can't think past the instruction/step they are on.

Darn near every big breach you hear about is from an organization with date security professionals.

[bonemachine]

76. ah, yes, that bastion of unbiased information on this subject

www.hillaryclinton.com

[Hoyt]

78. Like the Berner diehards are unbiased, or rational.

[XemaSab]

100. That makes no goddamn sense

I have two email accounts open on my browser right now.

I have a work email and I have a personal email.

The work email is for work and the personal email is for friends and family.

If she wasn't allowed to use her personal email from work, tough shit. A lot of people aren't.

I bet she wasn't allowed to dick around on Facebook at work, either.

[Hoyt]

116. And I bet she had better things to do than worry about stupid bureaucracy and IT policies.

[laserhaas]

59. Nope

[Demsrule86]

61. State was a mess...other SOS used private for the same reason

and of course privacy...as state was hacked three times that we know of.

[TipTok]

66. One could almost buy that...

... If she had implemented equal or greater security measures on her home server but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. See post #2.

[BootinUp]

72. What do you think she was hiding? 55,000 pages Got Anything? Anything? nt

[TipTok]

74. Of self selected documents....

... In pdf format?

And yes... They appear to have found quite a bit.

Lack of classified marking is not a mitigating factor but actually bumps up the level of offense.

[BootinUp]

75. The voters are waiting for the BIG find still. nt

[TipTok]

80. HRC depends on the public's general ignorance...

... About the classification system.

It's already there but she downplays it and most folks don't know any better.

[BootinUp]

81. The public recognizes partisan witch hunts. nt

[TipTok]

83. It's not a witch hunt if it's true...

Very rarely do I see anyone deny the facts of the matter.

The argument usually ends up being something along the lines of 'she deserves a pass for the greater good'.

[ljm2002]

87. Wait a sec...

...are you implying that all of this is a ... (gasp) ... conspiracy? I thought Hillary's supporters are against conspiracy theories? I guess it all depends on whose ox is gored.

[BootinUp]

88. 12 hour hearings that culminated from a puke witch hunt started by Darell Issa are witch hunts

what is so hard to understand about that?

[ljm2002]

91. See here's the thing...

...the slimeball Issa did not refer this to the FBI.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clinton’s email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach — namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities.

(...)

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred.

"We don’t do these because we’re curious," said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. "There’s a potential that a criminal violation took place."

(...)

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said.

So it's all just one big conspiracy? Well all righty then...

[BootinUp]

93. When the public perception is that there should be an investigation

then there is one. Thats generally how witch hunts work. You can ignore the obvious 2 year effort by the pukes if you want to though.

[ljm2002]

94. Again: Issa did not refer the case to the FBI...

...people at State did, as part of their obligation to report potential security issues.

You are claiming that they did this due to public pressure. Others in the Hillary camp claim that the public neither understands, nor cares about this issue. Which is it?

[BootinUp]

96. You conflate wanting an investigation with findings of great importance. nt

[ljm2002]

103. I'm not conflating anything...

...and I'm not sure who you are targeting as "wanting an investigation"? The fact is, there IS an investigation. By the FBI -- the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATIONS.

Sheesh. Why do you even bother replying with such content-free drivel.

[BootinUp]

104. its just so complicated for you isn't it?

[ljm2002]

106. Look, Boots...

...you are the one who claimed: "When the public perception is that there should be an investigation then there is one." You think the FBI is investigating this due to public pressure? And yet, we are told every day by Hillary supporters that the public neither knows nor cares about this issue. So where is the public pressure coming from?

OTOH, you claim this is a witch hunt perpetrated by Issa. Sure, he conducted the Benghazi hearings, and yes, that was a witch hunt. Unfortunately for Clinton, though, it also brought to light the fact that Clinton was running her own private server, which included acting as an email server for her private email account, which she used for all of her department business. That is not a witch hunt, that is a separate issue that is now being investigated.

Sorry that is so hard for you to understand.

TTFN

[BootinUp]

111. lookie here

There have been no findings to this point that they care about because there is nothing new since the Benghazi hearings that are of great import. Nothing that has stopped her from winning the Primary, and nothing that will stop her from winning the election. SHOULD the FBI investigation find something to be concerned about, obviously that would be a different matter.

As far as how these investigations got started, it would take a lot of blocking out of reality to ignore the fact that the Republican investigations have led to increased scrutiny of her emails which inevitably led to the discovery of the private server/private email account.

[polly7]

77. Nope - but that said, I believe it allowed Bill to have a lot of input

into her decisions. He already knew the players in the countries she was dealing with and had a long history wrt military involvement, etc.

[dchill]

79. She wanted to use a Blackberry.

Just like Barack.

[ljm2002]

89. Wow, you're on a first name basis with the President...

...how cool.

But to address your claim, Obama's Blackberry is not an off-the-shelf model, but one that was eviscerated by engineers at the NSA. Clinton's Blackberry was off-the-shelf and retained all of the security vulnerabilities that she had been warned about. You can read all about here:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/22/technology/security/nsa-obama-blackberry/

(...)

In response to Obama's request, the NSA set up a lab where dozens of experts performed surgery for several months on a high-profile patient: the soon-to-be presidential BlackBerry. The course of treatment was to manipulate the device's innards to weed out potential threats to secure communication.

(...)

[JohnnyRingo]

108. I think the point is she's addicted to using her smart phone for everything.

This is apparently a thing because the Secret Service had to make accommodations for the president when he took office for the same reason.

I don't get it, but my grandkids do.

[dchill]

114. I know all that. She still wanted one, the NSA said no.

So she used an off-the-shelf one anyway. The temerity and gall is breathtaking. And, I'm not on a first name basis with the President, but she is. Or was...

[ljm2002]

115. Sorry I misinterpreted your post...

...we appear to be in agreement on the Blackberry issue.

[dchill]

117. Yep.

[hollowdweller]

86. Not really. But I think what she thought would be an asset is a liability.

Sort of like the documents they kept trying to find in the Whitewater investigation.

When they finally found them they didn't really show anything, but the fact that they were missing allowed the GOP to make up all sort of stuff.

[mmonk]

90. No

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. No. "Convenience" is a head-fake.

She had a personal server so she could delete "personal" ones before turning the rest over to government archivists.

History is written in the words that Clinton chose to not delete.

[QC]

98. To keep President Obama from finding out that Blumenthal

was playing Jethro Bodine, Double Naught Spy for HRC even after she had been explicitly directed not to hire him.

[840high]

112. add her Foundation

[QC]

113. The charitable foundation that was paying Sidney Blumenthal 007? n/t

[Dem2]

120. Derp derp, derpity derp

derp!