Forbes: OIG email report vindicates Clinton

[pnwmom]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/#1d862c442c7d

By Charles Tiefer, Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law for Conservative Causes"

The report released Wednesday . . . does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.

SNIP

Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard.

Fourth, the big criticism in the report is regarding the failure to print and file email in a retrievable way. But as the report shows, the Office of the Secretary of State has rarely succeeded in doing that. They either always have better things to do, or it is not a high enough priority, or there are technical difficulties, or turnover. Very likely a stingy Congress does not want to hire enough personnel to have crews doing that throughout the government. In any event, they rarely get that done. Since that is a general problem, why pin it particularly on Clinton?

Fifth . . . Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies.

[mcar]

1. K&R

[Arkansas Granny]

2. I love this line: "To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her."

[reddread]

4. perfectly stated.

[Alex4Martinez]

7. Here is the problem not addressed in the article.

Forbes still compares Clinton to Powell, but two things she did differently are HUGE:

Both used private email accounts.
But if Powell used Yahoo or Gmail or Hotmail then all of his material would be archived and accessible to FOIA requests.



Only Clinton used an email domain of her own making, clintonemail.com to which only she had the keys.
Only Clinton ran all operations on equipment kept in her home, the server in her home.

And Clinton then selected what to delete and what to keep and then had the equipment destroyed.

That's pretty different.

[pnwmom]

40. You left out the fact that Colin Powell DELETED ALL his AOL emails when he left office.

And when the State Department asked for them, he wrote a letter saying that he couldn't provide them.

And there were no consequences.

Also, other parts of the Bush administration routed their emails through the RNC -- and millions of them were "lost."

No Congressional investigations about that, either.

[Alex4Martinez]

91. Was his AOL on a private server?

Maybe he should be investigated, I ain't tripping'.

Hills can't pull crazy shit because other people did it, and her shit is crazier-- her own email domain? Her own equipment?

No, this is not the same as using AOL.

[pnwmom]

92. Yes. AOL is a private company, not an arm of the government. All its servers are private.

And he was free to delete all his emails when he left office, with no consequence.

The legal distinction isn't between private individual servers and private company servers. The legal distinction is in the use of any private server versus a .gov account.

[Sancho]

59. Not true, her server was backed up by Google and McAfee...widely published...

The IT manager has not revealed the back up schedule (in public), but has admitted there was one in addition to any local mirroring. We can imagine he revealed those logs and details to the FBI. Yes, the idea was to legally avoid FOIA requests from RW idiots and Congressional committees. It worked as planned.

All her business and private emails were saved by her lawyers. They choose what to provide, but still have copies of everything. Her lawyers had top secret clearance. Post hoc classification won't make any difference.

Actually, Powell's private account was more vulnerable, and had no back up. That's why he didn't produce any emails.

On top of all the Google backups, Hillary bounced everything to a .gov account for a third way to capture NON SECRET email.

Amazing that she actually retained virtually everything. I can't imagine any other government office could come close to producing 55K emails. Also showed legal planning to keep the original server instead of dumping it.

Good lawyering.

[Bill USA]

86. using a commercial email service provider compromises any classified info in any emails sent thru

... such an account. Powell and Rice both used commercial email services and conducted official business on them. What most people on this site, apparently, don't understand (certainly no media reporter seems to) is that .....

[font size="+1"]...Anyone using a personal email account through a commercial email service provider has compromised all information in those emails because all commercial email service providers have large numbers of cyber-security personnel to maintain system security from hackers and various kinds of malware and that to do their jobs they MUST have the ability to examine all emails, and associated attachments, in their system. (NOTE: these are employees of private sector companies and Do NOT have Government security clearances) Thus, anybody such as Colin Powell, Condi Rice who used personal email accounts thru commercial emails service providers for official business - and about two dozen White House advisors in the Bush White House, who used personal email accounts on commercial email service providers through an account controlled by the Republican National Committee - compromised any Classified Information in their emails. Such commercial email accounts ARE NOT SECURE.[/font]

[politicaljunkie41910]

93. Millions ofGovernment employees decide on a daily basis which of their work emails to save or delete

Why should Clinton be any different? Goverment Employyes are subject to the similar FOIA requirements. No Government employee is required to save 100% of their work emails because they're only allotted a limited amount of space within their work email accounts. Government employees delete work emails every day and there is nothing nefarious about it. Why is Clinton held to a different standard based on speculation that any ànd all emails deleted, more likely than not, had something to do with the FOIA?

[workinclasszero]

3. "To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her."

[lagomorph777]

5. Awesome, another right wing endorsement of Hillary.

She must be so pleased.

[pnwmom]

6. He is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore.

[lagomorph777]

8. Being a law professor isn't much of an endorsement

So is Bush henchman (torture justifier) John Yoo:

John Choon Yoo (born July 10, 1967)[4] is a Korean-American attorney, law professor, and author. Yoo is currently the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.[1] Previously, he served as a political appointee, the Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice (OLC), during the George W. Bush administration. He is best known for his opinions concerning the Geneva Conventions that legitimized the War on Terror by the United States. He also authored the so-called Torture Memos, which concerned the use of what the Central Intelligence Agency called enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding.

In 2009, two days after taking office, President Barack Obama in Executive Order 13491 repudiated and revoked all legal guidance on interrogation authored by Yoo and his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

[pnwmom]

10. It doesn't make you a right-winger.

[sufrommich]

14. Tiefer is the author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts

the Law for Conservative Causes"

[pnwmom]

18. Thank you!

[cali]

13. Not a right wing guy at all. Just a hill partisan

[pnwmom]

48. Is that your knee-jerk response to every non-hater, or do you have evidence

showing he has a Hillary connection?

[Gothmog]

9. This is a well written analysis of the issue

[Sivart]

11. The problem with this situation is that.....

For some reason none of the new makers will get an actual IT professional to chime in. Because the notion that the other SOS's did the same thing that Hillary did only flies if you don't look at the details. And those details require a little IT knowledge, which this author is clearly short on.

Private email. That is the key phrase, isn't it? It is applied to what Clinton did, and what Powell did, but there are very significant differences which are completely ignored in this piece.

Using a cloud based main stream non government email account (AOL, hotmail, gmail, etc.) is one thing, and this appears to be what other SOS's did. If this included classified information, then I think it should be an issue.

What the Clintons did is have their own private email system built. It appears that the domain used for this email system is the same domain used for the Clinton Foundation email, which would certainly be a conflict of interest. A big one. In addition, it appears that they did not employ the appropriate security steps to ensure that their private system was secure, which is markedly different than what the other SOS's used, because the encryption with AOL mail, hotmail, gmail, etc. works.

And lastly, and probably most significant, the fact that the Clinton email system was owned by them means that the Clintons themselves would be the ones providing any information from that server to comply with FOIA requests, subpenas, etc. The other SOS's would not have had this authority over the non government emails they were using. This is the wrinkle that would have allowed the Clintons to be the ones to decide what gets handed over and what doesn't.

The Clintons were acting as their own email provider. None of the other SOS's did this.

[polio2]

15. and her private email system was hacked

hence making her personally liable for the security lapses regarding classified information. That's criminal negligence.

[TwilightZone]

33. "her private email system was hacked"

Source?

Hacking attempts and hacked aren't the same thing. The former happen billions of times a day worldwide. Only a small fraction of them are ever successful, regardless of what the media would have one believe.

[polio2]

36. the guccifer doodles

this was years ago.

[Fla Dem]

94. No it wasn't. Provide proof the email server was hacked.

[pnwmom]

23. Legally, there isn't a smidgeon of difference in which non-governmental private server was used,

whether it was a private individual server or a private commercial server. The law makes no distinction. Every legal analyst report I have seen confirms that.

[Sivart]

31. What law?

What law are you referring to? Specifically, what law?

And what analysis??

Lets see the law and the analysis you are referring to.

[pnwmom]

37. I can't cite a law that doesn't exist. And there is no public records law that distinguishes

between using a private commercial server and a private individual server, as opposed to the governmental system.

If you assert that there is such a law, then it is on you to cite it.

[Sivart]

41. uh.....what??

You said the law makes no distinction. What law are you referring to? You must have read some laws to come to this conclusion. What laws did you read?

You said blah blah blah every analysis I have read on this....lets have the links.

Let see the public records laws you are talking about. You speak as if you have looked thru public records laws looking for references to email....show us what you read.


Or you can just admit that you are making shit up

I did not make one single claim about any laws in my post. My points were IT related. I'm an IT guy.

You are the one who brought up the law. Are you a lawyer?

[pnwmom]

42. Fine. I meant "the law" in the general sense. There is NO Federal public records law that makes

that distinction.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

Richard O. Lempert

[Sivart]

43. one link??

This link is primarily speaking to classified information - not email systems.

Can you point to a spot in this article that addresses the difference between using email provided by an email hosting company versus using email hosted by an individual, or not for profit with a potential conflict of interest? Because that is what you said makes no difference when it comes to the law.

??

[pnwmom]

45. Here's another.

It cites the law but you'll have to read it yourself. When I went back to copy that paragraph I'd hit my free article limit.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

[Sivart]

46. How conveinient...

I can see the newsweek article. It requires a subscription.

So, every time I ask you to be specific and elaborate about what you just said, you back off of that point and assert a new one just as flimsy as the first.

I don't know the law, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me for this discussion if laws were broken or not. My point is that Hilary's email solution was NOT the same as other SOS's, and I'm correct. Nothing you have posted has countered my point. my point was not about breaking the law or not breaking the law.

Clinton supporters, and articles like the one in this OP continue to assert that other SOS's did the same as Clinton, and this is simply not the case. As I assert in my post, you have to have some IT knowledge to see this, but this doesn't change things.

Your argument was that even if my point is correct it does not matter legally. To make this point, I assume you have knowledge of laws relative to this topic.....but we can all see that you clearly do not.

All I am seeing from you is that you and other Clinton supporters have had to lower the bar so far to justify supporting her, that you are to the point that as long as there are no laws broken, you don't care what she does.

Which is ironically the exact same defense that was used for the Clenis. Who cares how out of line Bill's affair in the white house was......as long as no laws were broken.

Who cares how careless and out of line it was to use the Clinton Foundation email system for state business.....as long as no laws were broken.

Its like a broken fucking record.

[Press Virginia]

54. Wonder why the State Department, under HRC, was firing diplomats for conducting

State Business on personal e-mail accounts if there was no distinction.......

and, actually there is....see, in ONE instance you actually OWN the means of storage and it is under YOUR control to do with as you wish. In the other, a third party owns the means of storage, denying the user total control over the information.

Have classified information on your basement server? much worse than, say, receiving an e-mail with classified information which you promptly delete

[pnwmom]

56. Hillary used her secure, state-department-installed SCIF system for classified documents.

I don't know what firings you're talking about. For some reason you haven't provided any links.

[Press Virginia]

62. Scott Gration US Ambassador to, I think, Kenya

He was fired from his post for conducting State Dept business on a personal e-mail account.

We already know HRC didn't use a computer for her e-mail. Sooooo how was she accessing NSANet or SIPRNet from her SCIF? And how did information from those systems wind up in her e-mail server?

[pnwmom]

64. There is no evidence that she had any classified information on her email server

except for retroactively classified emails.

And Scott Gration was fired for many reasons, including seldom logging onto the classified system to read classified documents.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/11/david-shuster/no-email-use-didnt-sink-us-ambassador-kenya/

Our ruling

Shuster said Gration was forced to resign because of his use of personal email accounts.

That was one issue State Department officials raised. But just one of many. The State Department Inspector General’s report paints a much more troubling picture of an embassy in disarray under Gration’s leadership. In the words of the auditors, Gration "has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission." Gration ranked at or near the absolute bottom among other ambassadors assessed by the department.

His use of email was an issue, but according to an ambassador with much experience, it was a relatively minor one.

We rate the claim Mostly False.

[Press Virginia]

69. Except for the Classified Material that was found on her Server

The IC IG has already reported classified information at the TS/SAP level was in her e-mails, and it was classified at the time it was sent.

Those 22 e-mails that were redacted in full? If it's IC Source Designated, that means it was classified upon creation.
Correspondence between Obama and HRC....which was withheld from the public...that's classified upon creation.

She authored over 100 confidential e-mails, which were classified upon creation.....and that's just the stuff we know about.

And don't give me the "retroactive argument" because everything they're looking is the first review by those who make the decisions on the markings and the levels. HRC should have recognized classified information when she got it.

[pnwmom]

71. Please provide a link showing that there was classified information on her server

that "was classified at the time it was sent."

Since you weren't even aware that she had a SCIF system at her home, your sources seem awfully unreliable to me.

[Press Virginia]

74. Once again. Notice the words IC ELEMENT SOURCES...that means it's classified when created

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-.icig.response.letter.pdf


There's no retroactive on this...it came from the Intelligence Community which means it's classified at the time

[pnwmom]

76. You want me to believe a letter from CHARLES MCCULLOUGH

claiming that he has sworn affidavits from anonymous IC sources who claim to have seen documents they are certain should be classified?

Now I see what kind of sources you rely on!

[Press Virginia]

81. Let's seeeee....either the IG is lying and submitting false information to Congress

or the IC Sources used are lying....in sworn affadavits submitted to Congress.

Or...and stay with me here because this is kind of funny....should we take the word of the woman who is trying to say her use of a private server, in her basement, is just like Colin Powell....after, of course, stating there was no classified information on her server, then she never sent classified e-mails to now nothing was marked classified (as if that matters)....the same woman who told us that everything she did with her server was allowed and above board.....only to find out the IG contradicts her claim.


Now...who is likely the more credible source here? And, keep in mind, only one of these people is under investigation by the FBI....and only one of these people has a history of lying for no particular reason at all.

[pnwmom]

82. Or maybe neither. Maybe the anonymous source is feeding McCullough lies

that McCullough is happy to devour and spit out.

Hillary is FAR more credible than McCullough's anonymous source.

[Press Virginia]

84. Hillary, landed under sniper fire because I was named after Edmund

Hillary, Clinton?
She couldn't even be honest about the fact she didn't clear her server with anyone but herself

[pnwmom]

87. Considering you were flatly asserting yesterday that she had no SCIF system,

your own credibility doesn't sound that great.

Guess what? People make mistakes.

[Press Virginia]

88. I said unless she had construction to build it she didn't have one

but attacking me is a sure sign you've run out of excuses for HRC

[pnwmom]

89. You flatly asserted in posts before that one that she did NOT have an SCIF.

And when I showed you evidence she did, then you finally said one would have had to be constructed.

[Press Virginia]

90. Uh no

[floppyboo]

65. I think if you look at pg 43 or 44 of the report you'll find the case of the Nairobi ambassador

I'm assuming you've read the report, so I won't search for the link at this time.

He wasn't fired, but they had started prosecution hearings and he quit.

[pnwmom]

66. If you're talking about Gration, politifact has addressed his case

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/11/david-shuster/no-email-use-didnt-sink-us-ambassador-kenya/

Our ruling

Shuster said Gration was forced to resign because of his use of personal email accounts.

That was one issue State Department officials raised. But just one of many. The State Department Inspector General’s report paints a much more troubling picture of an embassy in disarray under Gration’s leadership. In the words of the auditors, Gration "has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission." Gration ranked at or near the absolute bottom among other ambassadors assessed by the department.

His use of email was an issue, but according to an ambassador with much experience, it was a relatively minor one.

We rate the claim Mostly False.

[floppyboo]

67. wonder why the Inspector General disagrees with Politifact? Maybe the whole report is junk?

[pnwmom]

68. The IG doesn't exclude other reasons being involved with his firing. n/t

[floppyboo]

70. Do yor really believe the IG would include a 'mostly false' bit of information? to what end?

[pnwmom]

72. The IG didn't make the claim you say he did. n/t

[floppyboo]

73. Here's the link. Read it again, then tell me where I'm wrong. pp 43-44

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl
yes, there were other infractions, but the email infraction is the one explained in the report.

On the other hand, if you believe it was just a small detail on top of many other infractions, and that the government latched onto this email thing as a reason to get rid of him, well, you should go work for Fox.

[pnwmom]

75. This is a discussion of what he did wrong with emails, but nowhere does it say that this was

the primary reason for his firing. And Politifact says there were many reasons.

I don't think the government "latched onto this email thing to get rid of him." I think Politifact is likely correct that he was fired for generally being a poor employee.

[floppyboo]

85. um, maybe not primary, but definitely important, and important enough for this study.

"However, the Ambassador continued to used unauthorized systems to conduct official business. The Department subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for his failure to follow these directions and for several other infractions, but he resigned before any disciplinary measures were imposed."

[polio2]

12. He's ignoring the smoking gun, the hacking

Guccifer's doodles prove it.

[pnwmom]

16. LOL. He analyzed the report, not some doodles. n/t

[lagomorph777]

17. Wow, that's your response to a detailed factual analysis?

It's funny?

The denial is strong in this one.

[pnwmom]

19. Your response to the professor's article was to dismiss him as a right winger. I dismiss

the hacker as a proven liar and thief.

[lagomorph777]

21. He's employed by "flat-taxer" Steve Forbes; I figured there must be some rapport.

But I'll grant he may be an ordinary Hill Shill.

[polio2]

22. a thief who stole bill's doodles from the server

hence the point of the server being hacked.

[pnwmom]

26. You know this because of a photoshopped image?

[polio2]

28. they're authentic

The clintons don't deny it.

[pnwmom]

29. hah!

[polio2]

20. Hillary supporters are just like Trump supporters

Their candidate can do nothing wrong.

[Armstead]

24. I thought we weren't supposed to use right wing sources?

Or does that just apply to Sanders supporters?

[pnwmom]

25. Tiefer is the author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law

for Conservative Causes"

[Armstead]

32. Forbes is a right wing publication owned by Steve Forbes

It's a right wing source.

I don't really care, personally....But since Clintonians seem intent on purging all non PC sources, just pointing out the double standard.

[Surya Gayatri]

27. A-friggin'-men! A massive K & R.

[fun n serious]

30. Thank you!!

. . Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies.

[jmg257]

34. Basically she didn't follow any of the security/FAM rules of HER dept. and lied about it.

And continues to lie about it in order to minimize her selfish, bad & shady choices.

But somehow Powell doing similar things 4 years earlier justifies it, even though she was subject to more advanced rules.

Hey, its cool you're good with that!

[Iliyah]

35. The right beating a non-story

and left as well, shameful.

[ericson00]

38. its such a bullshit issue...

nearly all the high level gov officials are super new to technology, spent most of their life thinking a computer was a machine that took up an entire room, so is it some surprise many of them aren't too good with tech?

[pnwmom]

39. And they're still using floppy discs in some parts of the government. n/t

[scscholar]

57. And that's an even bigger problem and why...

the Republicans are running so hard with this email story. They want to bury the bigger story that is dangerous to the entire world. Nuclear systems controlled by floppies.

[leveymg]

44. Hardly a vindication. The State Dept report didn't even address classified information violations

and it intentionally fudged on how the same acts that violated Departmental regulations also violated federal criminal statutes. As usual, most of the meat is in the footnotes.

The DOS report does say HRC violated regulations that implement the Federal Records Act, and cites referenced criminal penalties against destruction of federal records. See page 10, footnotes 40, 41

The report makes further references to Clinton's actions that implicate federal laws:

* Duties to preserve federal records imposed by law upon the head of agency not observed are also cited at p. 12, ft. 48.

* The Secretary failed to timely notify the National Archives of pending destruction of official records according to law. p. 17, ftn 73.

* See, also, section that covers State Department discussions of efforts to recover emails dating back to 2011. pp. 17-19.

* In particular, Pages 26-27 discuss Clinton and staff's failures to fully comply with Departmental records requests after leaving office. The requirement to return classified materials is also imposed by her signed security agreement under penalty of Sec. 793, and 1924.

* The use of an uncertified server for official communications violated federal laws requiring agencies to create and maintain information security certification requirements for all information systems. p. 27, ftns. 114, 115

* Use of noncertified Blackberrys and cell phones is banned inside State Dept facilities (except in strictly nonclassified areas, eg, cafeterias), and may not be connected to Dept. systems on noncertified systems, per State Dept. regulation on Dec 2, 2009. p. 30, ftns 120, 121

* Forwarding of official communications to non-secure email systems has been forbidden since 2004. p. 31, ftn. 129.

- MORE -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

[Lil Missy]

47. a nothingburger.

[Avalux]

49. LOL Forbes must have missed the lesson on private email accounts vs. private email SERVERS.

Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there’s a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.

Many politicians use private addresses, but private servers like the one Clinton used are rarely seen, said John Wonderlich, a policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group focused on government transparency, for a prior PolitiFact story.

And there’s a big difference between a private account, which is generally free and simple to start, and a private server, which requires a more elaborate setup.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

The most egregious part of Hillary's set up that the Forbes article conveniently left out? She had sole control over official State Department business emails - there is no audit trail. Those emails didn't belong to her, yet she purposefully did whatever she wanted.

[pnwmom]

52. No, the law professor who wrote this understands that there is NO legal distinction

in the public records act between a private commercial server and a private individual server. The only relevant distinction is between private accounts, and the public .gov accounts.

When Colin Powell left office he permanently deleted ALL his work-related AOL emails, and they were never accessible to the government.

[Avalux]

55. Please provide links to back up your assertions, thanks. n/t

[pnwmom]

60. Here:

The Federal Records Act that was in effect during Hillary’s term is at the Wiki link below. It was amended to specifically include emails in 2014, after she left office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act

And the article below may be of interest.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

In addition to the classified email system used in SCIFs, there are personal email accounts. Prior to 2013, these could be accounts inside the relatively unsecure State Department system or private email accounts. If they are private—running through a commercial or personal server—they have to follow some rules set up in the Federal Register . There are no guards, no red-black procedures, no construction rules, no special rooms, no TEMPEST, no TSCM. And most important: Until 2013, there was no rule against using them. In fact, the rules specifically allowed for them. Check out the relevant section in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, section 1236.22b) for the rules regarding the use of personal email accounts by any State Department official.

To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.)

[Dem2]

50. I said this yesterday

It's the end of the email thing - time to move on people - this story is over.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. I wrote in an earlier thread ...

It seems that there are Policies and Regulations (which the report indicates were violated) and Agency/Office/Departmental Practices (which the report indicates were followed, instead).

It would seem, the only folks that would be outraged by the following of Agency/Office/Departmental Practices over the Policies and Regulations, would be partisan, agenda pushers; or, people that have never worked a job, or are willing to ignore what they experienced/learned on that job.

Agency/Office/Departmental Practices that conflict with Policies and Regulations develop over time as work-arounds for those doing the day to day work because the Policies and Regulations are too unyielding. Further, the work-arounds are never an issue unless/until something goes wrong. In this case, the "go wrong" was the right needed a stick ... the bigger "go wrong" is Bernie supporters are proving, more than willing to swing that stick.

Finally, I will say ... my, above, Bernie supporters comment is based how they are presenting themselves on DU. And, I limit it to DU, because I really never hear or see the topic outside of DU ... other than from naked partisans of the right. But that said, looking at the body of the posts/arguments of the most outraged DUers, I am starting to doubt their presentation as Bernie supporters.

[Avalux]

53. Have you ever worked for the government?

Policies, Procedures and Regulations take precedence over Practices. If I blatantly disregarded the set in stone 'rules' of my employer I'd be fired. It's not difficult to understand.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Yes ... Most of my career ...

and Agency/Office/Departmental Practice routinely stood in for Policies, Procedures and Regulations, as work-arounds when the Policies, Procedures and Regulations didn't work for the people doing they day to day work.

And, I have NEVER been fired. Nor, have I fired, or heard of anyone being fired, anyone for following Agency/Office/Departmental Practices.

[pnwmom]

77. Yes! And you are rewarded if you push the limits as much as possible

in the service of GETTING THINGS DONE.

[grasswire]

61. the professor displays his ignorance. nt

[LAS14]

63. Yes! The problem is that those who..

... want to believe the worst can't deal with complexity. All our pushbacks have to be verbose... Because WE LIVE IN A COMPLEX WORLD! (Yes, yelling). And Hillary can deal with it.

[Todays_Illusion]

78. Well that is one endorsement that a liberal would want to avoid, libertarian flat taxer anti-minimum

wage/anti-worker, Forbes.

[pnwmom]

79. Forbes didn't write it. And the law professor who wrote it also wrote a book called

"Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law for Conservative Causes"

[Todays_Illusion]

80. So it just accidentally appeared on the Forbes site? I am not going to visit that malware

dispensing site.

[Bill USA]

83. OBVIOUSLY, this Tiefer MUST be a TOOL of the anti-Christ Hillary Clinton. Bernie groupies aren't

fooled by this heresy!! Burn the bastard at the stake!!

[Bill USA]

95. of course this will mean nothing to the Repugnants "for" Bernie posting here