How to credibly attack Hillary on the emails.

[YouDig]

Post a link to something that you wrote saying that Colin Powell should be indicted for using private non-government email, and also having retroactively classified info in his aol account. That way people will believe that you actually think people should be indicted over private emails, you're not just trying to find something to pin on Hillary.

If you can do that, then you're credible when going after Hillary. If not, you're just trolling. That goes not just for people on DU, but also for the any pundit writing on WSJ or TownHall or any of the other right-wing websites that the Berners like to post email articles from.

[tonyt53]

1. Toss in Coddi Rice too to round it out.

[scscholar]

29. But she said she wouldn't have used secure email...

if she used email. That's pretty damning.

[Trust Buster]

2. ZING..........YOU DA MAN YouDig.

[-none]

3. The rules were changed between Powell and Hillary.

Plus only Hillary had her own private E-mail server, in her home yet.
So your OP does not compute.

[YouDig]

4. Procedure changed, not laws. And Powell violated the procedure also.

Having an AOL account is worse than a private server, because that means that people at AOL automatically have access to your emails.

[-none]

7. The laws were tightened up too.

So it is not just procedures.

[YouDig]

8. Not affecting whether retroactively classified info on private email.

You're talking about federal records rules. If Clinton is guilty of a crime due to the retro-actively classified information, then so is Powell. And Rice.

[NWCorona]

26. Not all are retroactive

[Press Virginia]

32. He doesn't care. He's going to repeat that claim no matter what evidence

he's shown that contradicts the claim.

We know she authored confidential e-mails
We know she had e-mails from the president, that were policy related
We know there were 22 e-mails redacted in their entirety
We know the IC IG has reported 4 e-mails from the original sample were classified from Secret to SAP, classified when produced

And still we get people plugging the "retroactive" story

[NWCorona]

40. Very true and you are right I shouldn't have even bothered.

There's also the fact that Hillary had the legal requirement to submit a spillage report for every classified email that was sent to her.

[Iliyah]

9. Powell & Rice are GOPers

HRC is a Dems. HRC is running for president. All the "concern" (not) that the GOPers had over Benghazi (fake) and subsequently the e-mail issue is all hot air.

Prayers to all that died that night.

[morningfog]

20. Administrative laws are still laws.

And there are many issues here, beyond the private server's security. The foremost, I think, is the violation of public records law.

We know she violated the federal records law, an administrative law with no punishment. There is evidence she or her staff may have violated the felony criminal statute forbidding destruction of federal records. That is a lingering problem.

[YouDig]

23. You think she's going to get indicted for not keeping paper printouts of her emails even though

she kept electronic copies and released them all?

Colin Powell actually deleted emails. No charges. Not even a hint of charges.

This is nothing but bad optics.

[Press Virginia]

28. Powell ain't running for president. If the FBI investigates him next

then he'll be relevant to what Hillary did

[YouDig]

30. Being indicted is a legal criminal matter, not a political one.

If someone commits a crime worthy of being indicted, which apparently a lot of clueless people think Hillary and Powell did, then they get indicted, presidential run or no. And there was never any talk of Powell being indicted for the exact same thing. Not from any of the right-wing columnists that have become Berners's go-to sources on this.

[Press Virginia]

36. You're the only one confusing the IG report with the FBI investigation

Powell isn't being investigated by the agency that investigates crimes.

The IG report spells out that the rules were different when Powell was in office.

[YouDig]

39. I'm talking about the potential indictment that Berners keep praying about.

They all think that Hillary committed a crime with the classified info, but not one of them peeped up about Colin Powell, nor did any of the right-wing columnists they keep linking to, even though he did the same thing.

As far as keeping records, both of them broke the rules, and Powell actually deleted emails, whereas Hillary kept and released them all. But nobody is going to be indicted for that either. People don't get indicted for small red tape violations with no criminal intent.

[JonLeibowitz]

53. No she deleted 30,000 she deemed personal. Of course, we have to trust her on that...

Some of us have trust issues with the Clintons.

[Press Virginia]

61. Well, we can talk about Powell and potential indictments when the FBI investigates

his e-mail activities.

And the IG report makes a big distinction between powell and Clinton based on the time period and the rules in place at the time.

you want to compare what they did, fine. But the rules were different

[morningfog]

34. I didn't say that.

It is a felony to destroy federal records to impede an investigation by any government agency. There is evidence that federal records were destroyed during an on going investigation. Who did it, ordered and why are questions the FBI will answer.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. you're just trolling

[libtodeath]

13. The 25 hide one is now under review so this one comes back post non stop.

So transparent.

[beachbumbob]

6. June 16th around the corner

[frylock]

38. June 16th

June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th June 16th

[leveymg]

10. You'll have to change the Statute of Limitations to make that approach serious and viable.

Sorry, but if it happened before June 1, 2006, you can't prosecute them today. That is one major difference.

[YouDig]

11. A lot of the same right-wing columnists that Berners like so much were writing back then.

Did any of them complain about Powell? Was there even one person in the media, or on blogs, or anywhere, that suggested that Powell should be indicted for that?

Of course not. It's just as stupid as the idea that Hillary will be indicted. People only talk about this because it's Hillary.

[leveymg]

14. You've been at DU for less than 2 months. The answer is DUers screamed bloody murder about the

Bush Administration email purge and Karl Rove and Colin Powell's roles in it. You are completely off-base in your zeal to smear DU. Please feel free to leave as quickly as you popped up here. Exit Stage >

[YouDig]

15. I'm not smearing DU, more the right-wing columnists that some DUers link to.

[leveymg]

19. For the most part, the MSM doesn't take many risks these days.

Obviously, it's not going to hurt anyone's career at The National Review to dig into unexplored corners of the Clinton classified information scandal. On the other hand, who wants to get too far out ahead of the rest if they work for Newsweek? There's no safe middle ground, so few paid columnists rock the boat. Simple as that.

[YouDig]

24. Same with Obama's birth certificate too. Only RW press had the "courage" to really dig.

[libtodeath]

12. Guess the FBI and AGs office are the ones to decide.

[GreatGazoo]

16. How to play the standard Clinton defense: Plead Guilty but say everyone else does it too

The problem is the first part of that, the guilty part.

[Avalux]

17. Pay attention. Colin Powell didn't have a private SERVER in his home.

Do you understand the difference between that, and what Hillary did?

Might be a good idea to get that straight in your head before writing such a silly post.

[YouDig]

18. Which makes it worse. People at AOL could have accessed his emails.

At least Hillary was in control of her server, guarded by Secret Service.

[Bob41213]

22. Except the part where it was connected to the internet and had no security...

Besides those Secret Service agents at the door.

[YouDig]

25. Unlike AOL servers. Those never get hacked. Ever.

[Bob41213]

58. People's accounts get hacked a lot, AOL not so much.

And when they do, they have a team to look into it. They have monitoring software. They have systems in place. Brian Pagliano isn't much of a system or team.

[BlueStateLib]

46. Her server was using an enterprise level fortinet firewall and the fortinet logs show no intrusions

[Bob41213]

56. Please provide a link if that's the case....

That wouldn't have helped her much since she gave her password to the Chinese (used her blackberry while in China without encryption installed). They didn't even run intrusion detection for the first couple years (likely till she switched to a professional outfit rather than use Brian Pagliano). They left VPN/RDC open to the world, so I don't know what that enterprise level firewall you speak of was doing. It certainly wasn't blocking connections.

[Avalux]

27. Ugh. There are many replies here trying to explain, yet you continue on this path.

The two situations are not equivocal.

[YouDig]

37. You're trying to claim that somehow an AOL account makes it better than a private server.

Which is dumb. Legally it makes no difference, neither is OK for classified material (neither is state.gov email), and from a security point of view, AOL is worse.

[Avalux]

57. I'm not making any claims, other than bringing up Powell is irrelevant. n/t

[libtodeath]

41. They are on a mission.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Kinda like telling the IRS "everybody cheats" when they catch you cheating.

[jmg257]

31. Oh yes - because the rules/situations/actions/reactions/levels of misconduct were exactly the same.

Secretary Powell:

Secretary Powell has acknowledged using a personal email account from a
commercial Internet provider, which he accessed on a “private line” in his Department office. He
further stated that he had two computers at his desk: “a secure State Department machine …
used for secure material, and…a laptop [used] for email.”143 Neither the Secretary nor his
representative could recall whether Secretary Powell owned the laptop or whether the
Department provided it to him. However, the Secretary characterized the use of the laptop as his
“unclassified system,” which was not connected to OpenNet. In his interview with OIG, Secretary
Powell explained that, when he arrived at the Department, the email system in place only
permitted communication among Department staff. He therefore requested that information
technology staff install the private line so that he could use his personal account to communicate
with people outside the Department.144 He described his email usage as “daily,” though OIG was
unable to determine how many emails he actually sent and received during his tenure.

Various DS and IRM staff told OIG that, before Secretary Powell arrived at the Department,
employees did not have Internet connectivity on their desktop computers. The Department’s
Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Under Secretary for Management during Secretary Powell’s
tenure reported to OIG that they were aware of Secretary Powell’s use of a personal email
account and also noted the Secretary’s goal was to provide every Department employee with
similar Internet and email capabilities at their desktops. The current CIO and Assistant Secretary
for Diplomatic Security, who were Department employees during Secretary Powell’s tenure, also
were both aware of the Secretary’s use of a personal email account and recall numerous
discussions with senior staff throughout the Department about how to implement the
Secretary’s intent to provide all employees with Internet connectivity.
However, it is not clear whether staff explicitly addressed restrictions on the use of nonDepartmental
systems with Secretary Powell. For example, at the beginning of Secretary Powell’s
tenure, the Department had an outright prohibition on both the installation of privately owned
computers in Department facilities and the transmission of SBU information on the Internet.
145
By 2002, the Department had established the requirement to connect to the Internet only on
OpenNet.146 The CIO and Under Secretary for Management during Secretary’s Powell’s tenure
reported to OIG that they believe that these issues were addressed, either by installing a firewall
to protect the Secretary’s Internet connection or providing the Secretary with a Department
laptop. They also reported having multiple discussions with Secretary Powell about the
Department’s implementation of FISMA requirements. In contrast, current DS and IRM officials
who worked at the Department during Secretary Powell’s tenure are unsure about the exact
configuration of Secretary Powell’s systems and whether staff addressed applicable restrictions
with the Secretary. However, they reported to OIG that the Department’s technology and
information security policies were very fluid during Secretary Powell’s tenure and that the
Department was not aware at the time of the magnitude of the security risks associated with
information technology.

Secretary Clinton:

By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably
more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the
Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the
obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not
doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of
these more comprehensive directives.

Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email
account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making
up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014.
Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations
should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary
requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email
account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for
Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email
account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to
provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according
to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a
personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM
and the security risks in doing so.

During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected
to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to
transmit SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to nonDepartmental
addresses, they should request a solution from IRM.148 However, OIG found no
evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact
that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.

Similarly, the FAM contained provisions requiring employees who process SBU information on
their own devices to ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
are maintained to protect the confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption
of SBU information with products certified by NIST.149 With regard to encryption, Secretary
Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and
techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing
third party experts.”150 Although this report does not address the safety or security of her
system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her
private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by
FISMA and the FAM.

In addition to interviewing current and former officials in DS and IRM, OIG interviewed other
senior Department officials with relevant knowledge who served under Secretary Clinton,
including the Under Secretary for Management, who supervises both DS and IRM; current and
former Executive Secretaries; and attorneys within the Office of the Legal Adviser. These officials
all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s
server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These
officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a
personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff also testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi
that she was unaware of anyone being consulted about the Secretary’s exclusive use of a
personal email address.151 OIG did find evidence that various staff and senior officials
throughout the Department had discussions related to the Secretary’s use of non-Departmental
systems, suggesting there was some awareness of Secretary Clinton’s practices. For example:

• In late-January 2009, in response to Secretary Clinton’s desire to take her BlackBerry
device into secure areas, her Chief of Staff discussed with senior officials in S/ES and with
the Under Secretary for Management alternative solutions, such as setting up a separate
stand-alone computer connected to the Internet for Secretary Clinton “to enable her to
check her emails from her desk.” The Under Secretary’s response was “the stand-alone
separate network PC is [a] great idea” and that it is “the best solution.” According to the
Department, no such computer was ever set up.
• In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not
being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk
about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so
you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address
or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”152
• In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to the Secretary’s
request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her
personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because “her personal email
server is down.” The then-Executive Secretary informed staff of his intent to provide two
devices for the Secretary to use: “one with an operating State Department email account
(which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and
another which would just have phone and internet capability.” In another email
exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had alreadybeen set up for the Secretary153 and also stated that “you should be aware that any email
would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.”154
However, the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff rejected the proposal to use two devices,
stating that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” OIG found no evidence that the
Secretary obtained a Department address or device after this discussion.
• OIG identified two individuals who provided technical support to Secretary Clinton. The
first, who was at one time an advisor to former President Clinton but was never a
Department employee, registered the clintonemail.com domain name on January 13,
2009.155 The second, a Schedule C political appointee who worked in IRM as a Senior
Advisor from May 2009 through February 2013,156 provided technical support for
BlackBerry communications during the Secretary’s 2008 campaign for President.157 OIG
reviewed emails showing communications between Department staff and both
individuals concerning operational issues affecting the Secretary’s email and server from
2010 through at least October 2012. For example, in December 2010, the Senior Advisor
worked with S/ES-IRM and IRM staff to resolve issues affecting the ability of emails
transmitted through the clintonemail.com domain used by Secretary Clinton to reach
Department email addresses using the state.gov domain.
Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their
concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings
with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns
that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal
records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping
requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s
personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that
the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no
evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary
Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised
concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support
the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email
system again.
• On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided
technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone
was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the
chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On
January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary
“anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”159

[YouDig]

35. Clinton also used the secure document system for classified material.

Email is not used for classified material, even state.gov email. It is considered insecure. Hillary didn't use it for classified material.

With both Hillary and Powell, some material later deemed classified ended up in their email accounts. Which happens all the time, sometimes someone will even classify something at the very same time that is printed in the press. In that case, anyone holding a copy of the NYT would technically be in breach of classified handling rules.

But nobody gets indicted for things like that because that would be stupid.

[libtodeath]

42. You really should stop posting out and out lies.

The "it was classified later" dodge has been debunked so completely that it is laughable to still fall back on it.

[YouDig]

44. It was classified after the fact, everyone knows this. You spend too much time on Bernie blogs.

[libtodeath]

47. You need to look up what born classified means.

[YouDig]

48. You mean that thing that Fox News invented? Fox sure explains a lot of Berner rhetoric.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/02/fox-news-hypes-mythical-automatic-classificatio/205333

[libtodeath]

50. Now you are just making a laughing stock of yourself again.

[YouDig]

51. Sure. You're pushing Fox lies, but I'm the laughing stock. Good one.

[libtodeath]

54. Boring

[840high]

59. Yes you are. Shame.

[BlueStateLib]

49. Almost all of the emails that were retroactive classified were sent to hillarys server

were writen by career diplomats

[jmg257]

43. Which system was that? nt

[YouDig]

45. There are a few. For example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Worldwide_Intelligence_Communications_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

[beachbum bob]

52. june 16th is approaching

thankfully

[840high]

60. FBI won't care if it's June 16th.

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. You really need to go to Amazon, and buy the book "Credibility for Dummies".