Hillary Clinton's Private Server... Laugh it off. Nothing to see here... move along please!

[cherokeeprogressive]

Keep trying to shame fellow Democrats who want to talk about it into silence by saying talking about it is a "Right Wing Meme".

Prove it wasn't hacked. SHOW me evidence it wasn't hacked. Prove to me and the REST of the electorate that it WASN'T HACKED.

While you're formulating your opinion about how you know it WASN'T; think about companies that have BILLIONS of dollars to throw at the problem of HACKING who can't prevent it (think SONY) and juxtapose their operations with a computer stored in a fucking garage, and protected by a Secret Service whose men and women couldn't prevent a FOOL flying a gyrocopter from getting to the White House, or a crazy man from jumping the fence and running inside the fucking WHITE HOUSE with a knife.

Can you say... security risk?

[eridani]

1. If the Repubs would just quit blibbering on about Benghazi--

--maybe it would be possible to have a rational discussion about the security issue.

[padfun]

2. You cant prove a negative

You also cant prove that ANY server anywhere hasn't been hacked.

So security wise, are you saying that government servers are the safest? Ask Wikileaks about that.

[LakeVermilion]

3. After dealing with the right wing for more than 20 years,

I would suspect that the Clinton's should have seen this coming. I can't imagine that everything that they do must contain a thought about how the right wing will react.

I lean to Sanders as a candidate, but I still can't believe that Hillary would conduct herself in a way that would give her critic's any chance to criticize.

[Fuddnik]

6. She should have known better, and probably did.

I remember the minor outrage, when it was discovered that Karl Rove, and the rest of the White House staff were using their personal computers and e-mails for government business, to escape scrutiny.

The outrage then was minor, and quickly swept under the rug. But, it was widely known, and should have been a warning for anyone else.

Maybe she's just practicing to have the second most transparent presidency in history.

[Divernan]

8. This issue is about being tech savy;right wing concerns are policy/personality centered

I can empathize if she wasn't up to speed on the most current security risks with emails and servers, i.e., just didn't realize the risks involved - my problem is with her unilaterally and arbitrarily conducting her own subjective screening, deciding what to delete and what to turn over to be reviewed. And what were the qualifications of whomever she had actually do the screening and decide what to delete and what to turn over? It wasn't a State Department employee. So who was it?

Meanwhile, as quoted and cited below, "The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over, raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from the private account she used exclusively while in office."

I've been involved in commercial legal cases with over a dozen plaintiffs and defendants pointing fingers at each other. A massive document dump, in response to a discovery demand, such as HRC's release of 50,000 pages is a classic strategy - someone caught with one or more smoking gun documents buries it/them in tens of thousands of documents hoping the needle will never be found in the haystack. The theory is that the massive costs of and time required to plow through all these documents will push the parties to a settlement less expensive than a possible trial verdict. But it's far more risky, arrogant and just plain stupid to actually delete documents/emails, because there's always the chance that the other parties involved may release their copies. I've never seen a party caught doing this in a legal case.
But in fact that is just what's happened in this situation. Because now the State Dept. has identified 15 official State Dept. emails which are "missing" from HRC's document dump. HRC's response could be, well I was dealing with screening thousands of documents, and I missed a few. Of course, she didn't screen these herself, so the mistakes can be blamed on an employee.

It's not the initial decision to use her own private email account, it's the perceived cover-up. It was an attempted cover-up by Bill Clinton which resulted in his impeachment. "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

A federal judge has ordered the state department to make monthly partial releases of HRC's emails, and these releases will be continuing throughout the campaign, so this concern will be constantly in the news.

Last month, a federal judge ordered the State Department to release batches of Clinton's emails every 30 days through Jan 29, 2016 — just days before the Iowa caucuses; Tuesday's 1,925 emails totaling more than 3,000 pages were the inaugural release.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/01/419162524/13-emails-that-stood-out-from-the-latest-clinton-document-dump

(Headline) State Department Gets Libya Emails That Hillary Clinton Didn't Hand Over

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
June 25, 2015

WASHINGTON — The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over, raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from the private account she used exclusively while in office.

The disclosure appeared to open the door for Republicans on Capitol Hill to get more deeply involved in the issue. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is running for president, said he planned to send a series of questions to the State Department about the missing emails and about why it allowed her to use the personal account.

Republicans said that the State Department’s statement was likely to increase pressure on the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, to subpoena the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home that housed the account.

Mrs. Clinton has said that she gave the State Department about 50,000 pages of emails that she deemed to be related to her work as secretary of state and deleted roughly the same number. She said the messages she deleted were personal, relating to topics like yoga, family vacations and her mother’s funeral.

Her longtime confidant and adviser Sidney Blumenthal, responding two weeks ago to a subpoena from the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, gave it dozens of emails he had exchanged with Mrs. Clinton when she was in office. Mr. Blumenthal did not work at the State Department at the time, but he routinely provided her with intelligence memos about Libya, some with dubious information, which Mrs. Clinton circulated to her deputies.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/state-dept-gets-libya-emails-that-clinton-didnt-hand-over.html?referrer=&_r=1

[appal_jack]

19. Excellent points, Divernan. k&r, nt.

[karynnj]

88. You make so many excellent points and thanks for your discussion of your own experience

It seems to me that the Republicans can and will go primarily after 3 points:

1) That classified information was routinely mishandled.

2) Hillary Clinton, just as the 1990s, is obsessively secretive going to lengths far beyond the norm to keep things secret.

3) She is likely covering up something and set things up from day one to do that. Here, the fact that 15 out of about 100 Blumenthal emails were not included and she had the machine wiped really leaves her open to attack.

I think many commenting on the Clintons having learned to deal with the RW are actually not looking at what they do closely. As you note in the bold, Clinton was impeached for what was really a cover up. Hillary could have easily learned from that and simply been as honest and transparent as possible. The argument that she did not want to deal with two devices is silly and it is incredibly unlikely to be the reason.

I suspect that just as in the 1990s when, per the now famous Sid Blumenthal's Clinton era book, she was the one who was against just putting out every detail they had on Whitewater and killing the issue. (He writes of her being extremely angry after several Democrats, including Moynihan, Kerry and Bradley - some former prosecutors recommending that.)

What I don't get is why the Clintons never saw the possibility of having this arrangement actually made them more vulnerable - not less.

[Divernan]

96. The Clintons' voluminous baggage goes back decades & it's documented.

Interesting that the Republicans pushing on the email investigation and missing emails have not, as far as I've seen, mentioned the similarity to the missing Whitewater documents. That was some 20 years ago, so younger posters probably never heard of this, but I have no doubt that GOP oppo research team is drooling to throw this at HRC should she win the primary.

Republicans on the special Senate Whitewater committee released a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation today showing that the fingerprints of the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were found on records discovered in the White House family quarters two years after they were first sought by investigators.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/05/us/hillary-clinton-s-fingerprints-among-those-found-on-papers.html
Those Whitewater documents had been subpoenaed from HRC and for 2 years she stoutly claimed she had absolutely no idea where they were. Then they were found on a table in the first family's private quarters - just outside the door to HRC's office. And she again disavowed any knowledge of how they got there.

It was so painful and ugly, for me as a Democrat who had worked for Bill's election and even been a guest at his first inauguration, to go through all the years of investigations and embarrassing results thereof. If she's the Dem. nominee, we will all have to go through months and months of rehashing this yet again. Horrifying to contemplate. If the Clintons had come clean and cooperated with the Whitewater investigations, as your post mentions they were recommended to do, Ken Starr would never have gotten around to Monica Lewinsky.

In January 1998, Starr suddenly requested and received permission to expand his investigation again. The new area of inquiry: whether Clinton and his close friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about whether she had an affair with the president. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm

Ted Koppel did a masterful Nightline report on the whole incident. Here's a link to the transcript of Ted Koppel's coverage of this nightmare. HRC is caught in mis-statement after mis-statement after mis-statement and keeps trying to spin and twist her way out of it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html
The Whitewater Lost And Found Records
January 30, 1996
Correspondent: Chris Bury
Anchor: Ted Koppel

Announcer: January 30th, 1996.

TED KOPPEL (VO): The accusation? Obstruction of justice, knowingly withholding subpoenaed documents. The location? A book room on the third floor of the White House, a room in the first family's private quarters. One clue? A White House log handed over today with the names of all the people who might have had access - from Mrs Clinton's chief of staff, to Chelsea Clinton's friends, to dignitaries visiting the President. Tonight, the mystery of the lost and found records.

ANNOUNCER: This is ABC News Nightline. Reporting from Washington, Ted Koppel.

TED KOPPEL: Almost exactly two years ago, a subpoena was issued for some billing records from the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. These are records that go back about 10 years or so and that would, it was believed, shed some light on how much work attorney Hillary Clinton did on a particular real estate deal, and for whom she did that work. For the better part of these last two years, those records could not be found. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, they turned up earlier this month in the office of a woman named Carolyn Huber. What turned that into a major story is that Ms Huber works at the White House, and that she says she found the billing records in the private quarters of the first family - found them, in fact, last August, right outside Mrs Clinton's private office - didn't know what they were, packed them up, didn't realize what they were until a couple of weeks ago, when she was tidying up her own office. If someone has been deliberately concealing those records, that would be a federal crime. The White House says that a surprisingly large number of people actually had access to the Clintons' private quarters last August We'll tell you more about that later, but we want to use most of our time this evening to put this latest development into context. We begin by taking something both the President and the first lady have said recently.

CHRIS BURY, ABC NEWS (VO): The President and Mrs Clinton complain that the questions keep changing, but the controversies over Whitewater and the Travel Office have stayed alive, in large part, because the answers keep changing, too.

CHRIS BURY (VO): On January 15th, Mrs Clinton told a radio interviewer all documents had been released. Five days later, the White House issued a statement to The New York Times saying that wasn't quite true. On Castle Grande, Hillary Clinton's legal work for a land deal regulators describe as fraudulent: in May 1995 she told the Resolution Trust Corporation, quote, 'I don't believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.' But after billing records showed Hillary Clinton had at least 14 conversations with Seth Ward, the major player in the deal, Mrs Clinton told Barbara Walters she knew the project by another name.

HILLARY CLINTON: ('20/20,' January 19, 1996) And so when I was asked about it last year, I didn't recognize it, I didn't remember it. The billing records show I did not do work for Castle Grande. I did work for something called IDC, which was not related to Castle Grande.

CHRIS BURY (VO): That is not how Susan McDougal, the Clintons' former business partner, remembers it.
SUSAN MCDOUGAL: It was always the same thing. As far as I know, IDC and- and- and Castle Grande were one and the same.

[tularetom]

101. The arrogance is strong in that one

As is the paranoia.

[Divernan]

105. She has hubris to spare.

In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance. Hubris is often associated with a lack of humility, though not always with the lack of knowledge. Those accused of hubris often come from higher social backgrounds, such as politicians or wealthy celebrities, than the accuser, who accuses them of having marginal experience with the realities of the topics they are addressing. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in Greek mythology.

The proverb "pride goeth (goes) before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" (from the biblical Book of Proverbs, 16:18) is thought to sum up the modern use of hubris. It is also referred to as "pride that blinds", as it often causes one accused of hubris to act in foolish ways that belie common sense.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

[SunSeeker]

4. Clinton's server was less of a security risk than the State Department's.

Ask Wikileaks.

[alc]

22. and destroying it was less of a risk than

letting the state department have it. She (or her lawyers) knew that the Congress wanted emails. And they decided that it was safer to self-select "relevant emails" and destroy the server than to let someone else (e.g. the State Department) determine which emails were relevant (e.g. official rather than personal).

Now they can no longer prove that there were no Benghazi emails (or other scandals). That's extremely poor judgement at best and hiding some evidence at worst. I think judges can allow the jury to assume the worst when evidence is intentionally destroyed with knowledge it shouldn't be (as happened here even though it's Congress rather than a court asking). And voters certainly are allowed to assume the worst.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Well, you go on and assume the worst, ain't nobody stopping you.

I am content to let the voters hash it out.

[JoePhilly]

30. What do you think was in the Benghazi emails you refer to?

I mean, what's the theory ... did Hillary allow Chris Stevens to be killed because he was about to go public with evidence that Hillary had Vince Foster killed back in the 90s?

This the kind of thing we suspect as we assume the worst?

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. I'm trying to wrap my mind around your use of Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens, and Vince Foster.

Unfortunately, my mind isn't quite big enough. I'm guessing you are of the opinion that misdirection is the best next step when shaming doesn't work and won't keep people from expressing their opinions. It sure seems that way.

No one gives a fuck about Benghazi. We all know no laws were broken in regards to Benghazi. Absent the murders of an American Ambassador and those tasked with keeping him safe, the worst thing about Benghazi is the way Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration made absolute fools of themselves in front of the whole fucking WORLD trying to tap dance on the head of a pin in their attempt to distance themselves from it. One last thing about Benghazi... the fact Hillary Clinton claimed not to have seen urgent messages from Christopher Stevens about the situation in Benghazi (have I mentioned Benghazi enough times for you yet?) says TONS about the way she ran the State Department while she headed it.

30,000 emails deleted. Do you believe they were all about "planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements. Condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations: the other things you typically find in inboxes" as Hillary claims? Should anyone involved in the deletion of emails concerning yoga positions have been required to security clearances?

Benghazi Schmenghazi. This isn't about Benghazi. Your use of Benghazi in a vain attempt to obfuscate and misdirect is insulting. This is about the shoddy, careless, devil-may-care attitude Hillary Clinton had while occupying a seat at the highest levels of government. The fucking Secretary of State doesn't see the importance in reading urgent messages from an Ambassador? That is not the attitude I want in my President.

And by golly, I'm not the only person who thinks she put the entire country at risk by using a private server... imagine that. http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042

Hillary's Credibility went THATAWAY a long time ago.

[JoePhilly]

71. Do you read the things you post?

I'll explain that question in a second ... but before that ... look ... if you have some evidence that she did something wrong, post that evidence. She put our national security at risk, prove it.

And I have to laugh at this phrase ... "shoddy, careless, devil-may-care attitude" ... wow ... you should have put that in ALL CAPS for added drama.

Oh, and then you say ... "The fucking Secretary of State doesn't see the importance in reading urgent messages from an Ambassador?"

Um ... that's a Benghazi reference you've got there ... is it not?? ... right at the bottom of your "This isn't about Benghazi" paragraph.

So from your response, this is not about Benghazi, but it is about emails Hillary did not read about Benghazi.

Got it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. It's about not reading urgent messages from an Ambassador, no matter where he's stationed.

[JoePhilly]

90. So it is about Benghazi.

And do you actually think that the way ambassadors contact the state department about urgent or violent attacks is via email?

Do you think ambassadors expect the SecState to be sitting there waiting for emails??

You don't think ambassadors have more direct communications channels?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Your interlocutor did indeed play the Ben Gazi card...

Maybe an intervention is in order lest they start shooting melons in their backyards in a vain attempt to re-create the suicide of Vince Foster.

[JoePhilly]

92. I found it rather amusing ...

... they declare it's not about Benghazi, and then immediately refer to Benghazi as a key part of their concern.

Which leads back to my post way down the thread suggesting that Stevens had to be killed because he knew Hillary killed Vince Foster, and the emails might prove it. But Hillary deleted them so now we will never know.

Might as well go "All in".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. It is sad how invested they are in this story in the service of a candidate who will never

It is sad how invested they are in this story in the service of a candidate who will never be our party's nominee and in the highly , highly, ...highly unlikely event Hillary Clinton imploded, Joe Biden would inherit her donor base, her endorsements, and her unalterable hold on minority and down scale voters.

[JoePhilly]

94. Well ...

... I have no issue with their support of Bernie.

My issue is that they are not politically astute enough to figure out that they can't get Hillary supporters to switch to Bernie with this nonsense.

They tend to be the same folks who wanted a primary of Obama in 2012.

Our founders designed a slow moving government.

And these folks have the attention span of a fruit fly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. I was taught in Civics one of the roles of president is head of his or her party...

In the highly, highly...highly unlikely event Hillary stumbled, President Obama would put his considerably heavy thumb on the scale for his vice president who is the only candidate beside Hillary Clinton, who imho, can keep the coalition he rode to victory in 2008 and 2012 to victory.

[SunSeeker]

46. BENGHAZI!!!#!1!1

[OKNancy]

5. Don't you think that if it were hacked someone would be bragging about it?

That seems to be the logical answer.

[Fuddnik]

7. Yeah, those Chinese and Russians. Always gloating

[Divernan]

10. Nope. They'd save it for the general election campaign.

One smoking gun/blockbuster document is all it would take to blow her candidacy out of the water. That wouldn't do the GOP any good if Bernie is the primary winner. Timing is everything.

[OKNancy]

13. Bernie will not be the nominee, so you better hope

no one got to it. I'm sure that the IT people who handle that server know if it was hacked.
It probably wasn't so your hope for the downfall of Hillary that way is not going to happen.

[restorefreedom]

42. if i were you i would hope hillary is not the nominee

because she won't win the general. People will not trust her in this kind of stuff doesn't help.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. If you were in possession of all the information on her server, would you brag about it now...

or wait until she was in a powerful position?

[BooScout]

9. Prove it was.

[randome]

11. Stop running down Democratic candidates with bogus claims of 'Prove it!'

You only advertise your discontent.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Hi

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251472829#post64

[randome]

16. I guess everyone forgot that my father is gay.

Yes, I saw that, and I emailed an apology to the OP, to whom my comment was NOT directed but at his detractors.

If I'm expected to remember every DUer's sexual preferences, then you should be expected to remember that my father is gay.

But I can see that my post wasn't clear enough. So...live and learn, right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. The challenge is when you call a man , heterosexual or homosexual

The challenge is when you call a man , heterosexual or homosexual, a sissy. a f----t. or q---r it implies there is something wrong inherently with being gay. The same phenomenon occurs when you call a man a b---h which happens quite frequently in some environments.


Now that I made my point I will delete all references to this topic if you like.

[Laser102]

25. Please don't delete the references. Sometimes people need to be reminded. Thank You.

[randome]

28. I disagree with that interpretation but I won't make the same mistake again.

dsc and I have a better understanding of one another. I will point out, however, that a wildly successful TV show (The Big Bang Theory, in case anyone didn't get the original reference) also disagrees with that interpretation. And Jim Parsons is gay.

But, as I've said, live and learn.

And you don't need to delete anything. I stand and fall by what I say, for good or ill.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[DanTex]

12. It is kind of funny, Ed Snowden fans suddenly so worried about data leaks....

Not only is there nothing to suggest it was hacked, but the information on the server wasn't classified.

The other, the fact that large organizations like Sony or the US Government routinely suffer from hacks and leaks, if anything, indicates that a private server is more secure than a large organization's system, because there are far fewer points of entry.

[TwilightGardener]

35. No, in fact the IG's have found classified info in her emails--they were stored in her

server and she only recently turned them over to State, and State can't release them as-is. That's the basis of the referral to the DOJ. The emails and info weren't marked as secret or classified, but the info would have been classified just the same. So she received--and held for years--classified info thru an unsecured network at home, from what it appears.

[Sancho]

47. Some may have been "classified" years after it was sent...

but the proof is in the pudding. We know the government accounts have been hacked. We've never seen a Clinton hack surface.

Maybe the government should do what Hillary was doing. At any rate, I believe her server was encrypted (according to some old reports), and no one actually knows if it was "unsecured at home". It was Bill Clinton's server and Hillary was using it.

[TwilightGardener]

48. The IG said specifically that the info contained within four of forty emails

"was classified then and classified now". So she (or most likely her staff, who would take the blame) received or sent classified info on her private system. That also raises the question of how many more of the thousands of her emails contain secret or top secret info, according to the WSJ article. Whether or not you believe her personal server was hacked, or encrypted, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that her home system was not legally allowed to transmit or hold classified information. That info is supposed to be transmitted in designated ways. It will be interesting to see where this goes--probably nowhere, the DOJ will probably decline to investigate, because they and FBI BARELY punished Petraeus for knowingly mishandling classified info, keeping it at home, etc. His problem was lying to the FBI. In Clinton's case, they'll decide that because the info wasn't clearly marked as classified, then she or her staff didn't know it was classified. Ignorance is no excuse, but sometimes it's the best defense.

[Sancho]

50. You are simply wrong on the law....and the WSJ has already backed off their article.

Hillary, Colin Powell, Condi Rice all used private email. It was perfectly legal. Powell has NEVER turned over a single email.

Her only obligation was to keep copies for the record. She did that...

That was actually hardly necessary since anything sent to or from a .gov address was captured anyway.

The whole email thing is a straw man. Do you expect public officials to record and keep every email, text, document, video recording, audio recording, tweet, internet post, internet search history, etc. It's crazy. Email is a drop in the bucket.

Public officials have a limited obligation to be transparent, but they can't do the job if every item is public. No one has ever accused Hillary of violating any rules of secrecy. To the contrary, they've reviewed her over and over and cleared everything.

This is a GOP created conspiracy theory based on the gullibility of people who already "hate Hillary" or haven't worked in a public office.

[TwilightGardener]

53. The issue I'm discussing is specifically the handling of classified information.

The propriety of setting up your own private email server/using private email for SoS business, is a larger and different discussion.

[Sancho]

56. But email wasn't used to for classified information, so there's no problem....

No one sent classified information over email. There was a different system for anything classified. That was true no matter what server or account sent it.

The only way any "information" was classified and sent over email was a mistake or inadvertent - like a classification after it was sent or some file accidentally attached. Lots of government offices use contracted or "private" email services, and a few people who want MORE security and can afford it have their own servers. If a mistake was made, it didn't matter what email account it was sent on...the .gov servers are no more secure than any other system. That's obvious since they have been hacked repeatedly.

Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, and lots of others set up private servers...and really, there are likely a bunch of private servers out there that people simply don't know exist...in fact, Hillary was using a Blackberry at the time, so everything went though the BB phone system to even get to her server and then to and from the .gov system. Communications could be hacked at any point, so that's why classified stuff doesn't go by email or smartphone. All smartphones go through a commercial system. Unless you have your own private satellite and sat phone - that's the way it goes. Your text and email are not .GOV anyway if you use a phone.

The staff is supposed to review items to prevent classification mistakes, but maybe a few things slipped by, like a name was used or a travel plan disclosed.

The only obligation of employees is to keep a record of communications and certain activities (email, letters, phone logs, travel schedules, etc.). That is done as self-reporting. If Hillary gets an email from another world leader that they are coming to the Christmas party - then Hillary has to decide if that is "work" or "personal". That's the way most jobs work.

[TwilightGardener]

58. We're just talking past each other. Yes, it matters that classified information

is sent to the wrong place, or from the wrong place, or held for years in the wrong place, either purposefully or by mistake. There are millions of Americans who wouldn't be allowed to make that "mistake" and keep their jobs. And some are charged as criminals.

[Sancho]

69. Then we'll just have to disagree....

if you "fired" or prosecuted everyone in government who mistakenly sent an email or lost track of a document, you wouldn't have a single person left.

Especially if you have a large department with thousands of routine emails everyday. If you leak the top secret plans for a nuclear submarine to the Russians - that will get you prosecuted. That's not what we're talking about here. When you read the next 4000 emails (you can see a bunch of them now), you'll see what you are so upset about is nothing.

If you are correct, every newspaper in the country would print the names of government employees who are arrested or fired everyday. I don't see any names!!

Your statement is simply wrong: "There are millions of Americans who wouldn't be allowed to make that "mistake" and keep their jobs. And some are charged as criminals."

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/234487-hillarys-emails-not-technically-illegal

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/nationaljournal/HRC-emails/HRC_june_combined.pdf

Note that there is no illegal email, and each email on the top says "Unclassified".

[TwilightGardener]

70. There are penalties for mishandling classified material, even if it's by

mistake. For example, you can lose your security clearance, right off the top of my head--that would make it pretty hard to do one's job. Have a good day.

[Sancho]

72. watch the video...then post your apology...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017281408

[TwilightGardener]

73. ?? Not watching the video, what is it about?

[Sancho]

74. It's the complete explanation of the NYT story with the original documents in hand.

concludes that Hillary handled documents properly, the NYT created a false story, and the only issue is censorship of documents from the archive that NOW in hindsight might be classified.

The explanation is quite clear. The speaker is holding and reading the original OGC memo about Hillary's emails.

She is not implicated in any way.

He also explains why it doesn't matter if she had email on her desk at home or whatever. Work materials have to be archived and are subject to FOIA, but can be redacted or censored.

It's simple.

[TwilightGardener]

75. Does it deal with the Wall Street Journal's reporting that an Inspector

General found that four of forty emails contained information that was already classified at the time it was transmitted to or from her server? Because that's the only issue I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the NYT Schmidt story/corrections. I'm not talking about the larger issue of her having her crap archived and accessible to FOIA's, etc. (And I don't apologize for discussing on a discussion board in any event, unless I've personally hurt someone or caused some other trouble.)

[Sancho]

77. Yes...but it doesn't matter to Hillary....

All that the original memo from the Office of General Council says is that they don't agree with the State Dept. using retired SoS employees to decide what is now (not years ago) "classified" for the purpose of public release under FOIA.

In other words, even routine "unclassified" material (not secret or sensitive) that they've had for years is now for the first time to be released to the public. They are in an argument over how to review it before it's released. They may want to "classify" some of it. The OGC thinks some stuff is "classified" that the SoS doesn't have on it's list.

The SoS people might redact some names or dates or locations, and the CIA or FBI might want more or different stuff withheld or redacted. Who's in charge and what how to "classify" is the argument? Most of what they are debating is pretty mundane, but has nothing to do with Hillary.

The NYT falsely implicated Hillary as a hit piece, and that is explained in the video while reading the actual memo that the NYT story is based on...

[TwilightGardener]

80. I think we're talking about different news stories:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PY0DH20150724

[Sancho]

81. Different version of the same story...

It's a misrepresentation of the letter from the two OGC officers. They DO NOT say Hillary did anything wrong.

They are talking about the State Dept. had something unclassified, but a different agency thinks part of it should be classified FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC.

They are having this discussion because of the court requiring them to release the emails.

The actually letter discussed in your link is shown, read, and discussed in the video.

[TwilightGardener]

82. Classified info was on her server.

That is the conclusion that the IG's drew, it's stated pretty clearly. I haven't seen that denied anywhere.

[SunSeeker]

54. The IG said none of those 40 emails were MARKED classified at the time.

But years later, in preparing to turn over those emails, the State Department realized they should have been marked classified at the time, but were not. In other words, this is a State Department staff error. The IG's investigation was prompted by the accidental disclosure of one such unmarked email by the State Department recently, in the rush to disclose these emails. This is not like the Patraeus case.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/index.html

[jeff47]

55. Doesn't matter if they were marked.

The information is what is classified, not the document.

Let's say I'm on the Manhattan project. And I send a letter saying there will be a light show on July 16, 1945 (the date of the Trinity nuclear test).

That is leaking classified information. Whether or not I mark the letter as classified.

[SunSeeker]

60. Bad analogy. Everything at the Manhattan project was classified or secret. Not so with State. nt

[jeff47]

64. And there are plenty of things at state that are classified.

For example, every cable that Manning leaked is still classified. If Sid Blumenthal sent Clinton an email and mentioned something Manning leaked, that's a security breach. Clinton was required to treat the information as classified, even though it was basically public. And she stored the information on an unclassified, personal server because that's where all her email went.

It's not something that can be prosecuted, because it's a violation of regulations not laws. But getting into the gory details about the regulations on classified information is not good in a political campaign.

[TwilightGardener]

57. They determined that she should not have had that info on her server--marked or not.

The question is, who put it there, and did she or they (staff?) know that it was classified information when they transmitted it? Did they knowingly communicate dates, names, plans, etc. and it never occurred to them that this was being handled on a system outside of the classified government networks? If they knew, then it is more like Petraeus--knowingly mishandling and distributing information that was considered classified. If they didn't know (and I find this hard to believe, frankly), then...are they going with the "we're clueless and stupid" defense?

[SunSeeker]

63. They did not "determine" that Hillary did any wrong. nt

[TwilightGardener]

68. I read it as, "This shit was improperly handled and

now it's up to the DOJ to decide how to proceed." It didn't say who did it, or why. I didn't read any exonerations, or any accusations of guilt, for that matter. Just findings from a sample of emails that she FINALLY gave to the State Dept.

[SunSeeker]

98. The inquiry is not sought into Hillary Clinton's use of email.

It is sought into the State Department's prior failure to mark email as classified and releasing that unmarked classified email in response to the FOIA requests and Trey Gowdy subpoenas for Hillary Clinton's email.

The request for the Justice Department investigation came after a June 29 memo from the State Department's inspector general stating a review of 55,000 pages of Clinton e-mails found "hundreds of potentially classified emails within the collection."

A follow-up memo from both the State Department and intelligence community inspectors general to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy on July 17 said they had received confirmation that "several of the emails contained classified (Intelligence Community) information, though they were not marked as classified. At least one of the emails has been released to the public" by the State Department. Officials were additionally concerned that possible classified material would be posted in future releases of Clinton's emails.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/index.html

[LordGlenconner]

85. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Hillary

[sufrommich]

14. I'll leave the spreading of right wing fake scandals where they

belong,on right wing forums.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. 10

[SidDithers]

21. Benghazi!...nt

Sid

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Wrong topic. Maybe you're thinking of a different thread.

Or maybe, just maybe, you don't want to address the topic in this thread and felt a need to divert peoples' attention elsewhere.

<---Squirrel!

[Zorra]

40. We really need to do something about the <---!!!squirrel!!!---> infestation of DU.

The cute little varmints seem to be diverting many poster's attention away from important issues that could lose us the General Election.

[JoePhilly]

29. This thread is about gyrocopters, not Benghazi.

[SidDithers]

84. Not interested...nt

Sid

[wyldwolf]

26. It isn't up to us to show evidence it wasn't hacked. It's up to YOU to show evidence it was.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) in the United States is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

A concept 'progressives' (and conservatives) find difficult.

[JoePhilly]

27. She needed her own server to hide the emails which prove she ...

... had Chris Stevens killed because he had evidence that she killed Vince Foster.

Its all so obvious.

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. it is only an issue to republicans and apparently Bernie supporters.

But, listen to the hype. Listen to the constant attacks on Clinton in an effort by both some dems and all republicans to get Bernie in the general. Keep posting the..what 150th post on this BullShi*t in an attempt to make something out of nothing.

And now the new meme: she should have known they were going to attack her on this. What a load of complete crap. She should live her life based on what the republicans might someday twist and use as an attack? NEWSFLASH: anything she does is twisted and used against her. Oh brother. I need more coffee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Are you suggesting supporters of a certain candidate...

Are you suggesting supporters of a certain Democratic candidate believe they can ride Ben Gazi to the White House?

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. I think Ben Gazzara died a few years ago. What does he have to do with servers and emails?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Nothing, just like servers and e-mails will ultimately have to do ...

Nothing, just like servers and e-mails will ultimately have nothing to do with Madame Secretary's electoral prospects.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Death from a thousand cuts...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. A thousand wishes have no more chance of becoming true than one.

eom

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Confucius? Or just confused?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Clarity is my raison d'etre.

eom

[randome]

33. We ARE laughing, cherokeeprogressive. We are.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dr Hobbitstein]

43. .

[Sancho]

45. The proof you seek is illogical....

First, we know that virtually all the government emails were sent either to a .gov address or from a .gov address. We know that the government accounts have been hacked and compromised. Even if a "Hillary" email surfaced, it could just as easily come from a government hack.

Second, I read reports a couple years ago (I've lost the links) that McAffee and Google backed up the server, and some email was encrypted. Chances are that there's a back up copy. The server was actually Bill Clinton's. There may be no way to legally compel the backup to be released, and even then there are cases where "you can have a copy, but not the encryption key". Who knows what's going on under the table over this, but the State Dept. doesn't really seem interested. Regardless, the system had encryption software capability, so only someone on the other end who had been given a key would be able to read it. We don't really know if encryption was used or how often, but it doesn't matter since the State Dept. asked for and got printed copies.

Third, there was a different system (besides email) to send secret and sensitive communications. That's been acknowledged but the government won't describe how that worked (because it's secret!). Email content was usually reviewed by staff, and items marked as secure or secret. I'm sure that sometimes things slipped by in the 50,000 emails (several hundred a day), but anything important was never on email if it was secret. Anyone in a public position has to assume that email is eventually going to be hacked or public unless it's encrypted, and even then government agencies (Russia, China, etc.) will try to break the encryption. In other words, only routine stuff ever goes on email, so the security risk was minimal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Hillary Clinton's Private Server... Laugh it off.

"Hillary Clinton's Private Server... Laugh it off..."

If you insist, sir:

[Thinkingabout]

52. A person charged with a crime has to be proven guilty, the person doesn't have to prove their

innocent. Prove her server was hacked, we know .gov has been hacked. Deliver your links of proof, not those "thinking" her server has been hacked. This is sounding like Rovian work, Swift Boaters, Rush and Sean works. Prove your point.

[jeff47]

59. And if this was a trial, that would be relevant. But this is a political campaign.

So far, this particular case appears to be a case of terrible reporting.

But we should be concerned that there may be some sort of breach on that server. It's actually really easy to do.

Everything Manning leaked is still classified. Someone with a security clearance has to treat it all as classified, even though the information is basically public.

So someone without a clearance reads a story about something Manning leaked, and sends Clinton an email mentioning the classified information. That's a security breach. She had a clearance, and stored classified information in an unclassified environment.

While such a scenario can't be prosecuted, getting down into the gory details about the regulations surrounding classified information is not good in a campaign.

Btw, if you want to make trouble for any DUers who have security clearances, post leaked classified documents directly on DU without a warning. If you don't want to get them in trouble, link to the document instead.

[Thinkingabout]

61. The op contained "Prove it wasn't hacked. SHOW me evidence it wasn't hacked. Prove to me and the

REST of the electorate that it WASN'T HACKED." The proof does not have to be supplied by Hillary. This was my point.

[jeff47]

66. And my different point is that there is a massive minefield here beyond hacking. (nt)

[Thinkingabout]

67. CT

[jeff47]

99. Yes, much easier than addressing the point I made.

Clinton could have been extremely lucky and not had anyone email her anything that referred to any leaked classified document.

With tens of thousands of emails, you wanna blindly take that bet?

[Thinkingabout]

100. Evidence?

[LordGlenconner]

62. Your interest in this begins and ends with Hillary

Substitute any other name and you wouldn't give a rip.

And please, save the "I care about national security!1!1" pule. It's simply not believable.

[Arkana]

65. Prove it was.

You're making the accusation; it's on you to provide proof. Prove it was.

[HappyPlace]

76. It's not even about security, it's about judgement and common sense.

Someone with as much experience with CT witch hunt scandal fests as the Clintons HAD to have been able to anticipate that this was a potential problem, yet they went and did it.

Maybe nothing was hacked and no harm was done. How did they NOT know this was going to come back and bite them in the ass?

[Agschmid]

78. The real issue is that everything can be hacked...

For example the OPM, no computer, no government network, nothing is secure.

Even John Kerry's new email has most likely be hacked.

It doesn't really matter if hers was... Other government hacks are the real issue.

[BainsBane]

79. Sure, you care so much about security risks

That you all applaud Wikileaks for releasing great reams of State Dept documents. We know those were hacked. You know those documents were published on the web. Yet you claim to be upset that you don't have proof Clinton's private emails weren't hacked? Well, you could always check Wikileaks. For some reason, those private emails didn't make it into their document dump. Go figure.

The public does not share your "heartfelt" concern, but I'm sure you can get Darrell Issa on the case.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Who is "you all"?

[BainsBane]

89. Are you claiming you didn't support the Wikileaks release

of documents Manning procured?

[cherokeeprogressive]

97. Are you claiming I did?

[delrem]

102. Hacked/not-hacked is not the issue in my mind.

In my mind the issue is that it was PRIVATE, and what was given to the public was 100% redacted with no way of knowing the scope of the redactions.

It takes the "18.5 minutes of erased tapes" of the Nixon scandal to a new level.
Politicians of 2015 wouldn't suffer from Nixon's humiliation, they'd flat out refuse to reveal ANYTHING about what they're doing to the public. They'd sign off on NSA security laws that turn the population of the planet into lab rats, but for themselves? Here's a hint: everybody knows that the NSA has the complete record of Hillary Clinton's private server. But nobody mentions it.

[BKH70041]

103. I agree this is troublesome.

Don't think it hasn't been noticed by those of us who are big donors to the Party, because we have. The Clinton supporters at this site are not representative of the supporters as a whole. Most supporters realize her past is going to be an uphill battle and the likelihood of more skeletons emerging will remain a concern.

However, I would still put up her record and potential to win in the GE against any other Democratic candidate any day and twice on Sunday. If someone can come along (like an Obama) and beat her, then that's the way it goes. The only thing I can assure you, from the standpoint of the Party leadership, is that the "someone" will never in a million years be Bernie. He's way too far out of the mainstream for the Democratic Party.

Whoever may be reading: Bookmark this and you can read it again a year from now. I guarantee you that Sanders will never get the nomination. The national money from big donors for the GE run would dry up and go to Congressional races instead.

[MannyGoldstein]

104. On what issues is Bernie to the left of most Americans?

Average Americans, not DNC leadership - we know that DNC leadership is pretty far to the right of most Americans.

[philosslayer]

106. Yawn

Is this really the best the Republicans and Sanders supporters can come up with?