2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI Know I'll Catch Hell For Posting This, But... The HRC E-Mail Story Just Turned Real Serious...
And believe it or not... I am NOT happy about this, since she may end up being the nominee.
Plus... McClatchey is damned good at what they do, I actually trust them.
********************************************************************************
Data in Clinton’s ‘secret’ emails came from 5 intelligence agencies
Revelations put Clinton in crosshairs of broadening inquiry into whether she mishandled classified information
Officials reviewed five classified emails and determined they included information from five intelligence agencies
State Department officials warned there could be hundreds of classified emails
By Marisa Taylor, Greg Gordon and Anita Kumar - McClatchy Washington Bureau
7/30/15
<snip>
WASHINGTON — The classified emails stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies and included material related to the fatal 2012 Benghazi attacks, McClatchy has learned.
Of the five classified emails, the one known to be connected to Benghazi was among 296 emails made public in May by the State Department. Intelligence community officials have determined it was improperly released.
Revelations about the emails have put Clinton in the crosshairs of a broadening inquiry into whether she or her aides mishandled classified information when she used a private server set up at her New York home to conduct official State Department business.
While campaigning for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has repeatedly denied she ever sent or received classified information. Two inspectors general have indicated that five emails they have reviewed were not marked classified at the time they were stored on her private server but that the contents were in fact “secret.”
The email issue, however, has distracted from Clinton’s campaign for days and already has hurt her in public opinion polls. Besieged with questions, she has found herself caught in a murky dispute between State Department and intelligence officials over whether emails on her server were classified.
“Even if Secretary Clinton or her aides didn’t run afoul of any criminal provisions, the fact that classified information was identified within the emails is exactly why use of private emails . . . is not supposed to be allowed,” said Bradley Moss, a Washington attorney who specializes in national security matters. “Both she and her team made a serious management mistake that no one should ever repeat.”
<snip>
More: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article29519419.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vattel
(9,289 posts)In terms of substance, it still seems to me like a tempest in a teapot.
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)The GOP is as usual abusing its power to hurt Democrats.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)It is very serious.
I work in IT security and any public servant using their own email servers should be against the law. These people are doing our business and it should be transparent.
I don't care if she wants to use her personal email to trade recipes or send vacation pictures or funny memes, but when she's conducting our business, she needs to be using a secure, vetted and auditable email client.
elleng
(141,926 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)BTW, I like your candidate, too!
He's a great candidate (and very easy on the eyes! One of my best friends from high school lives in Maryland and sends me "cheesecake" photos of MO'M all the time. LOL!)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's no teeth (criminal penalty) to the Federal Records Act of 1948 that mandates that all public records must be turned over to the Archives and which forbids destruction of public records. However, it's still a crime to disobey the Act. Prosecution under this law would be a symbolic act.
There are, however, sharp teeth to revealing classified information. If the use of private servers led to such a release, then this would fall under a far more grim set of federal laws that control the unauthorized release of classified materials. That could lead to imprisonment and/or fines in the event of prosecution.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)I read a version of this story on AP over a year ago:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-email-server-traced-to-home-based-service-ap/
In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.
Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.
In other words, like every other person with a server there was a mirror drive. Likely it's encrypted. Also, the State Dept. really doesn't want it, or else doesn't think they have a legal right to a copy, or perhaps they actually have a copy.
Damn, everybody from HS students to your home tax records keeps a copy. I think I bought a hard drive to use for backups a decade ago? Now it's easy of course. I used encryption about the time Hillary was S0S.
What makes people think that the server being "destroyed" means anything? Bill and Hillary used that server for private email, and they have some way to save those wedding pictures and email offering a million donation to the Foundation.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)configured (incorrectly) by an attorney who had worked in the Clinton White House. It was highly insecure. Subsequently, the server was changed and moved to more secure private sector IP providers.
Shortly after the Chinese hack, the FBI intercepted the private email between CIA Director Petraeus and his paramour that was subsequently used as the pretext to fire him after he pushed back against the President's orders to restrict US support for the arms link between Libyan Jihadists and the Syrian opposition. Secretary Clinton was a strong proponent of that program. Not clear if there is any connection.
The fact remains that HRC seems to have intentionally set out to evade using the Gov't system for government business, and that decision may have led to unauthorized disclosure. It can be taken that she set up her own system to withhold information from the President, but I believe the President has full access to anything the NSA sweeps up, which would include Hillary's server, unless there was some possible agreement between POTUS and SOS that the Secretary's data over "her" server would be minimized.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)The server was set up (according to an old AP article) for Bill Clinton originally, and Hillary just used it. One of the staff names was used as a front (both in the WH and in their home) on some documents, but the actual person who "set up" and managed the system was never revealed. There's no real evidence it was "insecure". To the contrary, it was likely secure and encrypted for anything the Clinton's wanted secret. That's why even Blumenthal's emails only shows up IF he decides to give them up. Open items to .GOV were in the 55,000. PHP encryption (or whatever they were using) for personal emails would not be in the batch. Hillary chose to forward Blumenthal's emails on to State, so they became "business", but otherwise it would be a personal communication from a non-government employ to a personal email.
There was not intention to evade .GOV, except there certainly were GOP moles and newspaper plants all in lots of government offices. Everyone knew that email to and from .GOV would be captured, but the Clinton's didn't want leaks to the press or GOP - for example if someone wanted to send them a campaign note, they needed a way to keep it private - so a private server makes sense if you don't want a government employee to leak something personal. The government employee could not be stopped from leaking government business.
I also saw stories a long time ago - I can't find them now - that the system was backed up from day one. As I stated, it doesn't matter if Google or Mc Affee is the agent, the facts seem to be that the server contents were backed up (like almost any system would be). The WH and State Dept. probably have copies or knowledge, but they don't want to turn it over to the RW hacks in the CIA and FBI either. Obama has proven he hates leaks so he doesn't care to reveal anything, and is happy with what Hillary has done as the S0S.
So the Clintons and State Department simply say, "We have copies" and "the server is destroyed". Trey Goudy wants dirt on Obama, Hillary, or anyone else, so he gets his friends to write memo's implying that sensitive stuff is in the email and Goudy leaks it to the NYT. Goudy probably knows there's a backup somewhere, and is looking for a legal way to demand it be provided.
There no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton's server had a backup, and it was secure as they cared for it to be. They had lots of advice, resources, experts, and legal help.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I distinctly recall the details I mentioned about the identity of who set the system up and the finding that it was configured incorrectly creating a vulnerability. NSA is able to disencrypt all commercial encryption, and so presumably, can the the Chinese and the Russians and perhaps some other foreign states.
Also, a great number of what was originally declared "private" and withheld by Clinton on that basis was later determined to be official matters that should have been turned over to Congressional Committees. The Clinton lawyers then destroyed the remainder. We now find out that some of those emails on the destroyed server may have actually been official and that the method used to separate out the official communications -- a keyword search without human review -- was grossly inadequate.
The Department would only have the "official" email that was turned over by Hillary's lawyers or messages that were to or Cced to DOS staff. She did not systematically cc her email on her own server to the State system, as some do to comply with the law.
The only reliable backup in this case is the NSA, and as I said, they may have been ordered to minimize (NSA-speak for destroy) their intercepted copy.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But, despite conventional wisdom, there are ways to still audit some servers that most would deem as destroyed.
I do agree with you on the strength of the Federal Records Act, though. If it can't (or Congress won't) strengthen that act, then the storing and maintenance of electronic records needs to be specifically targeted through legislation. After the OMB and IRS hacks, you'd think the PTB would get serious about protecting electronic information.
Personally, I think our country is far more vulnerable from cyber terrorism than from physical terrorism and a cyber attack could shut down the entire government. Even after 911, our government continued to function. If the nation's governmental networks are destroyed, we're all up shit creek without a paddle.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)As for the main switching hubs and servers, we won't know how sophisticated our adversaries are until hostilities commence.
Everyone -privately-owned companies and government entities, alike - who handles any electronic personally identifiable information (PII) should be required to have a yearly audit. I don't just say that as someone whose company would benefit from that sort of legislation, either.
It's because I work for an IT security company that I'm intimately aware of how weak our information security is in this country and the federal government is close to the top of the "lousy" list.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)His candidacy has stagnated like a retention pond during a drought. If there was to be a beneficiary of this kerfuffle it would be Joe Biden.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)over the past three months, thanks in no small part to this continuing email controversy...
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)That's a whole point less than where she was December 2, 2012. At this point the Vermont Independent is poised to catch her sometime around Christmas, 2055.
ROTFLMFAO
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Even MSNBC would rather talk about Trump, which is unnerving.
But, what you need to watch is trends. Bernie's rising fast and, with the 3,500 organizational meetings that drew more than 100,000 volunteers this past Wednesday, he'll continue to rise. The energy is high and organized volunteers are powerful.
On edit: I posted results from a poll that matters. We don't elect presidents, nationally, we elect them state by state; therefore polling in Iowa and in New Hampshire, is more indicative of a candidate's popularity.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)if government email services were worth a goddam.
I was in DoD for 20 years, and our email was bloody awful. We sometimes had to resort to using private email because we couldn't access the email servers from remote sites. That sucked. Also, we weren't allowed to use compressed files and had a 5 MB attachment limit. That sucks when your doing data collection (unclassified) and need to send data from a remote site to folks back home. Setting up a remote, portable FTP server that meets government "standards" sucks, btw. Oh yeah, couldn't send PDF's either.
Your position sounds reasonable until the IT bubbas make it impossible to do your job. We used to joke: Our email is so secure, even WE can't use it.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And what's sad is that it's so easily fixed and the cost of a more robust and secure system is outweighed by the benefits.
But none of the GOP in Congress (many of whom still live in the 1800s and probably think "hacking" is a cough-related malady) will pass Obama's proposed IT security legislation.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)but Hillary Clinton was 100% in compliance with the laws THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME. And the emails that the intelligence inspectors are now saying "contained classified material" WERE NOT MARKED CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME. It's not the state department's job to classify material -- it's the CIA's -- and it's unrealistic to claim that she "should have known" that, years later, an intelligence inspector would label some of the material "classified".
She was not in violation of any laws that existed at the time, and the "classification" came later. You cannot apply retroactive rules and classification. You can only hold someone accountable for the rules and laws which were IN PLACE AT THE TIME. That's our system.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I said she is a public servant who should have used an auditable email server. That's just common sense. It's really just stupid to keep the peoples' business on a private server whether it's legal or not. In fact, I even said it should be against the law.
Remember what happened to Sarah Palin? Granted, she wasn't using a more secure server (she was using Yahoo! for Pete's sake), but all servers are hackable.
Anyone who handles sensitive information electronically should have their servers audited yearly - or quarterly if they can afford it. Many cyber savvy business owners and governmental leaders already do that even though it's not required (except in the case of health records, which are protected by HIPAA regulations and are audited yearly).
Do we know what lengths the Clintons took to protect their servers? If you have a link, I'll be happy to read it.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I don't personally have an issue with the fact that Hillary Clinton kept her Blackberry and private email when she took over as Secretary of State -- because as I said, it was perfectly legal at the time and was also in agreement with the behavior of both of her immediate predecessors. I have also heard credible accounts that the government email system at the time was problematic for a number of reasons.
I understand the purpose of security measures and why they are used in certain circumstances. And I understand the purpose of transparency in government.
The laws have changed since Hillary Clinton's departure. In the interest of governmental transparency, future Secretaries of State will be required by law to use official government email systems when conducting any and all public business.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Yet it is doing Hillary Clinton NO favors.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Just watch.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We've been watching.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)and there was no controversy about that.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)As was I.
Whether there is anything in Clinton's emails themselves, I don't know, but I don't like side-stepping official protocols, no matter which party is doing it.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)were just fine and dandy when it was someone representing Republicans doing the same thing.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
bigtree
(94,265 posts)...distracted from Clinton’s campaign?
...besieged with questions?
The substance of this article is even slipperier than the NYT's sophistry. Such deep concern! The focus on this here from the Sanders camp here doesn't inspire more than it puzzles. All of this concern for national security from contingents of folks who would otherwise be expected to express skepticism about our security state and government secrecy.
This is one more extension of the Benghazi canard and it's disgusting to see this offshoot used by Sanders supporters for their opposition to the Hillary campaign. Nice bedfellows...
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)If there was to be a beneficiary of this tumult it would be Joe Biden and not their candidate.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)of email communications, and of the importance of having Executive communications preserved and an audit trail available.
It shows poor judgement by Hillary in bypassing protocol. I understand that tribal identity requires Hillary supporters to circle the wagons around their candidate, but this is a real issue - and not necessarily just Hillary's issue, but also the Obama Administration's. The Administration should have been aware of this and disallowed it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)We will just have to let Democratic primary voters litigate this unless there is evidence she broke actual laws.
frylock
(34,825 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)That's how we roll in the 'home of the free and the land of the brave.'
frylock
(34,825 posts)I'm sure you'll be front and center blaming progressives for her loss.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You have been claiming it to be serious from the day it crossed sweet Gowdy's lips.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Doesn't matter. Any port in a storm.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Concern from March
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026321085
More concern from March
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026362001
ooops. More concern from March
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026314955
Some concern from July about specific emails
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251419835
Shit. Back to March again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026351850#post3
That's enough for now. No poster at this site has disseminated this story as much as you.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Ops in the dozens, replies in the hundreds. All in support of the Gowdy witch hunt by way of "concern".
I love that you state from the get go your martyr status.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Can We Have An Open Honest Discussion About Progressives, Civil Rights, And Income Inequality ???"
and
"Can We Have A Toughtful/Respectful Discussion Of Civil Rights Versus Income Inequality ???"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026430750
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026669120
"It has rarely been about anyone's civil rights." WillyT, March 2015
It is important to note that March, 2015 started with the DOJ report on Ferguson and that Indiana and Arkansas were passing those 'Religious Freedom' anti gay laws at the end of the month, when WillyT was preaching his 'it's never about anybody's rights' sermon over and over again.
Civil Rights under attack, that was the theme of the month for minority America. For WillyT the theme was civil rights, you don't need any. One does ponder the motive for such repeated sermonizing against civil rights advocacy in the face of discriminatory laws and Ferguson PD.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Your "concern" over this issue has a long history. I'm sure we'll hear more from you about your future "concerns" as well. That's fine. it's good to be concerned about things.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
BTW... I didn't write ANY of those articles... just posted them because I AM concerned.
Y'all just keep whistling past the graveyard...
Denial is such a fascinating thing. no ?
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I hope your concern doesn't keep you awake at night, though. Please post anytime you're concerned.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)
it was quite hilarious when you requested a link regarding your past posting of this, giving the innocent appearance of "what me? I wouldn't do such a thing", and sure enough there were quite a few links showing your concern at different times, so of course, the story changed to, "just goes to show I was on top of the story all along..."
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)Do you actually this kerfuffle will help your hapless candidate?
Do you actually think the African Americans who are rejecting your candidate by 14-1 margins and the Latinos who are rejecting your candidate by 24-1 margins will go to him if Hillary is not in the race and not Joe Biden?
Do you think Barack Obama, as the leader of the Democratic party and the most popular living Democrat, would just stand idly by and watch a candidate hostile to his legacy win the nomination if Hillary is not in the race and not Joe Biden?
Do you think the 115 Democratic senators, governors, and representatives who have endorsed Hillary Clinton would not transfer their support to Joe Biden if Hillary is not in the race?
This brouhaha will not help your hapless candidate...It's more likely it will hurt Hillary in the general election although there is a small possiblility it might entice Joe Biden to enter the race.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I see no denial.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And I say that as a Sanders supporter.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)but there won't be much traction to this due to republican conflagration over their conspiracy theories. But for a representative government, the email situation is an affront. But the problem won't be couched that way because both parties want unlimited rule and power. So the real threat will never be revealed to the people anyway making it a mute issue in the current elections.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)She has proven to be untrustworthy.
Her lack of ability to make sound judgments in critical matters disqualifies her as a being a sound choice as candidate for the office of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Imagine another "gosh darn, sorry, heh heh, it was a mistake"....
...and *whooooosh*...
...there goes Ukraine.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I Thank you for your post, sincerely!
You are not alone....
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)So, what do you think should be done to someone like Snowden who intentionally stole and released thousands of classified docs?
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Really. Different because "not Hillary."
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Guess I'll have to take this story seriously, after all.
BooScout
(10,410 posts)It's BENGHAZI!!!
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)Will use it as one more excuse as to why they won't vote for her. It's up to primary voters to decide whether they want to deal with this all the way through the election. It sure as shit isn't going to go anywhere though...whether people here choose to dismiss it or not.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Any email that would have been a security breach for Clinton to receive at her personal email, would ALSO be breach at her .gov address. Classified information is not generally transferable via email.
The onus is on the SENDER, because the receiver cannot know what is and is not classified, because the information sent is not labelled properly. The SoS is NOT going to comb through her email and determine if a sender sent her improper data.
Also, keep in mind that sometimes information is developed and sent BEFORE being formally classified. This is even the case when information is in a category that is automatically classified.
I was in DoD for 20 years, and this kind of stuff popped up once in a while.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
Buns_of_Fire
(19,161 posts)That any Super Duper Ultra National Security Eyes Only Eat After Reading Top Secret stuff would be better handled by putting it in the Diplomatic Pouch and eschewing e-mail altogether. Even dweebs like me know that NOTHING transmitted electronically is, or probably ever will be, 100% secure.
Thanks for the clarification.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)The story is not under our control
WillyT
(72,631 posts)From OP Article.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While campaigning for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has repeatedly denied she ever sent or received classified information. Two inspectors general have indicated that five emails they have reviewed were not marked classified at the time they were stored on her private server but that the contents were in fact “secret.”
840high
(17,196 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)BTW, are you aware of Bernie's rape-fantasy essay? That he said cervical cancer was caused by not having enough orgasms? Or that his honeymoon was in the communist Soviet Union?
Just giving the heads up. Do with it what you will.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We report.....You decide.
You do understand that phrase and what it means, don't you?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While campaigning for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has repeatedly denied she ever sent or received classified information. Two inspectors general have indicated that five emails they have reviewed were not marked classified at the time they were stored on her private server but that the contents were in fact “secret.”
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Maybe that will put some rest to this story but more likely will be more theatrics coming from the right.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Every time the people on the right go way overboard with respect to Clinton, she sits in front of them, makes them look like fools, and her favorability goes up.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)refuses to meet with them behind closed doors. She wants it open for all to see and hear
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)and under FOIA, it doesn't matter whether it's classified or not - not supposed to use non-gov email for gov business, period
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)I don't want to hear "not technically illegal". I want to hear how this reflects well on her and her staff. What POSITIVE things are we learning about her management skills and judgment from all of this? What about this ongoing episode indicates she'll be a transparent and capable President? She does seem very skilled at dodging and evading normal government processes and oversight, stringing out and stonewalling investigations and requests, I'll give you that. Maybe that passes for Presidential, for some people. And yeah, Obama let her run with all of this, he let her staff up the State Dept. with political aides and cronies, many of whom had no State or foreign policy experience, and probably knew she wasn't following policy. So he blew it too.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)appointees the proper way to do things. Why were they ignored?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)to other cabinet officials who were not allowed to choose many of their own staffers. This was notable at the time, that Clinton was allowed by the Obama administration to bring in all her own "Clinton" people--something like 50 or 60 of them. These were mostly loyal political operatives. (Exception was Sidney Blumenthal, who was excluded from being allowed at State but apparently provided her advice anyway.) I don't know what sort of interaction they had with the regular State Dept. staffers and agency policy experts. But it looks like they just ran things their own way, to protect her future Presidential run with a loyal inner circle, and this is the result.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The GOP will try to sink her with it, and some on the far left will cheer them on. The email server has nothing whatsoever to do with what policies she would champion as president. It's a political game.
There are meaningful things to criticize about candidates. Hillary's vote on the Iraq War. Bernie's vote for gun industry immunity. This is not in that category. It's like Bernie's rape-fantasy essay. It makes no substantive difference, beyond the fact that the GOP will try to make it a campaign issue in the GE.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)judgment, are very much relevant to what she would do as President. She mishandled classified info for years because of the very insistence on using a home server setup for emails--someone sent her info (and she also sent info) through that system that shouldn't have been there at all. The fact that it existed and things were sent to and fro and stored there with no one knowing about it for years, in defiance of FOIA requests and policy and Congressional inquiry and possibly laws...that was a bad decision.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)of her decision to use a private email server. There's no indication that it was hacked. It's arguably more secure than using the State Department's system, since a lot less people have access to it. It's not like government systems have shown themselves to be unhackable in the last few years.
And even if we accept that it was less secure, since when are lefties concerned about the security of government information? Must be a very recent development, because the Snowden and Manning leaks didn't seem to upset them much, and the information they leaked was far more sensitive, and it actually was classified.
I can't imagine anyone actually honestly caring about this. Things that matter are, for example, the minimum wage, global warming, etc. Nobody is seriously questioning her leadership or management capabilities. By all accounts, she was a good SoS.
I can understand Republicans hoping this will take HRC down. I mean, back during the W years, I was hoping that some scandal would take his administration down. But that's because W was doing things that were horrible for the country.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)while collecting the cabinet credential. She did nothing of consequence. Well, except for championing the removal of Qaddafi. And it's pathetic that supporters can't admit she made a terrible mistake in her decision to do this. Even SHE claimed it was something she should not have done. And it's a disqualifier. Maybe not to you, but to me, certainly. It smacks of evasiveness, dishonesty, poor judgment, maybe even just plain stupidity.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)Camp weather-vane has set up somewhere on the Nile.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)HRC will never lose sleep over this issue.
First of all, the use of the server was not, by itself illegal.
Second, the classified data transfer was initiated by someone else.
Third, there's no "There!" or "Ahaa!" moment for a low information voter to get excited about. Some nameless, faceless government official somewhere occasionally sent mostly unmarked classified info to an HRC server that shouldn't get classified info. The average voter's response will be a hearty, "So?"
Politicians behave so badly so often, this story will just seem like nitpicking to the most voters.
I really cannot understand why it keeps getting talked about.
Further, the reporters who keep chasing this story are running a fools errand. She's so paranoid about screwing up, she's afraid to tell voters what she thinks half the time. That is not the personality trait of someone who would knowingly be pushing national secrets around on unsecure servers.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Most people don't trust her (every poll that asks the question supports that statement). Obviously, you are in the minority. that is why you think this is nothing.
If she is the nominee, this will be one of the dozens of attacks against her. Given that most people don't trust her, it will be a problem. She will deny any wrong doing and everyone who doesn't trust her won't believe her.
She will constantly be on defense and never be on message.
It will be a very large problem for the campaign, if she is the nominee.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)The e-mail story does not generate the lack of trust, IMO.
The lack of trust comes from the overly managed way she is presented. There is a decided lack of access to her.
It also happens because she's too measured, calculated, even evasive at times to simple questions.
Sanders is getting a head of steam not because of some silly e-mail scandal, but because of how he comes across, no filter, take me as I am, power to the 99%. People trust you once you let them in to a point where they think they know you.
If she straightens out her campaign, all these non-stories will disappear in a heartbeat.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)nothing is going away as long as she is still in the running.
As for why she isn't trusted, you can't make up a story about dodging sniper fire, tell it multiple times. Not back off the story until indisputable video evidence is presented which proves it is all false. Then blame it all on a lack of sleep, while running an ad about a 3:00 am phone call, and still expect to be trusted. Completely fabricating a story is not "misspeaking".
Also...
The endless flip flops, evolution and simple refusal to voice an opinion on important issues. (I won't even go into the impassioned 19 minute speech advocating for the use of military force in Iraq)
There are very good reasons to not trust her. I will vote for her if she wins the nomination, but I still won't really trust her.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)My only point was it's not the email story that will corrode her candidacy.
I'll give you my own personal example from yeterday:
Who do you trust to fight for an increase in minimum wage?
Candidate A: The person that says they will fight for $15/ hour and has in fact introduced legislation to make $15/hr the federal minimum.
Candidate B: Says they will support $12/hr because that's all they think Congress will pass.
I trust A. They've introduced legislation and, even if they can't get the whole $15, their attitude ensures they will get the absolute max that can be squeezed out of Congress.
I do not trust B. Without even crossing the start line, their support on the issue seems luke warm, and is entirely dependent on what Congress will do (nothing, lol).
She's either afraid or surrounding herself with the wrong campaign people. She may have some real problems with this trust issue if she makes no changes. The sad thing is, she seems to be a very smart, strong, woman. She could make an excellent candidate.
askew
(1,464 posts)They are releasing the next big batch of emails tomorrow night and the WH and John Kerry have both vowed to look into the IG's investigation request and that they are taking this very seriously. This is going to destroy what is left of Hillary's trustworthy/honesty #s. They are already in a freefall but this drip, drip, drip is just killing her campaign slowly.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Michael B Kelley and Brett LoGiurato - BI
Jul. 30, 2015, 1:45 PM
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-server-intelligence-agencies-classified-2015-7
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)eom
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)eom
840high
(17,196 posts)
xynthee
(477 posts)We're going to hear about this 24-fucking-7 for the next two years (at least). I'm SO sick of it already!! She knew she was going to run for President, she knew the Republicans were obsessed with finding dirt on her, but she STILL handed them this issue (or non-issue, as the case may be) on a silver fucking platter. Yet another example of her terrible judgment.
askew
(1,464 posts)One of the many reasons she should not be president.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)did she ever do such sdumb thing?! That is what has bothered me the most about the whole server issue -- that she would leave herself open to exactly what has happened. Stupid, stupid, stupid....
840high
(17,196 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)5 emails containing classified information of unknown classification levels, or even if it was recognized as being classified by the sender, isn't exactly earth shaking. That's called a "data spill" in the industry and it would be something that would get you a refresher training in handling classified information. You'll also note it isn't clear if she SENT them, or received them. Classified information occasionally gets sent, the sender is the person most in trouble. Potentially Hillary could be in trouble for not recognizing that someone sent her classified information.
There's not much here, other that an opportunity for the critics to keep the subject alive for a few more months.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Vinca
(53,994 posts)You usually need intent for a criminal charge.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It will just look bad if she comes off as negligent.
Besides, with her trust numbers being roughly 60/40 the wrong way, almost any accusation sticks. All they need to do is throw mud and eventually she will be buried in it.
Vinca
(53,994 posts)IMO, if they weren't marked classified she wouldn't know and it wouldn't be criminal, unlike Petraeus who knew stuff was classified and passed it along.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Vinca
(53,994 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It's not really rocket science... information is classified to let government employees know that the government doesn't want other persons/organizations/nations to know what the government knows.
Of course that would be conditioned by knowledge and experience that might not be deep for a new political appointee.
I would think it doesn't take years of experience to be able to anticipate the sensitivity of certain types of information, even to the point of having some grasp of whether existing/missing designations of classification are appropriate or not.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)
moobu2
(4,822 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in this investigation. I know Kerry doesn't, but if the ISSUE is the problem, then it cannot be confined to just Hillary.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)elfin
(6,262 posts)So when were they deemed to be "classified?"
After it dawned on someone that changing the status would cause HRC a swift boatfull of trouble?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
( . . .)
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
( . . .)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The statute with regard to unauthorized retention and diversion of classified materials is notoriously vague. Specific reference is made to the Morison case (1984). That involved a Naval intelligence analyst who was moonlighting as a source for Jane's Naval Review. Morison provided classified satellite images to Jane's. The US Court of Appeals rejected Morison's argument that his action wasn't in violation of Sec. 793(e) of the 1917 Act because he didn't personally transmit the images to a foreign power and didn't intend harm to the US. While the images were marked Secret, and Morison removed the stamps, the court did not find that to be consequential. In upholding his conviction, the Court instead focused on the plain-language of the statute:
Both statutes plainly apply to "whoever" having
access to national defense information has under section 793(d)
"wilfully cornmunicate[d], deliver[ed] or transmit[ted] ••• to a
person not entitled to receive it," or has retained it in
violation of section 793(e).
olddots
(10,237 posts)N.T.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Going to have to open another freight car....for another year, oh my, more than a year...