Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hillary Clinton

Showing Original Post only (View all)

LAS14

(15,449 posts)
Sun May 29, 2016, 08:39 PM May 2016

Request for input from Hillary Group (HCG) [View all]

Hello Hillary Group,

I would love to just rest in my strongly held belief that this e-mail thing is a flap like Vince Foster and Travelgate. But I feel compelled to answer back in GDP. And then there’s the puzzle part. I’m a clarity junky, and this whole thing makes me dizzy. I want to get it straight in my own mind. I’ve tried to list all of the things Hillary’s critics have extracted from the e-mail flap and answer them.

I’m asking any of you with knowledge and energy to edit this before I post in GDP. Please add things that you’ve seen that ought to get shot down. And please correct any misinformation or confusion.

TIA
LAS

1 – Hillary compromised national security.

The State Department OIG investigation does not address classified information. Clinton’s personal e-mail was for un-classified information only. The FBI investigation is the one looking into handling of classified information. The OIG report does not contain any information about breaches of Clinton’s e-mail, although it does mention some e-mails questioning certain messages. In fact, according to some experts, her e-mail was more secure than the Dept of State’s system for non-classified information.

“As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. So it could be the Clinton arrangement didn’t follow the security procedures laid out in the federal regulations—the inspector general did not reach a conclusion as to whether it did or not—but, as often happens, private security contractors did a better job than the government.”

Hillary Clinton did not send e-mails including any information that was classified at the time, with the exception of responding to/forwarding e-mails sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal. These contained classified information which Blumenthal had obtained from public sources. She did not originate them nor was she responsible for their being made publicly available.

2 – She violated State Department policies.

The State Department had not promulgated any policy prohibiting the use of private e-mail servers. That was clarified in legislation in 2014, after Clinton had left office.
The State Department required people using personal e-mail to make hardcopies of all of their e-mails to comply with the federal requirement that all communications be preserved.

- Clinton had electronic backup, a much more appropriate approach in 2008-2012, and turned over 55,000 pages on paper -- just as the 1950's law required. She did not make the paper copies until after she left, which was a technical violation.
Here is an excellent description of what the real world of working with the State Department’s antiquated systems was like.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

3 – She is a liar.

- She’s been saying that a private server was allowed, but now she’s saying she thought it was allowed.

At the time the server was installed there were no state department regulations applying to personal servers. In response to the OIG investigation State Department IT staff said that if she had asked, she would have been told it wasn’t allowed. We don’t know when they made this decision, but in the face of a changing set of circumstances (State Dept now claims it wouldn’t have allowed it), she adjusts her response in a rational way.

- She said, "I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime” but the report said she declined to be interviewed by the OIG.

OK. So in the heat of a debate or an interview she said something she wanted to back away from later in the face of new circumstances. I don’t claim to know the details, but I do understand that total consistency is never found in political campaigns.

- She said that personal e-mail was allowed.

It was. The State Department even specified different ways for preserving copies than the ways used for state.gov.

- She said the State Department approved of her use of private e-mail/server (claims vary).

She never said they approved. They didn’t say anything. Regulations allowed for private e-mail, and the use of a private server was never addressed in their regulations.

4 – She didn’t turn over the first 30,000 early e-mails.

HILLARY GROUP, One answer is a quote from her IT department saying they couldn’t find them. Does anyone know where that is? Is it in the OIG report? I couldn’t find it.

HILLARY GROUP – CAN YOU THINK OF OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED?

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
emails and stuff stonecutter357 May 2016 #1
Sorry, I don't understand this. Could you elaborate? LAS14 May 2016 #2
Could you elaborate? it's a RWNJ junk ,is that good enough. stonecutter357 May 2016 #6
No. It seems to me that my post is totally pro-Hillary. LAS14 May 2016 #7
Please also suggest titles for the OP. LAS14 May 2016 #3
This OKNancy's OP's linked article is pretty good on the subject of Clinton's emails Her Sister May 2016 #4
Yes, I've included the Newsweek link.. LAS14 May 2016 #9
This is SO GOOD that I've put it in ... LAS14 May 2016 #24
Hello LAS14 SharonClark May 2016 #5
This is why I want to post in GDP. LAS14 May 2016 #8
Could you link to your husband's story? Her Sister May 2016 #13
Here it is. LAS14 May 2016 #15
Loooooooooooooved it! Her Sister May 2016 #19
This is the amazing woman who will make a "Hill" of a President. Great profile. Surya Gayatri May 2016 #21
Thanks for posting that! SharonClark May 2016 #28
"Trying to get excited about Hillary" Sparkly May 2016 #20
Thanks. I'll find her post and send this as a reply. LAS14 May 2016 #22
Check this to see if it gets a response. LAS14 May 2016 #23
One has to wonder how many more of these emails exist. Historic NY May 2016 #10
Given that she was no longer an employee of the federal DURHAM D May 2016 #11
Thanks. You reminded me that I want... LAS14 May 2016 #16
There's a couple of things that seem to be lost in the email controversy radical noodle May 2016 #12
Thanks. Do you have the source for... LAS14 May 2016 #17
Here are a couple radical noodle May 2016 #25
Various responses. LAS14 May 2016 #27
The newsweek article answered your last question. Her Sister May 2016 #14
More sites Sparkly May 2016 #18
I understand you're concerned obamanut2012 May 2016 #26
I posted it. Thanks for all your help. LAS14 May 2016 #29
I just hope Coolest Ranger May 2016 #30
Oh, they will. But that doesn't bother me except... LAS14 May 2016 #31
I trashed GDP so it's content is meaningless to me but... Walk away May 2016 #32
Lots of views, but only 18 direct replies. A number... LAS14 May 2016 #33
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Request for input from Hi...»Reply #0