2016 Postmortem

qdouble

(891 posts)

8. We do have confirmation that others used it

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 06:07 AM

Jun 2016

Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.
“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707#ixzz4AnBzGGcb
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

I've never seen a single person suggest that we imprison Colin Powell because of this. Nor do I know of anyone who has been jailed for their email use. If it's so clear that Hillary should go to jail, what is this based on?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

218 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Other than Hillary, who do you think should be locked up for violating email protocol? [View all] qdouble Jun 2016 OP

To the best of my knowledge Meteor Man Jun 2016 #1

Can you find any other case where it was recommended that an official go to prison for using a qdouble Jun 2016 #2

Ask Brian Pagliano Meteor Man Jun 2016 #3

Your link doesn't show that she actually broke the law, but most important, it doesn't state qdouble Jun 2016 #4

We do not "know for a fact" Meteor Man Jun 2016 #6

We do have confirmation that others used it qdouble Jun 2016 #8

did Powell use a private server, or just a private email? There is a BIG difference. I Exilednight Jun 2016 #19

There is no big difference. qdouble Jun 2016 #20

it depends on where the server is housed and if emails were Exilednight Jun 2016 #21

Are all email providers legally required not to delete your emails? And how does qdouble Jun 2016 #23

legally, email providers are required to keep all emails via Exilednight Jun 2016 #70

your arguing that a thrid party being able to access emails is safer puffy socks Jun 2016 #159

stop putting words in my mouth. nowhere did I say they were safer. Exilednight Jun 2016 #184

your implying that a server is bad only because the user can delete emails puffy socks Jun 2016 #187

Again, I am implying nothing. I am staying facts. We do not Exilednight Jun 2016 #196

what personal attck? puffy socks Jun 2016 #205

So? there was a protocal to print emails which they did. Sent emails are saved on the recipient MariaThinks Jun 2016 #98

we don't really know if all emails were printed, we can only take Hillary's Exilednight Jun 2016 #102

Her attorney and staff didn't print them until long after she left the State Dept. and after they 2cannan Jun 2016 #144

You are exhibiting real ignorance of this topic... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #45

I'm a programmer... Gmail doesn't use any top-secret advanced algorithms to authenticate qdouble Jun 2016 #48

Again with the "inherent" weasel wording... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #105

You understand there's a big difference in the degree of difficulty in what it takes qdouble Jun 2016 #111

but you're an expert, and the non experts think they know more than you. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #146

Get back to me when you can probe 100% that Exilednight Jun 2016 #88

Did you mean to reply to me? ljm2002 Jun 2016 #106

despite all the security, there are still breeches. It's ignorant to believe gmail is secure. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #99

Millions of commercial email accounts get hacked every year yet these guys are acting like not using qdouble Jun 2016 #107

agreed. It's a witch hunt. I thought we were better on the left, but these past 3 months have shown MariaThinks Jun 2016 #147

Of course that is true... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #109

How is that different? MariaThinks Jun 2016 #86

see post #21 Exilednight Jun 2016 #97

If the link already existed... KULawHawk Jun 2016 #152

Hillary is different because she's a Clinton. That means everything she does is attacked. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #79

I think the fact that there is no precedent should be all inchhigh Jun 2016 #81

There is precedent of people using private emails... qdouble Jun 2016 #85

Because having a private server gave her total control inchhigh Jun 2016 #110

Assuming that the people she is communicating aren't also all using private email servers, qdouble Jun 2016 #112

But if she refuses to turn over her emails inchhigh Jun 2016 #119

They should be able to dig up a lot of information through the internet service provider qdouble Jun 2016 #121

Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793. leveymg Jun 2016 #127

Well neither case is an exact match to the email situation.... I suppose Deutch would be close as qdouble Jun 2016 #130

The Deutch case is direct precedent. The CIA IG recommended prosecution and specified 18 USC 793(f) leveymg Jun 2016 #145

"did not contain classification markings" scscholar Jun 2016 #169

wrong. classified when it was generated, marked or not Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #215

here is something to look at Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #212

Who else set up a private server? hobbit709 Jun 2016 #5

For practical purposes, what is the difference between using gmail qdouble Jun 2016 #10

If you ask that question, then you know nothing about IT. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #11

I'm a computer programmer. Answer the question. qdouble Jun 2016 #13

For one thing. Downwinder Jun 2016 #16

If the FBI raids your office, it's the same result. qdouble Jun 2016 #17

Think I will avoid your programming. Downwinder Jun 2016 #30

Can't come up with a strong reason why Gmail is superior to a private server qdouble Jun 2016 #31

Who said gmail is superior to a private server? Downwinder Jun 2016 #32

In terms of secure communication, there is nothing inherently more insecure about using a private qdouble Jun 2016 #34

You asked for a difference. Downwinder Jun 2016 #36

Another difference is they are housed in different locations. qdouble Jun 2016 #37

I replied to: Downwinder Jun 2016 #38

So where is Clinton legally required to be prepared for subpoenas? randome Jun 2016 #39

Do you deny the difference I postulated? Downwinder Jun 2016 #42

I don't understand "knowing who is accessing your correspondence". randome Jun 2016 #43

That is why I will avoid your programming. Downwinder Jun 2016 #46

You keep making this statement without showing any breadth of knowledge. qdouble Jun 2016 #52

You keep tying it to a specific situation. Downwinder Jun 2016 #71

Apparently that's not accurate. Her signed oaths or agreements, for one, are suspect. Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #217

Email communication is a two way street. Investigators should be able to draw evidence from those qdouble Jun 2016 #116

I know it won't matter to you but...at least if she had used a Google, Yahoo or MS email account 2cannan Jun 2016 #61

A distinction without a difference since there is no evidence her server was hacked. randome Jun 2016 #73

That statement is not a fact. @2cannan qdouble Jun 2016 #80

Did you read that the server was open, without password, for days? highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #129

Would that be the fault of Clinton or the fault of her IT person? qdouble Jun 2016 #131

Do you believe in management or laissez-faire incompetence? Check out this video. highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #133

A 60+ year old woman who is not an IT expert? qdouble Jun 2016 #136

Nice to see Team Hillary getting ready to throw Pagliano under the bus. Kentonio Jun 2016 #163

Yes, because it would make sense for Hillary to specify that her server not be password protected qdouble Jun 2016 #168

The responsibility for setting up a server was hers. Her decision and no-one else's. Kentonio Jun 2016 #171

this isn't the point -- it's that her server was inaccessible to anyone but her people, many of whom Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #216

Not the same at all... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #47

It's the same because if they raid your office, I'd assume you wouldn't have the chance to wipe all qdouble Jun 2016 #55

Please explain, if you can... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #66

You tell me? It's speculative either way. qdouble Jun 2016 #87

It is not speculative that she tried to hide it... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #101

You asked me to explain why her assistants tried to hide it.... how is that not speculative? qdouble Jun 2016 #115

Sorry, you are simply deflecting now... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #138

I'm not deflecting, I'm pointing out that you are speculating about their motives and then qdouble Jun 2016 #141

Zing... Nt seabeyond Jun 2016 #18

Wow, gullible much? ljm2002 Jun 2016 #49

You're launching an ad hominem attack on me without displaying that you have any knowledge that I'm qdouble Jun 2016 #59

Wow, ignorant AND arrogant... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #69

You obviously don't know shit about programming. qdouble Jun 2016 #113

Sweetie, if you're writing an email server using node.js... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #137

Ah, you couldn't answer the question. I thought so. qdouble Jun 2016 #139

It just is not a big enough deal to inherently create someone as a liar when I have no proof. seabeyond Jun 2016 #78

So what type of "computer programmer" are you exactly? tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #90

I know multiple languages, but I'm primarily a web programmer, I've been focusing mostly on qdouble Jun 2016 #93

What direct experience do you have with server security? Kentonio Jun 2016 #164

I've run my own private servers, studied some white hat hacking, took IT courses, qdouble Jun 2016 #170

There is no such thing as a totally secure server. Kentonio Jun 2016 #172

Do you understand exactly how a server can be hacked in the first place? qdouble Jun 2016 #174

Why do you keep repeating your very carefully worded line about 'inherently secure'? Kentonio Jun 2016 #177

I'm saying that saying she used a PRIVATE SERVER is a bad argument because it implies that qdouble Jun 2016 #179

Security is the main thing here.. GummyBearz Jun 2016 #182

We are distinguishing between private servers qdouble Jun 2016 #185

Two things GummyBearz Jun 2016 #193

1. If someone once to vote for president based on their use of email address, then that's on them qdouble Jun 2016 #197

very little. Like when bush went after the Dixie Chicks the issue was the freedom of MariaThinks Jun 2016 #82

So you're saying the rules don't specifically cover that situation. That's fine. randome Jun 2016 #12

Some people think legal is OK no matter how unethical, immoral, or stupid. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #14

All I'm saying is that this is much ado about nothing. randome Jun 2016 #40

I HAVE A PRIVATE EMAIL! Atman Jun 2016 #57

Err what? You do know we're talking about a private server, not just email right? Kentonio Jun 2016 #165

Err, urp, duh...yeah, I know what we're talking about. Atman Jun 2016 #173

Neither of them operated their emails from a private server. Kentonio Jun 2016 #175

People that "reply to all" for no reason firebrand80 Jun 2016 #7

your post borderlines on concern trolling wyldwolf Jun 2016 #9

People advocating imprisonment without trial strike me as dangerous. n/t Orsino Jun 2016 #15

I agree. As do people advocating drone assassinations without trial. Kentonio Jun 2016 #166

her sentencing would be for a Judge to decide after due process of the law. I just want to see it Hiraeth Jun 2016 #22

You want to see her sentencing play out? For which crime in particular and what would be a fair qdouble Jun 2016 #24

That is NOT what I wrote. Read the senctence s-l-o-w-e-r. Hiraeth Jun 2016 #25

You said her sentencing will be for a judge to decide... qdouble Jun 2016 #27

Either through... tonedevil Jun 2016 #188

Would/will... Both statement presuppose sentencing qdouble Jun 2016 #190

Looks like my vote was correct... tonedevil Jun 2016 #194

I'm not stupid or a weasel, but insulting the opposition is pretty standard fair for Bernouts. qdouble Jun 2016 #199

You either don't know the difference... tonedevil Jun 2016 #200

If you want to be an asshole, it's fine by me...but don't accuse me of not knowing your intentions qdouble Jun 2016 #202

I quite rightly accused you... tonedevil Jun 2016 #207

All you've done is sling pejoratives while not actually showing that I lied about anything. qdouble Jun 2016 #208

You lied about... tonedevil Jun 2016 #209

I didn't lie. If you took what she said a different way than I took it, that's not tantamount to qdouble Jun 2016 #210

Thanks for the free... tonedevil Jun 2016 #211

Whatever bro... qdouble Jun 2016 #213

You are cute... tonedevil Jun 2016 #214

So you want to skip straight to sentencing? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #58

Sentencing... tonedevil Jun 2016 #195

Anyone hiding emails from FOIA requests or raising illicit cash... Yurovsky Jun 2016 #26

Your post doesn't address the OP at all. You guys are suggesting that she should go to prison, but qdouble Jun 2016 #28

Bernie's guys that jumped into the DNC records database knowing they should not be there. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #29

You mean the guy on Bernie's staff... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #54

I don't think anyone should be locked up for email offenses. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #33

I really don't get the incompetence argument either though.... qdouble Jun 2016 #35

Yes, computers protected by the security expertise of the NSA are indeed inherently more secure. Kentonio Jun 2016 #167

This is an argument from authority from a person who doesn't know how code works. qdouble Jun 2016 #176

I didn't say 'government computers' I said NSA protected which the SOS's communications warrant. Kentonio Jun 2016 #178

I'm not saying that I'm a leading authority, I'm backing up my argument with facts and logic. qdouble Jun 2016 #180

Not even the NSA can make a server totally secure. Kentonio Jun 2016 #181

This is nonsense. The amount of staff qdouble Jun 2016 #183

You have absolutely no idea what other routes there are into the system Kentonio Jun 2016 #189

When you communicate with a simple web server qdouble Jun 2016 #192

"violating email protocol"... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #41

I see you chose to not address the OP at all... I asked specifically for what precedent for a person qdouble Jun 2016 #44

There are a few issues with using a private server... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #64

A and b don't point to any inherent weakness, only that it was against protocol, we've already qdouble Jun 2016 #72

Again... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #96

Commercial servers have redundancies and have to be up to the requirements of protecting millions qdouble Jun 2016 #104

No one ever gives a coherent answer as to why "a PRIVATE SERVER" is so awful. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #60

Exactly, they are all like OMG, PRIVATE SERVER!!!!! qdouble Jun 2016 #63

Perhaps because no one else has access to it besides the people she wanted to have access? 2cannan Jun 2016 #68

The Secretary of State, just like other State Dept. employees... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #74

The Secretary of State answers to POTUS, not to the IT department. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #83

I would be seriously surprised... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #100

would you want scientists developing top secret nuclear weapons jack_krass Jun 2016 #103

another Trump talking point repeated by so called Dems. Yup, another Trump stumper. Sheepshank Jun 2016 #50

"Email protocol"? Marr Jun 2016 #51

Really, how many who are in prison who should be released if Hillary isn't indicted? pdsimdars Jun 2016 #53

Like so many other things you post, that is a lie. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #62

How much time did the last government official that used private emails get? qdouble Jun 2016 #65

I guess that means you believe Hillary more than the IG of the State Department. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #124

The thread isn't about whether or not Hillary clinton violated protocol....it is what is the qdouble Jun 2016 #148

It's not about the email it's about the PRIVATE SERVER. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #198

Other officials did send emails that were retroactively classified. qdouble Jun 2016 #201

I won't be happy until Skinner goes down. nt. NCTraveler Jun 2016 #56

You lost me with your first sentence. B2G Jun 2016 #67

It's a right wing scandal. I see tons of republicans posting the exact same stuff and using the qdouble Jun 2016 #76

Whatever helps you sleep at night. nt B2G Jun 2016 #77

The FBI is not a right-wing think tank. /nt Marr Jun 2016 #160

The FBI hasn't arrested her. No one knows what the results will be, but right-wingers qdouble Jun 2016 #161

I'm sure it *is* hard for you to tell Republicans from Sanders supporters. Marr Jun 2016 #162

Who else had a private server? That's the real difference. Vinca Jun 2016 #75

No it's not. The private server inside a firefall is not a differentiator. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #84

It is if the firewall isn't up to snuff. Vinca Jun 2016 #114

MILLIONS OF COMMERCIAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS ARE HACKED EVERY YEAR qdouble Jun 2016 #89

Powell, Rice and Kerry are not running for POTUS. Vinca Jun 2016 #117

We can all agree she violated protocol qdouble Jun 2016 #120

What if her server was hacked and sensitive information has been made available Vinca Jun 2016 #122

The risk of her server being hacked isn't dramatically higher than the risk of someone's qdouble Jun 2016 #123

I feel the same, but on DU, the email truthers only care about Hillary apnu Jun 2016 #142

I guess it would depend on who let confidential data out of the bag and Vinca Jun 2016 #150

I recently saw that server referenced as an offline server. gordianot Jun 2016 #95

Then how did they learn about it in the first place? Vinca Jun 2016 #118

The way I had it explained to me: gordianot Jun 2016 #135

Vinca, not John Podesta, it was Sidney Blumenthal. nt 2cannan Jun 2016 #140

Oops . . . you're exactly right. I got the cast of characters scrambled. Vinca Jun 2016 #149

Hillary's Scooter Libby will be found then promptly pardoned. gordianot Jun 2016 #91

Yes. GW Bush & Karl Rove n/t napi21 Jun 2016 #92

As I recall, plenty of us here advocated that Republicans be jailed for even lesser email offenses Live and Learn Jun 2016 #94

Bill Clinton they work as a team. She and he put our Country in jeopardy and used bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #108

...!100++++ 840high Jun 2016 #125

And that donco Jun 2016 #126

This is more Benghazi nonsense. The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #128

I've also... Mike Nelson Jun 2016 #132

I don't know of a precedent of another SOS using a private server. I'll go with the FBI decision. EndElectoral Jun 2016 #134

I thought Bush should have been Aerows Jun 2016 #143

A large number of the W. white house staff... KULawHawk Jun 2016 #151

Cheryl Mills has a history of covering Clinton Email Scandals... so that would be nice trudyco Jun 2016 #153

It isn't all or nothing. surrealAmerican Jun 2016 #154

This thread is specifically in response to people who make it seem like Hillary should be in prison. qdouble Jun 2016 #156

Op MFM008 Jun 2016 #155

I don't believe she's going to be indicted nor do I think she's going to go to prison qdouble Jun 2016 #157

Hillary will not be locked up for the emails, it is a good possibility Bernie and Jane Sanders Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #158

Number one: It is not about the emails. It is about the jwirr Jun 2016 #186

Unless you are the FBI Agent in charge or the Federal Prosecutor or the Federal Judge who's 99Forever Jun 2016 #191

And this post from you is meaningful to whom? qdouble Jun 2016 #204

Anyone with a functional brain. 99Forever Jun 2016 #218

Every person who has violated company policies intentionally or inadvertently. Hoyt Jun 2016 #203

Rove who actually destroyed the emails larkrake Jun 2016 #206