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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
8. This issue is about being tech savy;right wing concerns are policy/personality centered
Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:28 AM
Jul 2015

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

If the Repubs would just quit blibbering on about Benghazi-- eridani Jul 2015 #1
You cant prove a negative padfun Jul 2015 #2
After dealing with the right wing for more than 20 years, LakeVermilion Jul 2015 #3
She should have known better, and probably did. Fuddnik Jul 2015 #6
This issue is about being tech savy;right wing concerns are policy/personality centered Divernan Jul 2015 #8
Excellent points, Divernan. k&r, nt. appal_jack Jul 2015 #19
You make so many excellent points and thanks for your discussion of your own experience karynnj Jul 2015 #88
The Clintons' voluminous baggage goes back decades & it's documented. Divernan Jul 2015 #96
The arrogance is strong in that one tularetom Jul 2015 #101
She has hubris to spare. Divernan Jul 2015 #105
Clinton's server was less of a security risk than the State Department's. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #4
and destroying it was less of a risk than alc Jul 2015 #22
Well, you go on and assume the worst, ain't nobody stopping you. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #24
What do you think was in the Benghazi emails you refer to? JoePhilly Jul 2015 #30
I'm trying to wrap my mind around your use of Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens, and Vince Foster. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #49
Do you read the things you post? JoePhilly Jul 2015 #71
It's about not reading urgent messages from an Ambassador, no matter where he's stationed. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #86
So it is about Benghazi. JoePhilly Jul 2015 #90
Your interlocutor did indeed play the Ben Gazi card... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #91
I found it rather amusing ... JoePhilly Jul 2015 #92
It is sad how invested they are in this story in the service of a candidate who will never DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #93
Well ... JoePhilly Jul 2015 #94
I was taught in Civics one of the roles of president is head of his or her party... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #95
BENGHAZI!!!#!1!1 SunSeeker Jul 2015 #46
Don't you think that if it were hacked someone would be bragging about it? OKNancy Jul 2015 #5
Yeah, those Chinese and Russians. Always gloating Fuddnik Jul 2015 #7
Nope. They'd save it for the general election campaign. Divernan Jul 2015 #10
Bernie will not be the nominee, so you better hope OKNancy Jul 2015 #13
if i were you i would hope hillary is not the nominee restorefreedom Jul 2015 #42
If you were in possession of all the information on her server, would you brag about it now... cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #20
Prove it was. BooScout Jul 2015 #9
Stop running down Democratic candidates with bogus claims of 'Prove it!' randome Jul 2015 #11
Hi DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #15
I guess everyone forgot that my father is gay. randome Jul 2015 #16
The challenge is when you call a man , heterosexual or homosexual DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #17
Please don't delete the references. Sometimes people need to be reminded. Thank You. Laser102 Jul 2015 #25
I disagree with that interpretation but I won't make the same mistake again. randome Jul 2015 #28
It is kind of funny, Ed Snowden fans suddenly so worried about data leaks.... DanTex Jul 2015 #12
No, in fact the IG's have found classified info in her emails--they were stored in her TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #35
Some may have been "classified" years after it was sent... Sancho Jul 2015 #47
The IG said specifically that the info contained within four of forty emails TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #48
You are simply wrong on the law....and the WSJ has already backed off their article. Sancho Jul 2015 #50
The issue I'm discussing is specifically the handling of classified information. TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #53
But email wasn't used to for classified information, so there's no problem.... Sancho Jul 2015 #56
We're just talking past each other. Yes, it matters that classified information TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #58
Then we'll just have to disagree.... Sancho Jul 2015 #69
There are penalties for mishandling classified material, even if it's by TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #70
watch the video...then post your apology... Sancho Jul 2015 #72
?? Not watching the video, what is it about? TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #73
It's the complete explanation of the NYT story with the original documents in hand. Sancho Jul 2015 #74
Does it deal with the Wall Street Journal's reporting that an Inspector TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #75
Yes...but it doesn't matter to Hillary.... Sancho Jul 2015 #77
I think we're talking about different news stories: TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #80
Different version of the same story... Sancho Jul 2015 #81
Classified info was on her server. TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #82
The IG said none of those 40 emails were MARKED classified at the time. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #54
Doesn't matter if they were marked. jeff47 Jul 2015 #55
Bad analogy. Everything at the Manhattan project was classified or secret. Not so with State. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #60
And there are plenty of things at state that are classified. jeff47 Jul 2015 #64
They determined that she should not have had that info on her server--marked or not. TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #57
They did not "determine" that Hillary did any wrong. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #63
I read it as, "This shit was improperly handled and TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #68
The inquiry is not sought into Hillary Clinton's use of email. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #98
I'm sure it has nothing to do with Hillary LordGlenconner Jul 2015 #85
I'll leave the spreading of right wing fake scandals where they sufrommich Jul 2015 #14
10 DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #18
Benghazi!...nt SidDithers Jul 2015 #21
Wrong topic. Maybe you're thinking of a different thread. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #23
We really need to do something about the <---!!!squirrel!!!---> infestation of DU. Zorra Jul 2015 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #44
This thread is about gyrocopters, not Benghazi. JoePhilly Jul 2015 #29
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2015 #83
Not interested...nt SidDithers Jul 2015 #84
It isn't up to us to show evidence it wasn't hacked. It's up to YOU to show evidence it was. wyldwolf Jul 2015 #26
She needed her own server to hide the emails which prove she ... JoePhilly Jul 2015 #27
it is only an issue to republicans and apparently Bernie supporters. Evergreen Emerald Jul 2015 #31
Are you suggesting supporters of a certain candidate... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #32
I think Ben Gazzara died a few years ago. What does he have to do with servers and emails? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #34
Nothing, just like servers and e-mails will ultimately have to do ... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #36
Death from a thousand cuts... cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #37
A thousand wishes have no more chance of becoming true than one. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #38
Confucius? Or just confused? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #39
Clarity is my raison d'etre. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #41
We ARE laughing, cherokeeprogressive. We are. randome Jul 2015 #33
. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2015 #43
The proof you seek is illogical.... Sancho Jul 2015 #45
Hillary Clinton's Private Server... Laugh it off. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #51
A person charged with a crime has to be proven guilty, the person doesn't have to prove their Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #52
And if this was a trial, that would be relevant. But this is a political campaign. jeff47 Jul 2015 #59
The op contained "Prove it wasn't hacked. SHOW me evidence it wasn't hacked. Prove to me and the Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #61
And my different point is that there is a massive minefield here beyond hacking. (nt) jeff47 Jul 2015 #66
CT Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #67
Yes, much easier than addressing the point I made. jeff47 Jul 2015 #99
Evidence? Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #100
Your interest in this begins and ends with Hillary LordGlenconner Jul 2015 #62
Prove it was. Arkana Jul 2015 #65
It's not even about security, it's about judgement and common sense. HappyPlace Jul 2015 #76
The real issue is that everything can be hacked... Agschmid Jul 2015 #78
Sure, you care so much about security risks BainsBane Jul 2015 #79
Who is "you all"? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #87
Are you claiming you didn't support the Wikileaks release BainsBane Jul 2015 #89
Are you claiming I did? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #97
Hacked/not-hacked is not the issue in my mind. delrem Jul 2015 #102
I agree this is troublesome. BKH70041 Jul 2015 #103
On what issues is Bernie to the left of most Americans? MannyGoldstein Jul 2015 #104
Yawn philosslayer Jul 2015 #106
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton's Private...»Reply #8