Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[Doc Savage Fan]

Two huge differences here. First, these other pols used servers outside their control, vastly limiting their ability to manipulate it. Second and much more importantly, other SecStates didn't exclusively use private email accounts. It's like how a bank manager caught putting all the bank's money into his own bank account cannot defend by pointing out that other bank managers also have personal accounts.

Our liberal friends are usually the first to cry out "False equivalency!"...but they're somehow blind to this one it seems. Go figure.

 

[PokerGuy]

Did you bother to question this article at all?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/




"Forwarded" is a term used to describe emails that were sent to clinton. Is she now responsible for emails she has received?

Uh, yes, of course she is. As part of her job, she gets classified info sent to her. If she then decides to use her own server instead of a secure government one for her email and route her work email through her server, it IS her fault when the secret information sent to her ends up on an insecure server (hers) when it shouldn't be.

Basic questions like these makes it obvious that the right A) either has no clue what's going on (the investigation isn't about clinton),

You're delusional if you think it isn't about Clinton. It's also the reason it's been treated with kid gloves. If I was suspected of having top secret info illegally on my server, you think the FBI would wait months and allow me to scrub it before "agreeing" to hand it over, or would they have simply busted down the door and taken the server an hour after finding out what was going on?

or B) they are engaged in yet another smear campaign filled with conspiracy, propaganda, and lies.

Yeah, just keep trotting out that same old tired excuse whenever inappropriate behavior is exposed. It's not the fault of the person doing the bad things, it's obviously the fault of those exposing it or complaining about it :whiste: The problem is, these things have a cumulative effect, and I think we're going to start seeing the accumulation take it's toll on hildabeast as people realize more and more she can't be trusted.

 

[Blackjack200]

Just because you click delete in outlook or any other corporate email server, does not mean the email actually gets deleted. I would bet that all the web email clients like gmail also don't actually delete emails. I know in my company they archive all emails for years and years. Its the reason why an email I deleted was able to be recovered over a year after.

Yes, I get this. I do not believe my particular company archives emails, I believe they destroy them after 90 days because a big email trail is a big liability, and you don't want to get accused of selectively deleting things.

That said, I recognize that our retention requirements are not the same as the State Department's, and I agree that Clinton's practices allowed her to avoid oversight and that is legitimate criticism, and I share in it.

I guess my point here is two things. I don't see Clinton's deleting her emails as some sinister act that leads to the inevitable conclusion that she was covering up wrongdoing. I think she was simply claiming a level of privacy that she was not entitled to as SoS.

Why wouldn't she be responsible?

I see your point. I'm assuming that she had some kind of expectation that classified information would not be sent to her through that server. I don't know how things work at that level, and maybe TS briefings and the like are generally not emailed at all. But maybe they are. And if she knew that people were going to be sending her classified information through that server, and let it happen, they she should be responsible for that too.

Two huge differences here. First, these other pols used servers outside their control, vastly limiting their ability to manipulate it. Second and much more importantly, other SecStates didn't exclusively use private email accounts. It's like how a bank manager caught putting all the bank's money into his own bank account cannot defend by pointing out that other bank managers also have personal accounts.

I don't think that's a good analogy because you would only use the private email account for stuff you wanted to keep private anyway. In any case, I don't think "other SoS did it" is a good excuse. I say she shouldn't have done it, she should be criticized for it, and that's pretty much the end of it.

I think the circus being made of this is absurd. If you combed through any high level administration's email, you could find instances of inadvertant leakage of classified information, it happens all the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Two huge differences here. First, these other pols used servers outside their control, vastly limiting their ability to manipulate it. Second and much more importantly, other SecStates didn't exclusively use private email accounts. It's like how a bank manager caught putting all the bank's money into his own bank account cannot defend by pointing out that other bank managers also have personal accounts.

Very convoluted false equivalency. If other pols used non-govt servers beyond their control, does that make the information more secure, or less?

The answer is obvious.

It's also quite obvious that the whole security argument is doublespeak coming from people who want the emails made public.

 

[Jhhnn]

h, yes, of course she is. As part of her job, she gets classified info sent to her. If she then decides to use her own server instead of a secure government one for her email and route her work email through her server, it IS her fault when the secret information sent to her ends up on an insecure server (hers) when it shouldn't be.

Her server has not been shown to be insecure. You're jumping to conclusions.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, I get this. I do not believe my particular company archives emails, I believe they destroy them after 90 days because a big email trail is a big liability, and you don't want to get accused of selectively deleting things.

That said, I recognize that our retention requirements are not the same as the State Department's, and I agree that Clinton's practices allowed her to avoid oversight and that is legitimate criticism, and I share in it.

I guess my point here is two things. I don't see Clinton's deleting her emails as some sinister act that leads to the inevitable conclusion that she was covering up wrongdoing. I think she was simply claiming a level of privacy that she was not entitled to as SoS.

I see your point. I'm assuming that she had some kind of expectation that classified information would not be sent to her through that server. I don't know how things work at that level, and maybe TS briefings and the like are generally not emailed at all. But maybe they are. And if she knew that people were going to be sending her classified information through that server, and let it happen, they she should be responsible for that too.

I don't think that's a good analogy because you would only use the private email account for stuff you wanted to keep private anyway. In any case, I don't think "other SoS did it" is a good excuse. I say she shouldn't have done it, she should be criticized for it, and that's pretty much the end of it.

I think the circus being made of this is absurd. If you combed through any high level administration's email, you could find instances of inadvertant leakage of classified information, it happens all the time.

Clinton ONLY did business through her own server. What expectation could she possibly have that people would not send her classified information through this server? How could she possibly serve as SecState under these circumstances?

Two other points here. First, we absolutely know that she lied when she said she had turned over all relevant emails, since Blumenthal has turned over some emails that she did not. And second, we don't even know who had accounts on her private server.

How in the world would anyone support making this woman the most powerful person in the world?

 

[werepossum]

Very convoluted false equivalency. If other pols used non-govt servers beyond their control, does that make the information more secure, or less?

The answer is obvious.

It's also quite obvious that the whole security argument is doublespeak coming from people who want the emails made public.

I would argue that Google is much better at keeping information secure than are people selected for political reliability. Certainly it keeps the politician more honest to have information beyond her personal control and therefore discoverable. As for your other "point", her detractors are demanding that all her emails be turned over to the government, not necessarily that they be made public.

 

[werepossum]

Our liberal friends are usually the first to cry out "False equivalency!"...but they're somehow blind to this one it seems. Go figure.

Yep. Personally I am shocked that this whole affair has not yet been labeled a straw man.

 

[Zorba]

Which means, of course, that she's no more responsible for what lands in her inbox than any of us- classified information,

Again, clearly, you have never worked with classified information. You always have a legal responsibility to handle classified information correctly, no matter where it came from. If it was e-mailed to her, it was her responsibility to contact her security team to properly dispose of the data and ensure it hadn't leaked further. More than likely this would've resulted in the destruction of her server.

Accidental classified released can't just be deleted like an annoying chain letter.

BTW: I've seen people's cell phones smashed just because they accidentally took them into a secured area. You don't play around with classified data.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yep. Personally I am shocked that this whole affair has not yet been labeled a straw man.

...or a vast Right Wing conspiracy.

The media has latched onto this scandal and it's now apparent it's not going away anytime soon. This is going to cost Hillary the nomination imo.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would argue that Google is much better at keeping information secure than are people selected for political reliability. Certainly it keeps the politician more honest to have information beyond her personal control and therefore discoverable. As for your other "point", her detractors are demanding that all her emails be turned over to the government, not necessarily that they be made public.

Yeh, that's why Judicial Watch has filed suit under the FOIA.

And by "turned over to the government" you mean turned over to Darryl Issa, right?

 

[Zorba]

Her server has not been shown to be insecure. You're jumping to conclusions.

You have to have a license and contract from the government to handle classified information, did she have this for her server? They aren't exactly easy to get or maintain.

 

[Zorba]

The rules have been changed and they changed after clinton left. Witch hunt indeed!

Setup a private server for all your work e-mail, auto-forward everything to it, see how long you keep your job. Assuming you work at a fortune 500 company, I doubt it would be very long.

Besides classified, I am sure the SoS handles lots of sensitive data, include personnel, ITAR, and just generally non-public information, all of which shouldn't be on a private server.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, clearly, you have never worked with classified information. You always have a legal responsibility to handle classified information correctly, no matter where it came from. If it was e-mailed to her, it was her responsibility to contact her security team to properly dispose of the data and ensure it hadn't leaked further. More than likely this would've resulted in the destruction of her server.

Accidental classified released can't just be deleted like an annoying chain letter.

BTW: I've seen people's cell phones smashed just because they accidentally took them into a secured area. You don't play around with classified data.

Except that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about information that has been re-classified after the fact- the argument being that it "should have been classified" but wasn't at the time.

That argument is empty.

 

[Greenman]

The other possibility you miss is that Clinton preferred paper over email, and expected classified materials to be printed for her. I've worked with several executives (mostly older) that avoided email. One refused to use it at all, and required his secretary to print everything for him. She'd put the paper in his inbox, and that's how he read it. If he wanted to reply, he'd either scrawl notes on the paper, or he'd dictate it.

Clearly Clinton wasn't that extreme. It's not hard to imagine, however, she directed her team to give her hard copies of sensitive documents. Let the investigation take its course, and we'll see what they find.

Blackjack said much the same thing. But that doesn't address the question, why not use the state department provided service that she was required to use? There isn't an excuse for that, it isn't sensible, so why did she do it? It's a valid question to ask and it has to be answered.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Except that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about information that has been re-classified after the fact- the argument being that it "should have been classified" but wasn't at the time.

That argument is empty.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...al-inquiry-over-clintons-use-of-private-email

Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general for the Intelligence Community, told NPR's Carrie Johnson that at least four emails that were sent through Clinton's private email network "were classified when they were sent and are classified now."

This came from a sample of only 40 emails.

 

[Jhhnn]

Setup a private server for all your work e-mail, auto-forward everything to it, see how long you keep your job. Assuming you work at a fortune 500 company, I doubt it would be very long.

Besides classified, I am sure the SoS handles lots of sensitive data, include personnel, ITAR, and just generally non-public information, all of which shouldn't be on a private server.

Well, unless you're a member of the BoD.

The rest is ignorant bullshit. Anybody who handles information like personnel records doesn't do it by email but rather with file access.

 

[Bowfinger]

Blackjack said much the same thing. But that doesn't address the question, why not use the state department provided service that she was required to use? There isn't an excuse for that, it isn't sensible, so why did she do it? It's a valid question to ask and it has to be answered.

She answered the question when it was first raised: convenience. She only wanted to carry one device, so she had both personal and DoS email routed to the same account for her Blackberry. Mind you, I do agree she made a poor decision. It was, nonetheless, legal for her to do so, and consistent with her predecessors.

One other point that's being missed here is that classified materials aren't even allowed on a network connected to the Internet. The State and Defense Departments have various classified networks (e.g., SIPRNet) for classified materials. One cannot even send email to a public Internet account from within those networks. It thus should be impossible for someone to accidentally send a classified document to an outside address.

The Clinton emails in question did NOT contain classified documents, but rather were discussions among staffers who mentioned classified topics. For example, according to today's news stories, one of the emails was a discussion about a news story about drone strikes. In the course of that discussion, someone mentioned something that may be classified. This would be a problem regardless of whether Clinton used a personal account, because classified information is not allowed on the unclassified email network.

Here's a recent update with a lot of information (from Fox, no less, for those allergic to the "liberal" media): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...server-discussed-drone-program-may-reference/

Near the end, note how Clinton has requested a fax of a classified document. I hadn't even considered faxes, but it supports my speculation that Clinton didn't want secure information in email.

Here's a short blurb about SIPRNet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...al-inquiry-over-clintons-use-of-private-email



This came from a sample of only 40 emails.

Nice bit of selective comprehension. From the same article-

On the face of it that seems like a simple statement, but the inspector general also found that all of the emails were not marked as classified. That raises questions about how the State Department and the Intelligence Community handled sensitive information.

One of the great things about going on about "classified information" is that it obscures the nature of the information. I recall a 60 minutes piece about a natural gas pipeline during the Bush years. When opponents wanted the exact route, the govt held that it was classified information because of national security. Once the pipeline was completed, the exact route was a matter of public record for obvious reasons.

The truth is that anybody can send any sort of information to anybody else if they know the email address. I rather doubt that anybody emails highly classified documents marked as such to anybody else, anyway.

 

[PokerGuy]

Her server has not been shown to be insecure. You're jumping to conclusions.

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server

Apparently, it was not at all secure. I'm not saying we have confirmation that it was hacked or anything like that, but it clearly was not secure.

Further, being "secure" doesn't mean just being set up with security features, I'm sure there are many (and very specific) standards to which a system must adhere before it can be cleared to house "top secret" classified information. I would be willing to bet that this server was not certified to house / transmit classified data. So yes, "insecure" is correct.

 

[PokerGuy]

She answered the question when it was first raised: convenience. She only wanted to carry one device, so she had both personal and DoS email routed to the same account for her Blackberry. Mind you, I do agree she made a poor decision.

She answer the question by claiming "convenience" , but that answer simply doesn't hold any water. It's a BS answer. First, her own words from a month before in Silicon Valley directly contradicted the claim. She told the audience that she used an iPhone, a BlackBerry, an iPad and a mini iPad. Second, it doesn't make any logical sense, you can use one device to access emails from multiple servers.

It was, nonetheless, legal for her to do so, and consistent with her predecessors.

The investigation will show what was legal and what was not (there's a criminal investigation ongoing), but that's largely irrelevant as to whether she engaged in inappropriate activity. We already know she did, legal or not. The question is, why? She hasn't been able to answer that question, and until she does so reasonably, it should be a clear indicator she can't be trusted.

One other point that's being missed here is that classified materials aren't even allowed on a network connected to the Internet. The State and Defense Departments have various classified networks (e.g., SIPRNet) for classified materials. One cannot even send email to a public Internet account from within those networks. It thus should be impossible for someone to accidentally send a classified document to an outside address.

The Clinton emails in question did NOT contain classified documents, but rather were discussions among staffers who mentioned classified topics. For example, according to today's news stories, one of the emails was a discussion about a news story about drone strikes. In the course of that discussion, someone mentioned something that may be classified. This would be a problem regardless of whether Clinton used a personal account, because classified information is not allowed on the unclassified email network.

Just because emails can't be sent directly from within the classified network doesn't mean email can't contain classified information or documents. Indeed, that would be a problem regardless of whether she used her personal server or not, but it doesn't absolve her from responsibility. It just means the sender of the information is also mishandling classified information.

 

[PokerGuy]

One of the great things about going on about "classified information" is that it obscures the nature of the information. I recall a 60 minutes piece about a natural gas pipeline during the Bush years. When opponents wanted the exact route, the govt held that it was classified information because of national security. Once the pipeline was completed, the exact route was a matter of public record for obvious reasons.

You can debate how things are classified and whether that process is good/bad/abused all you want, but that's not relevant. One person doesn't have the option of simply ignoring regulations regarding handling classified information because the process of classifying documents might be abused.

The truth is that anybody can send any sort of information to anybody else if they know the email address. I rather doubt that anybody emails highly classified documents marked as such to anybody else, anyway.

Well, the fact is they already found documents that were classified in the tiny 40 email sample. I'm sure there will be much more as they comb through thousands of emails , even after hildabeast and her minions carefully scrubbed the data. I also wonder if anyone else would have been allowed to "scrub" potentially criminal evidence before handing it over to the feds like that......

This case gets more and more interesting each day.

 

[Bowfinger]

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server

Apparently, it was not at all secure. I'm not saying we have confirmation that it was hacked or anything like that, but it clearly was not secure.

Further, being "secure" doesn't mean just being set up with security features, I'm sure there are many (and very specific) standards to which a system must adhere before it can be cleared to house "top secret" classified information. I would be willing to bet that this server was not certified to house / transmit classified data. So yes, "insecure" is correct.

Yes, and one of those standards is that the server not be connected to the Internet.

Again, Top Secret information isn't allowed on the regular DoS email network either. (In fact, it doesn't appear Top Secret info is even allowed on SIPRNet. There are other, even more classified systems for Top Secret.) If someone was putting Top Secret information in email, he or she was violating policy, if not law. The secured status of Clinton's server is irrelevant in that context.

 

[fskimospy]

...or a vast Right Wing conspiracy.

The media has latched onto this scandal and it's now apparent it's not going away anytime soon. This is going to cost Hillary the nomination imo.

No it isn't.

If you do happen to actually believe that though you have a chance to make a lot of money betting in prediction markets right now. Will you be doing that?

 

[Bowfinger]

She answer the question by claiming "convenience" , but that answer simply doesn't hold any water. It's a BS answer. First, her own words from a month before in Silicon Valley directly contradicted the claim. She told the audience that she used an iPhone, a BlackBerry, an iPad and a mini iPad. Second, it doesn't make any logical sense, you can use one device to access emails from multiple servers.

That canard has already been refuted. When this started in 2009 she only had one device. She has more devices now. In 2009, it was certainly more convenient for her to have all mail come to a single device. You may feel otherwise, but Clinton is not bound by your feelings.

The investigation will show what was legal and what was not (there's a criminal investigation ongoing), but that's largely irrelevant as to whether she engaged in inappropriate activity. We already know she did, legal or not. The question is, why? She hasn't been able to answer that question, and until she does so reasonably, it should be a clear indicator she can't be trusted.

Repeating the same dishonest talking point doesn't make it magically true. Clinton told us why: convenience. That's a fact, no matter how you feel about it.

As I've said several times, I agree her choice was inappropriate. It was apparently legal, however, and her two (Republican) predecessors also chose to use private email accounts for DoS business. If she broke any laws, I assume the investigation will discover it.

Just because emails can't be sent directly from within the classified network doesn't mean email can't contain classified information or documents. Indeed, that would be a problem regardless of whether she used her personal server or not, but it doesn't absolve her from responsibility. It just means the sender of the information is also mishandling classified information.

Yes, it certainly means the sender mishandles classified information. I'm not sure how it's her responsibility, doubly so if she doesn't even know the information should be classified.

IMO, this is yet another example of GOP attack dogs treating supposition and innuendo as fact. It's boring, predictable, and almost invariably untruthful (based on past experience). Ignore the smear campaign and let the investigation proceed.