Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[BoberFett]

...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.

I don't believe it will. Democrats are completely blind to their own dirty laundry.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.
__________________

It's all they've got so that's what they'll use. Face it, their ideology & track record aren't anything they can build on so the only way to win is to tear down the opposition.

 

[Zorba]

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.

Yeah, no personnel information gets sent in e-mail, ever at any company, except every company I've ever worked at. The State Department over sees ITAR, but you don't think any ITAR information was ever sent to the SoS? You don't think that State department handles any other information that isn't for public consumption that is not classified?

If I forwarded all of my e-mail at work to a private e-mail for even one day, I would have broken several laws, not to mention company polices. I imagine the SoS gets much more interesting material than I do. No classified material needed.

 

[Zorba]

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.

She would still have a legal requirement to report the leak to the State Department's security to have the information properly removed, after she learned the data had become classified. Now she could plead ignorance, which might be true. But if she knew that the now classified data had passed through her server, she had a legal requirement to have the data wiped correctly. This is the same standard every other person with a clearance is held to.

BTW: I am not saying she is guilty of anything other than very poor decision making, but this should be investigated (preferably outside of the media) and the practiced ended across the board.

 

[werepossum]

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?

Yes, Darryl Issa is a part of legitimate Congressional oversight, and yes, Judicial Watch has the right to file Freedom of Information requests to see any of it, although they do not have the right to see all of it. Although according to Clinton there is nothing there that Judicial Watch could not legitimately obtain.

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely no one is so stupid as to believe that Clinton set up her server for convenience, unless one counts the convenience of being able to use email to negotiate donations to one's fund without fear of anyone else seeing it.

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?

We'll see, but I suspect that you correct that Democratic primary voters are fine with their nominee doing absolutely anything she damned well pleases, regardless of laws or policies or common sense.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, no personnel information gets sent in e-mail, ever at any company, except every company I've ever worked at. The State Department over sees ITAR, but you don't think any ITAR information was ever sent to the SoS? You don't think that State department handles any other information that isn't for public consumption that is not classified?

If I forwarded all of my e-mail at work to a private e-mail for even one day, I would have broken several laws, not to mention company polices. I imagine the SoS gets much more interesting material than I do. No classified material needed.

And the circular reasoning return to the notion that Clinton broke the law, somehow, some way in some fashion that you just can't seem to actually identify. But Condi & Powell obviously didn't, of course.

Not to mention that anybody who thinks wireless transmission of email is actually secure has shit for brains.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, Darryl Issa is a part of legitimate Congressional oversight

Issa has never been that & we both know it. Hell, even Kurt Gowdy knows that.

And, uhh, when did Judicial Watch demand the emails of other former SoS?

 

[Jhhnn]

She would still have a legal requirement to report the leak to the State Department's security to have the information properly removed, after she learned the data had become classified. Now she could plead ignorance, which might be true. But if she knew that the now classified data had passed through her server, she had a legal requirement to have the data wiped correctly. This is the same standard every other person with a clearance is held to.

BTW: I am not saying she is guilty of anything other than very poor decision making, but this should be investigated (preferably outside of the media) and the practiced ended across the board.

Gawd. Only now has some of it been deemed to be classified so you're demanding she go back in time.

 

[Zorba]

And the circular reasoning return to the notion that Clinton broke the law, somehow, some way in some fashion that you just can't seem to actually identify. But Condi & Powell obviously didn't, of course.

Not to mention that anybody who thinks wireless transmission of email is actually secure has shit for brains.

I am just saying it was stupid, it would've been easy for her to break the law, and it should be investigated. The laws on handling classified data are very strict. And they aren't exactly lax on the other data I am sure the SoS comes in contact with.

I also have no access to the e-mail, so I have any idea if she actually broke the law. But I can make a reasonable assumption the vast majority of official e-mails to the SoS should not be on a random private server.

But Condi & Powell obviously didn't, of course.

Thank you for proving you are a political hack, considering I've said many times the practice should be banned across the board. I am an independent, so I don't have to justify "my team" doing something incredible stupid. If both sides were wrong, fry them both. And most of all, end this practice, if are a federal employee, you should be using government systems to conduct government business, not a hard concept.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hillary is looking a little frazzled lately. Wonder why?

 

[Zorba]

Gawd. Only now has some of it been deemed to be classified so you're demanding she go back in time.

There is a reason you are taught not to talk around classified information, or about things which may become classified.

If it is classified today, and it is still sitting on her server today, regardless of how it was marked when she got it, she is in violation of the laws. It is really pretty simple. And again it is very clear you have never handled classified data, so you are completely ignorant of the regulations.

I have seen similar situations in my real life and know how it is dealt with properly.

Like I said before, she very well could plead ignorance, and she may very well have been ignorant that something was classified after the fact. But as soon as you start putting official data in unofficial places you take on the responsibility for that data.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is a reason you are taught not to talk around classified information, or about things which may become classified.

If it is classified today, and it is still sitting on her server today, regardless of how it was marked when she got it, she is in violation of the laws. It is really pretty simple. And again it is very clear you have never handled classified data, so you are completely ignorant of the regulations.

I have seen similar situations in my real life and know how it is dealt with properly.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Orwell was spot on.

 

[HumblePie]

There is a reason you are taught not to talk around classified information, or about things which may become classified.

If it is classified today, and it is still sitting on her server today, regardless of how it was marked when she got it, she is in violation of the laws. It is really pretty simple. And again it is very clear you have never handled classified data, so you are completely ignorant of the regulations.

I have seen similar situations in my real life and know how it is dealt with properly.

Like I said before, she very well could plead ignorance, and she may very well have been ignorant that something was classified after the fact. But as soon as you start putting official data in unofficial places you take on the responsibility for that data.

It all depends on how she handled it to be in violation.

Since I used to work in military on this sort of stuff, I have a bit of knowledge about how this all works.

The moment she thought there may have been classified info or knowledge relating to it, she needed to turn everything over for inspection and shut it all down by physical disconnection. By not doing so, she needs to provide a very valid reason more than "I just didn't know" especially as she seemed to know some of the contents of what was being passed and knew they were related to classified topics.

How much of an infraction this is depends. Most people wouldn't see any jail time or massive punishments per say. They would more than likely be fired, removed from jpas, and basically never be trusted with classified info again. Which basically means finding a new line of work. Damage control would take over to make sure any of the leaks were plugged.

It also depends on the severity of the risk of the released classified info is. That also factors in a bit.

 

[fskimospy]

There is a reason you are taught not to talk around classified information, or about things which may become classified.

If it is classified today, and it is still sitting on her server today, regardless of how it was marked when she got it, she is in violation of the laws. It is really pretty simple. And again it is very clear you have never handled classified data, so you are completely ignorant of the regulations.

I have seen similar situations in my real life and know how it is dealt with properly.

I've handled a lot of classified data. I'm not aware of any regulation or law that says an individual or organization that possesses data that has been retroactively reclassified has an affirmative duty to find that data and destroy or return it. (that would seem to be an impossible standard to employ)

EDIT: This refers to data that they did not know had been reclassified.

 

[PokerGuy]

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

So we agree then that her server could not be considered an appropriate place to have any kind of classified communications. We already know for a fact that at least some such classified communications have been found on the server.

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.

It is not irrelevant, all it means is that someone else *also* violated policy/law, it doesn't mean she didn't, nor does it somehow excuse her inappropriate use of the server.

However, aside from those legal questions, the *real* question remains, what legitimate reason is there for her to use her private server instead of the government servers? Her initial response was already shown to be BS, by her own words. That should be a really simple question to answer right?

This is why her poll numbers have started dropping, the public trust in her continues to decline because she can't answer simple questions without being evasive or lying.

 

[Blackjack200]

Hillary is looking a little frazzled lately. Wonder why?

We get it. 'Look how ugly she is!'

That's a pretty good road to go down.

 

[Atreus21]

Hillary Clinton: The Democratic Party's ticking time bomb

haha.

Oh, that server we wouldn't give to you? You can have it now, cleaned up all nice and tidy. There certainly weren't any classified documents on there. Oh, there were? Oops, well, only those two — oh, I mean four — and don't worry about how that's just a "limited sample" of 40 emails out of tens of thousands; the inspector general of the Justice Department just got lucky. And hey, we deleted them, so who cares? (Freedom of information is for suckers.) Yes, of course, my "shadow" had access to that server and those classified emails, too. Why is that a problem? What, are you a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

 

[BoberFett]

We get it. 'Look how ugly she is!'

That's a pretty good road to go down.

He said frazzled. Can men who are under investigation not look frazzled? Of course, he must mean ugly, because anyone who doesn't support Hillary unequivocally must be a misogynist.

And you must have missed all the misogynist attacks against any female politicians over the years who are in the "wrong" party. Bachmann gets called ugly all the time. And don't even try to claim it's because she's "ugly inside" or whatever garbage you try to come up with. Democrats go after female Republicans all the time with sexist ad hominems.

 

[boomerang]

Hillary Clinton Should be Terrified That Jim Comey Is Investigating Her Email Crimes

The facts are not in dispute. Mrs. Clinton used a privately owned and maintained server for her email communications. She comingled personal and government correspondence.

Federal law requires that classified information be handled on a secure government system. It is a crime to handle them otherwise.

Mrs. Clinton determined on her own which communications were government related and turned over about 30,000 emails to the State Department after they had been subpoenaed by Congress. She destroyed about 30,000 emails that she and her aides determined were “personal” and did not relate to business.

(Think about that. If you use email in your business activity, what percentage of your daily email is personal? Mine is about 2 percent. We are expected to believe that the secretary of state of the United States of America spent half her day on private email?)

Two inspectors general have reviewed 40 of the emails given to the State Department and found five of them had classified information in them. Two were classified Top Secret. It is likely that there are several thousand.

She gave a thumb drive containing the emails to her attorney for safekeeping. He may have an office safe, but it is not an approved place for the storage of classified government documents. That is a crime.

After five months of stonewalling Mrs. Clinton has turned the server over to the FBI. It has been professionally wiped clean.
To destroy classified documents is a crime.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We get it. 'Look how ugly she is!'

That's a pretty good road to go down.

Who said anything about ugly? You're projecting again.

But her eyes do kind of look crazy/evil to me. It would be a perfect Newsweek cover photo (ala Michelle Bachmann) wouldn't you say?

 

[Virge_]

In fairness to Hillary, and as I've indicated I'm no fan, it appears that any classification that could get her in trouble was put on the emails AFTER the fact. Alan Dershowitz has stated unequivocally that no matter what the newer status of those emails are she can't be prosecuted for emails that were not so classified when she handled them.

So, unless something pops up that was known to be classified when she handled them she's unlikely to face any criminal prosecution. That won't stop the Benghazi style attacks against her though.


Brian

This argument is complete nonsense if she followed the government-mandated e-mail policy to begin with.

You can make up as many excuses as you'd like, the reality is you're oblivious if you cannot make the connection that she's still at fault.

 

[fskimospy]

Who said anything about ugly? You're projecting again.

But her eyes do kind of look crazy/evil to me. It would be a perfect Newsweek cover photo (ala Michelle Bachmann) wouldn't you say?

This just made me wonder what conservatives would be saying if a Republican candidate were subject to the same level of scrutiny that Clinton has been.

Let me guess though, the media is biased against conservatives but this isn't evidence the other way because Clinton deserves it.

 

[PokerGuy]

This just made me wonder what conservatives would be saying if a Republican candidate were subject to the same level of scrutiny that Clinton has been.

Yep, it's not like Bush got that level of scrutiny right? Or Palin? Nope, no way, they got a complete pass. Oh, wait a second.......

Let me guess though, the media is biased against conservatives

Well duh, and water is wet, news @ 11. As soon as you can document how the vast majority of those in the mainstream media self identify as conservatives in support of the GOP and donate to conservative causes, then we can definitely have a discussion about pro-conservative bias in the media. As it stands though, it's the other way around so...........

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, Darryl Issa is a part of legitimate Congressional oversight, and yes, Judicial Watch has the right to file Freedom of Information requests to see any of it, although they do not have the right to see all of it. Although according to Clinton there is nothing there that Judicial Watch could not legitimately obtain.


Absolutely no one is so stupid as to believe that Clinton set up her server for convenience, unless one counts the convenience of being able to use email to negotiate donations to one's fund without fear of anyone else seeing it.


We'll see, but I suspect that you correct that Democratic primary voters are fine with their nominee doing absolutely anything she damned well pleases, regardless of laws or policies or common sense.

The Clinton's have been using their private email server since 93 so I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-server-intelligence-agencies-classified-2015-7

 

[ivwshane]

This argument is complete nonsense if she followed the government-mandated e-mail policy to begin with.

You can make up as many excuses as you'd like, the reality is you're oblivious if you cannot make the connection that she's still at fault.

Do you have evidence that she didn't follow protocol? Of course you don't and neither do republicans which is why exactly zero charges have been filed. But that won't stop the believers though, will it.