Hillary May Be Charged Within 60 Days

[Bowfinger]

The piece has quite a bit of interesting analysis, including analyses by lawyers and specialists in national security issues. The facts are not enough. You need to know how the LAW and the extant set of facts intertwine. I missed the Constitutional Lawyer/National Security Lawyer here on Anandtech. Should we assume computer techs know and understand the complex issues at play here?

The only down side to the link is it's obviously a hit piece on Hillary by right wingers. But, passing some obvious prejudice against Hillary, it does offer some food for thought.

That sort of "expert" analysis has been widely offered -- on both sides -- and regularly presented in threads here. The problem with such a hit piece is it offers no balance, no attempt to provide both sides of the story so we can enjoy substantive food for thought instead of tainted junk food (e.g., the incessant flood of innuendo and speculation I've railed against over and over). A hit piece is not information, it's propaganda.

Again, if there's something specific in the piece you think is uniquely thought provoking, tell us about it. It's simply not worthwhile to sit through an hour of propaganda hoping to hear one or two new tidbits.

 

[Bowfinger]

I recommend you not view it since it conflicts with everything you think you know.

That's a cop-out.

 

[cairncross]

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell weighed in on this. It should be fairly straightforward. If there was "negligence," than these other two predecessors were also "guilty." But "criminal?"

Would you (or anyone, actually) mind posting a link to some reporting on this?

Thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Would you (or anyone, actually) mind posting a link to some reporting on this?

Thanks.

Here are two links, FBI Contacts Colin Powell as Part of Email Probe and Classified Data Found in Personal Email of Colin Powell and Aides to Condolezza Rice. I don't see anything directly from Rice, but Powell weighed in:

“That is an absurdity,” he said. If two seasoned diplomats could not discuss their views with the secretary in unclassified emails, he said, “we might as well shut the department down.”
​

 

[cairncross]

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell weighed in on this. It should be fairly straightforward. If there was "negligence," than these other two predecessors were also "guilty." But "criminal?"

Thanks to Bowfinger for posting the link to the New York Times story, which appears to be just what I expected, deliberate distortion from the Left--as is your post, evidently. The article talks about a small number of emails that were sent to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice, and is ambiguous at best as to whether any details in those messages were actually Classified at the time they were sent. There is no claim that either Mr. Powell or Ms. Rice ever willfully deviated in any way from State Department IT Security policies, nor that they have ever condoned such actions by anyone else.

For that matter, Ms. Rice has not "weighed in"; she was not available for comment, and her Chief of Staff advised the Times that Ms. Rice "did not use email or have a personal email account while secretary (sic)".

But, thanks to the Gray Lady, any discussions of Madame Secretary Clinton's mail server can now simply end with "Oh, it's OK, Powell and Rice did it too."

Just for an assessment of "risk," someone needs to ask themselves "who would have the e-mail address for this 'personal server' -- set up by a Secret Service man? And so -- how easy would it be, given those limited statistics, to eavesdrop?

"The bad guys probably don't know my email address" is not an acceptable security policy for my personal accounts, so it's not likely you'll persuade me that it should be for a U.S. Secretary of State.

Set up by a "Secret Service man"? If that's true, then he did so intending it would be used only for the personal business of a former First Lady. Not for conducting the official business of a Secretary of State, and he would have no business doing so either.

It might be that you just don't get how IT security works (or, at least, is supposed to work), but I think you probably just don't care. You want someone to become President of the United States, so you'll excuse pretty much anything she does.

 

[MongGrel]

Redacted, I'll reserve judgement.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans want to believe. Let them. They thought Romney was going to win and polls were skewed too.

 

[Bowfinger]

Thanks to Bowfinger for posting the link to the New York Times story, which appears to be just what I expected, deliberate distortion from the Left--as is your post, evidently.

Ah, you're one of those people. When the article doesn't tell you what you want to hear, you dismiss it as "deliberate distortion from the Left." Do you, perhaps, prefer to get your "information" from sources like Breitbart, Daily Caller, or talk radio?

The article talks about a small number of emails that were sent to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice, and is ambiguous at best as to whether any details in those messages were actually Classified at the time they were sent. ...

According to the evidence presented so far, your comment largely applies to Clinton as well. Care to link any credible articles providing contrary evidence? Note that speculation and innuendo from sources like Breitbart, Daily Caller, and talk radio is NOT evidence. It's propaganda for the rubes. I'm asking for actual evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks to Bowfinger for posting the link to the New York Times story, which appears to be just what I expected, deliberate distortion from the Left--as is your post, evidently. The article talks about a small number of emails that were sent to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice, and is ambiguous at best as to whether any details in those messages were actually Classified at the time they were sent. There is no claim that either Mr. Powell or Ms. Rice ever willfully deviated in any way from State Department IT Security policies, nor that they have ever condoned such actions by anyone else.

For that matter, Ms. Rice has not "weighed in"; she was not available for comment, and her Chief of Staff advised the Times that Ms. Rice "did not use email or have a personal email account while secretary (sic)".

But, thanks to the Gray Lady, any discussions of Madame Secretary Clinton's mail server can now simply end with "Oh, it's OK, Powell and Rice did it too."



"The bad guys probably don't know my email address" is not an acceptable security policy for my personal accounts, so it's not likely you'll persuade me that it should be for a U.S. Secretary of State.

Set up by a "Secret Service man"? If that's true, then he did so intending it would be used only for the personal business of a former First Lady. Not for conducting the official business of a Secretary of State, and he would have no business doing so either.

It might be that you just don't get how IT security works (or, at least, is supposed to work), but I think you probably just don't care. You want someone to become President of the United States, so you'll excuse pretty much anything she does.

It's interesting that you're accusing other people of seeing what they want to see while dismissing the paper of record for the United States as being part of a leftist conspiracy.

Is it possible you genuinely don't realize you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing others of?

 

[nickqt]

Thanks to Bowfinger for posting the link to the New York Times story, which appears to be just what I expected, deliberate distortion from the Left--as is your post, evidently. The article talks about a small number of emails that were sent to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice, and is ambiguous at best as to whether any details in those messages were actually Classified at the time they were sent. There is no claim that either Mr. Powell or Ms. Rice ever willfully deviated in any way from State Department IT Security policies, nor that they have ever condoned such actions by anyone else.

For that matter, Ms. Rice has not "weighed in"; she was not available for comment, and her Chief of Staff advised the Times that Ms. Rice "did not use email or have a personal email account while secretary (sic)".

But, thanks to the Gray Lady, any discussions of Madame Secretary Clinton's mail server can now simply end with "Oh, it's OK, Powell and Rice did it too."



"The bad guys probably don't know my email address" is not an acceptable security policy for my personal accounts, so it's not likely you'll persuade me that it should be for a U.S. Secretary of State.

Set up by a "Secret Service man"? If that's true, then he did so intending it would be used only for the personal business of a former First Lady. Not for conducting the official business of a Secretary of State, and he would have no business doing so either.

It might be that you just don't get how IT security works (or, at least, is supposed to work), but I think you probably just don't care. You want someone to become President of the United States, so you'll excuse pretty much anything she does.

Ok, 4-post nobody, if Clinton has clearly done something illegal, I'm sure you'll have the FBI report handy to say which laws she broke.

I'll wait here, 4-post nobody.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks to Bowfinger for posting the link to the New York Times story, which appears to be just what I expected, deliberate distortion from the Left--as is your post, evidently. The article talks about a small number of emails that were sent to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice, and is ambiguous at best as to whether any details in those messages were actually Classified at the time they were sent. There is no claim that either Mr. Powell or Ms. Rice ever willfully deviated in any way from State Department IT Security policies, nor that they have ever condoned such actions by anyone else.

For that matter, Ms. Rice has not "weighed in"; she was not available for comment, and her Chief of Staff advised the Times that Ms. Rice "did not use email or have a personal email account while secretary (sic)".

But, thanks to the Gray Lady, any discussions of Madame Secretary Clinton's mail server can now simply end with "Oh, it's OK, Powell and Rice did it too."





"The bad guys probably don't know my email address" is not an acceptable security policy for my personal accounts, so it's not likely you'll persuade me that it should be for a U.S. Secretary of State.

Set up by a "Secret Service man"? If that's true, then he did so intending it would be used only for the personal business of a former First Lady. Not for conducting the official business of a Secretary of State, and he would have no business doing so either.

It might be that you just don't get how IT security works (or, at least, is supposed to work), but I think you probably just don't care. You want someone to become President of the United States, so you'll excuse pretty much anything she does.

Rightes' reasoning is always circular. While Hillary's use of a private server wasn't a good idea, that in and of itself obviously wasn't illegal or she'd already be busted. It can be no other way.

That needs to be acknowledged & set aside for honest discussion to move forward. It's really immaterial to the rest of the story which is about when & how information gets classified & how it escapes into the wild. There are a huge number of scenarios in that.

It's also about how security pinheads deal with such information. I'm confident that Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative is still classified, as is information about the drone program leaked & published in the NYT. They somehow manage to act like it's secret when it's not secret at all. They attempt to deny reality.

There are other levels of silliness, as well. If Tony Blair sent Hillary an electronic birthday card, that's information classified after the fact because he was a foreign govt official. If she sends a thank you note, that's also classified.

If a source like Blumenthal receives leaked classified information & emails it to Hillary she's guilty of nothing, obviously. If she discusses it with her aides it's merely subject to classification after the fact for the purposes of public disclosure.

I could go on like that through a variety of other scenarios you clearly choose to disregard in your desire to discredit her.

 

[feralkid]

Would you (or anyone, actually) mind posting a link to some reporting on this?

Thanks.

Would you (or anyone, actually) mind telling us who you were before you were banned?

Thanks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ok, 4-post nobody, if Clinton has clearly done something illegal, I'm sure you'll have the FBI report handy to say which laws she broke.

I'll wait here, 4-post nobody.

Would you (or anyone, actually) mind telling us who you were before you were banned?

Thanks.

Please don't go there, guys. It's childish.

 

[IGBT]

rope-a-dope stories. If they had the dirt on her they would have used it already. She's probably guilty but her willing accomplices in the investigation will loose the evidence.

 

[ivwshane]

rope-a-dope stories. If they had the dirt on her they would have used it already. She's probably guilty but her willing accomplices in the investigation will loose the evidence.

Yep, you gotta have that conspiracy theory ready to go if things don't go your way! How else could you dismiss reality?
I myself thought it was rather elaborate of clinton to have her minions investigate the situation and have the investigation looming over her during her presidential run. A normal criminal would have had her minions dismiss it altogether or they would have at least finished with it a lot sooner and come up with nothing. But clinton is no normal criminal right, IGBT? She's a criminal mastermind! The likes of which no one has ever seen. Hell when Ken star was able to find something on bill, but Hillary? No way, she's way too smart!

/s

 

[Jhhnn]

rope-a-dope stories. If they had the dirt on her they would have used it already. She's probably guilty but her willing accomplices in the investigation will loose the evidence.

First reason, then overriding conspiracy theory.

 

[zinfamous]

First you say this:

rope-a-dope stories. If they had the dirt on her they would have used it already.

Then you say this

She's probably guilty but her willing accomplices in the investigation will loose the evidence.

derp

 

[zinfamous]

First reason, then overriding conspiracy theory.

If predicting conservative talking points was a stock, I would be a trillionaire snorting gold dust off of hooker's asses at the top of my 80 story Dubai tower fortress.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

rope-a-dope stories. If they had the dirt on her they would have used it already. She's probably guilty but her willing accomplices in the investigation will loose the evidence.

loose as in release or loose as in evidence wasn't tight?

 

[Jhhnn]

loose as in release or loose as in evidence wasn't tight?

"Loose" as in bovine diarrhea.

 

[IGBT]

yet your hillary isn't winning anything but keeps piling on Super Delegates. Sounds like one of your global cooling climate models. Are the climate model hacks running her campaign??

 

[zinfamous]

yet your hillary isn't winning anything but keeps piling on Super Delegates. Sounds like one of your global cooling climate models. Are the climate model hacks running her campaign??

That was actually funny in a gross-misinformation-about-reality-can-still-be-funny-in-it's-own-right sort of way, but hey: still funny.

kudos. :thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

-snip-

The article talks about a small number of emails that were sent to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice, and is ambiguous at best as to whether any details in those messages were actually Classified at the time they were sent. ...

According to the evidence presented so far, your comment largely applies to Clinton as well. Care to link any credible articles providing contrary evidence? Note that speculation and innuendo from sources like Breitbart, Daily Caller, and talk radio is NOT evidence. It's propaganda for the rubes. I'm asking for actual evidence.

Well, your comment wasn't directed to me, but may I ask:

1. Are you suggesting that there was only a "small number" of emails sent to Hillary?

2. Are you suggesting that it's "ambiguous at best as to whether any details in those messages were actually Classified at the time they were sent"?

Fern

 

[MongGrel]

Ok, 4-post nobody, if Clinton has clearly done something illegal, I'm sure you'll have the FBI report handy to say which laws she broke.

I'll wait here, 4-post nobody.

Would you (or anyone, actually) mind telling us who you were before you were banned?

Thanks.

+1

 

[ivwshane]

yet your hillary isn't winning anything but keeps piling on Super Delegates. Sounds like one of your global cooling climate models. Are the climate model hacks running her campaign??

Good lord! You've got to be the most brainwashed poster on this forum!

Quick! Tell us how many delegates clinton and Sanders have each NOT including super delegates.