IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

[Jhhnn]

So President Hillary should just move all the government's servers to her basement. We don't need checks and balances, we need concentration of power. We can also get rid of all those IT experts that government uses. No need for monitoring for/dealing with intrusions, it's safe in Hil's basement.

Apparently it *was* safe in Hillary's Secret Service protected basement, huh?

 

[theeedude]

Honest question: Will you be willing to extend that same level of trust to President Trump or President Cruz?

Sure. Just out of curiosity, what level of trust do you think finding a place for the email server requires?

 

[werepossum]

Of course she did. That in no way means she would have anything even remotely close to a comprehensive understanding of all the classified information she might come into contact with. That would be literally impossible.

So now that you're an admitted non-expert, can you explain to us why you've felt so comfortable deciding that the only possibilities for how Clinton could be unaware of classified information was ignorance or stupidity? Take your time if you need to.

Because the defense presented here on her behalf was that she couldn't possibly know what is classified. Yet as you (now) admit, she has in fact been briefed regularly, and while not perfect, has some reasonable level of expertise.

Now that we are agreed she was in fact regularly briefed and that from those briefs she nonetheless could not have a comprehensive understanding of all the classified information with which she might come into contact, which is an ethical decision:
1. Use the existing State email system, which forces a choice of classification on each message and which will not allow a subject deemed classified to be forwarded.
2. Have an aide add you and your aides to an existing, non-secure, server located in your basement and administered by IT firms which have never been vetted for handling sensitive government information? Remember that much of what passes through Mrs. Clinton's server is sensitive regardless of whether it is classified.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the defense presented here on her behalf was that she couldn't possibly know what is classified. Yet as you (now) admit, she has in fact been briefed regularly, and while not perfect, has some reasonable level of expertise.

I never disputed she had briefings. That is another lie. I did dispute that those briefings would give her comprehensive knowledge. I presume you are now admitting that your original accusation of ignorance or stupidity was actually caused by your own ignorance? Is that correct?

Now that we are agreed she was in fact regularly briefed and that from those briefs she nonetheless could not have a comprehensive understanding of all the classified information with which she might come into contact, which is an ethical decision:
1. Use the existing State email system, which forces a choice of classification on each message and which will not allow a subject deemed classified to be forwarded.
2. Have an aide add you and your aides to an existing, non-secure, server located in your basement and administered by IT firms which have never been vetted for handling sensitive government information? Remember that much of what passes through Mrs. Clinton's server is sensitive regardless of whether it is classified.

I think her having a private server was a bad idea for several reasons, none of which are because someone might be forced to click a security classification level, especially because the issue is people not knowing if something is classified.

 

[werepossum]

Sure. Just out of curiosity, what level of trust do you think finding a place for the email server requires?

For sensitive government correspondence, a location where the system is constantly monitored for intrusions, with well-trained, competent people who know what to look for and know how to stop intrusions and attempted penetrations. The State Department for example should have a system more secure than the Charlie's Pet Forum server. The State Department agrees with me by the way, which is why they devote an awful lot of resources to IT security. That way a hacker has a limited time to get in and get out, and has little opportunity to erase evidence of his being there.

For ALL government correspondence, I want a location as much as possible on neutral ground, beyond the politician's control. Even legitimate classification is bad enough without giving the politician the ability to unilaterally control the history of what was done, be it President Hillary, President Poofyhair, or President Anchorbaby. NONE of them should be trusted with complete control over the record of government correspondence.

 

[werepossum]

I never disputed she had briefings. That is another lie. I did dispute that those briefings would give her comprehensive knowledge. I presume you are now admitting that your original accusation of ignorance or stupidity was actually caused by your own ignorance? Is that correct?

I think her having a private server was a bad idea for several reasons, none of which are because someone might be forced to click a security classification level, especially because the issue is people not knowing if something is classified.

Ahem. What I said:

SNIP
Your defense requires accepting that Mrs. Clinton is literally too stupid to understand the principles on which she is regularly briefed. Not exactly an ideal defense since she's bucking for a big promotion. As far as whether she lied, she has changed her story from "there was no classified information" to "there was nothing marked classified". As long as she's playing the stupidity defense, I suppose we can't call that a lie though.
SNIP

What you said:

Wait, you actually think that the Secretary of State gets briefed on everything that is or isn't classified on a regular basis? Is this a joke? Can you describe to us what you think those briefings would look like?

Lol. Before insinuating that someone else might be stupid...

You've now gone from laughing at the fact that I think she was regularly briefed on what is classified to saying "I never disputed she had briefings." Yet your exact words were:

Is this a joke? Can you describe to us what you think those briefings would look like?

Somehow those meetings have gone from unimaginable to a matter of course.

You're wearing out the field running back and forth with those goalposts, dude.

 

[theeedude]

For sensitive government correspondence, a location where the system is constantly monitored for intrusions, with well-trained, competent people who know what to look for and know how to stop intrusions and attempted penetrations. The State Department for example should have a system more secure than the Charlie's Pet Forum server. The State Department agrees with me by the way, which is why they devote an awful lot of resources to IT security. That way a hacker has a limited time to get in and get out, and has little opportunity to erase evidence of his being there.

For ALL government correspondence, I want a location as much as possible on neutral ground, beyond the politician's control. Even legitimate classification is bad enough without giving the politician the ability to unilaterally control the history of what was done, be it President Hillary, President Poofyhair, or President Anchorbaby. NONE of them should be trusted with complete control over the record of government correspondence.

Like it or not, a politician called "President" controls the executive branch, directly and indirectly, including IT functions. Not sure what this neutral ground you are talking about is. GMail?

 

[werepossum]

Like it or not, a politician called "President" controls the executive branch, directly and indirectly, including IT functions. Not sure what this neutral ground you are talking about is. GMail?

Nope, State is fine. Or whichever department we are referencing. The issue is whether a politician can go in and change the record without being caught. If so, that politician is free to send whatever she wishes to whomever she wishes, or to change her orders or comments to whatever she wishes them to be with the benefit of hindsight. Hillary set up a system which gave her that absolute control. She did get caught abusing it, when Blumenthal's emails were turned over, but her supporters literally do not care what she does.

Contrast that with President Obama. He may really, really wish he had not sent a particular email, but he has no method of deleting it because there are techs in charge who are professionals, selected for ability rather than for personal loyalty. People unlikely to allow him to change the past at his whim. Everybody, Democrat or Republican, plays by these same rules.

Everybody except Hillary. And you guys want to give her a LOT more power.

 

[theeedude]

Nope, State is fine. Or whichever department we are referencing. The issue is whether a politician can go in and change the record without being caught. If so, that politician is free to send whatever she wishes to whomever she wishes, or to change her orders or comments to whatever she wishes them to be with the benefit of hindsight. Hillary set up a system which gave her that absolute control. She did get caught abusing it, when Blumenthal's emails were turned over, but her supporters literally do not care what she does.

Contrast that with President Obama. He may really, really wish he had not sent a particular email, but he has no method of deleting it because there are techs in charge who are professionals, selected for ability rather than for personal loyalty. People unlikely to allow him to change the past at his whim. Everybody, Democrat or Republican, plays by these same rules.

Everybody except Hillary. And you guys want to give her a LOT more power.

You sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]

 

[fskimospy]

Ahem. What I said:

Haha, nice try on lying your way out of this. You have conveniently quoted an entirely different post than the one I replied to, which was this:

Your "point" was that Petraeus knew which documents were classified and the Hildabeast did not. I'm pointing out that she was regularly briefed on what is and what is not classified, as a part of her job. Ergo if you maintain that she did not know, the only logical conclusion is that she is too stupid to understand her briefings.

By your plainly stated logic if she didn't know that something was classified she was too stupid to understand her briefings. That could only be true if her briefings covered everything that's classified. That is the only, inescapable conclusion.

I guess you were counting on people not paying attention to what you actually wrote. I'll give you good marks for a particularly sneaky attempt at lying your way out though.

What you said:

Yes, exactly. You even bolded the relevant part. Saying that having a briefing about the entirety of what is classified and is not is a ridiculous idea does not equal "she never had briefings on classified material". Or anything even remotely close to that.

You've now gone from laughing at the fact that I think she was regularly briefed on what is classified to saying "I never disputed she had briefings." Yet your exact words were:

Somehow those meetings have gone from unimaginable to a matter of course.

Nope, the kind of briefings your original statement required are every bit as unimaginable as they ever will be. It's not like my post is ambiguous in the slightest, unless you're using a novel definition of "everything" that means "not everything". lol.

You're wearing out the field running back and forth with those goalposts, dude.

You are seriously one of the most dishonest people I've seen on this board. It's amazing how easily lying comes to you. Why not just admit you said something stupid and move on? What do you get out of these series of increasingly implausible lies?

 

[werepossum]

You sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Yes, and I've brought that up before as a reason why Hillary will never be charged. The Bush White House (not SecStates) had a second system for only political issues. And although we don't know they used it to avoid having an official record of conversations on politically charged but official government business, we all know they used it to avoid having an official record of conversations on politically charged but official government business.

Where Hillary is different is that she decided to put everything* under her total control.

*Everything she did by email, which by her account is over 55,000 pages of official work.

 

[michal1980]

Apparently it *was* safe in Hillary's Secret Service protected basement, huh?

because access to a server requires sneaking past some secret service agents Mission Impossible style?

 

[theeedude]

Yes, and I've brought that up before as a reason why Hillary will never be charged. The Bush White House (not SecStates) had a second system for only political issues. And although we don't know they used it to avoid having an official record of conversations on politically charged but official government business, we all know they used it to avoid having an official record of conversations on politically charged but official government business.
Where Hillary is different is that she decided to put everything under her total control.

You are misinformed. Most of her official communication was not over email in the first place, but by secure diplomatic cables. Also, you think that doing it for political reasons (escaping responsibility for wrongfully firing US attorneys) is better than doing it for convenience?

 

[werepossum]

Haha, nice try on lying your way out of this. You have conveniently quoted an entirely different post than the one I replied to, which was this:

By your plainly stated logic if she didn't know that something was classified she was too stupid to understand her briefings. That could only be true if her briefings covered everything that's classified. That is the only, inescapable conclusion.

I guess you were counting on people not paying attention to what you actually wrote. I'll give you good marks for a particularly sneaky attempt at lying your way out though.

Yes, exactly. You even bolded the relevant part. Saying that having a briefing about the entirety of what is classified and is not is a ridiculous idea does not equal "she never had briefings on classified material". Or anything even remotely close to that.

Nope, the kind of briefings your original statement required are every bit as unimaginable as they ever will be. It's not like my post is ambiguous in the slightest, unless you're using a novel definition of "everything" that means "not everything". lol.

You are seriously one of the most dishonest people I've seen on this board. It's amazing how easily lying comes to you. Why not just admit you said something stupid and move on? What do you get out of these series of increasingly implausible lies?

My bad on quoting the wrong post, but as I said the exact same thing in both, it's hardly different either way. I actually repeated it several times.

Can you give us an example of a briefing which covers literally everything on any subject? For your point to have a point, that is a necessity. Otherwise you are simply arguing that briefings are useless and thus there should be no accountability.

My comment was:

I'm pointing out that she was regularly briefed on what is and what is not classified, as a part of her job.

At this point, we are both agreed that is true, correct?

Assuming we agree, then you are left with asserting that these briefings are useless because they cannot possibly cover every single possible situation. That would be an immensely powerful statement and I assure you that if for some reason I chose to make it, it would be clear.

I never claimed that Hillary was briefed on every single possible situation. I said she was briefed regularly on what is and what is not classified. Nothing more and nothing less.
ARE. WE. AGREED. THAT. IS. TRUE? Very simple question, yes or no.

As far as you deriding my honesty, you can't possibly imagine that such a charge coming from you would have the slightest effect on anyone by now.

EDIT: Just for future reference, if your point was actually that no briefing could cover every possible scenario, you could actually say that. It would go something like:
No briefing could cover every possible piece of classified information.

 

[fskimospy]

My bad on quoting the wrong post, but as I said the exact same thing in both, it's hardly different either way. I actually repeated it several times.

Can you give us an example of a briefing which covers literally everything on any subject? For your point to have a point, that is a necessity. Otherwise you are simply arguing that briefings are useless and thus there should be no accountability.

There is no briefing that does that. Your statement required that there be though, because otherwise there would be reasons other than stupidity not to know if something is classified.

It's your fault that you wrote something so stupid, not mine.

My comment was:

At this point, we are both agreed that is true, correct?

Assuming we agree, then you are left with asserting that these briefings are useless because they cannot possibly cover every single possible situation. That would be an immensely powerful statement and I assure you that if for some reason I chose to make it, it would be clear.

Then your previous post was stupid and/or illogical, which is why I was making fun of it to begin with. Glad we covered that, haha.

I never claimed that Hillary was briefed on every single possible situation. I said she was briefed regularly on what is and what is not classified. Nothing more and nothing less.
ARE. WE. AGREED. THAT. IS. TRUE? Very simple question, yes or no.

I'm taking issue with your incoherent logic, not whether or not you said she had briefings. This is all irrelevant.

As far as you deriding my honesty, you can't possibly imagine that such a charge coming from you would have the slightest effect on anyone by now.

To be clear, it's not like I expect you to gain some sort of self awareness as to why you lie so much. Reminding you that you're a lying sack of shit now and then is mostly just for my own entertainment.

 

[Jhhnn]

because access to a server requires sneaking past some secret service agents Mission Impossible style?

Because it hasn't been shown that her email server was ever hacked.

 

[shady28]

Meanwhile in the real world, the big voter turnout that the establishment candidates feared has occurred.

I predict a slam dunk for Bernie and Trump.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/02/01/iowa-caucus-live-results/#2715e4857a0b44cfbef24431


Note that 2nd sentence.

Large numbers are changing party to vote for Trump...

7:56PM EST

So far things are pointing to very big turnouts. CNN is reporting that large numbers of people are changing party registration to vote for Trump — some to vote against. Lots of first time caucus goers in BOTH parties.

Des Moines precincts reporting record numbers of voters, especially younger voters.

Ben Carson is not going to either New Hampshire or South Carolina after tonight, regardless of how he does. He is going home to Florida and will give a talk at National Press Breakfast. Where will his supporters go — Cruz, Trump, or Rubio?

 

[theeedude]

I think Carson supporters are going to Trump, especially if Cruz starts going down.

 

[shady28]

I think Carson supporters are going to Trump, especially if Cruz starts going down.

Ya the Carson pseudo-resignation threw a wild card in there. I really wasn't sure where they'd go.

 

[werepossum]

There is no briefing that does that. Your statement required that there be though, because otherwise there would be reasons other than stupidity not to know if something is classified.

It's your fault that you wrote something so stupid, not mine.

Then your previous post was stupid and/or illogical, which is why I was making fun of it to begin with. Glad we covered that, haha.

I'm taking issue with your incoherent logic, not whether or not you said she had briefings. This is all irrelevant.

To be clear, it's not like I expect you to gain some sort of self awareness as to why you lie so much. Reminding you that you're a lying sack of shit now and then is mostly just for my own entertainment.

It's amusing that once I started calling you out on your rampant dishonesty, you started calling me a liar. You must have been awesome on the playground with your "I know you are but what am I" routine.

There are apparently at least 22 email threads which are not only classified, but classified Top Secret. Is this the kind of esoteric knowledge that no one could ever be expected to know was classified? We're talking not just classified, but the highest formal classification we have. Is this knowledge that the Secretary of State can reasonably be expected to not know? Could briefings on classified materials - which we now all agree she regularly had - be reasonably expected to cover the very most secret classification in some depth? Remember, she was being briefed to be THE legal authority for the State Department on what was to be classified, not coming through to sell cookies.

Let's look at her choice of Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado. Is this a wise choice? There are over 13,000 firms which have secure rooms and are certified with facility wide clearance to handle classified, sensitive or confidential government information. Platte River Networks is not one of those firms. I have been in a couple of those secure rooms; it takes a GREAT deal of trouble. You have to demonstrate need that affects the firm itself, and depending on the nature of the data stored, one or even two certified employees must accompany you every moment. To obtain an FCL, every single employee has to pass a background check by the Department of Defense commensurate with the level of data being handled. Again, Platte River Networks is not one of those firms. To be employed at Platte River Networks, an employee merely has to satisfy Platte River Networks. Again, this isn't for things rated Top Secret, this is for ALL data the federal government deems classified, sensitive or confidential. The ones I have been in were Social Security, branch FBI, and commercial banking records, none of which is even classified, much less classified top secret. Just confidential. Yet 100% of our Secretary of State's email went through a firm which had never been checked out, never awarded an FCL, didn't have an accredited SCIF, didn't even have a security system for the premises. Is that Presidential quality judgment? Is that something you can justify because she couldn't be expected to know everything?

Because it hasn't been shown that her email server was ever hacked.

How would we know? Unless a hacker actually released emails, as with Sidney Blumenthal, no one would ever know there had been an intrusion.

 

[shady28]

From Wired.com :

Also, overheard at the registration table: “They ran out of registration forms.” That’s a very bad thing considering how many first time voters are in this room. One Drake student was complaining, “They were like, ‘No need to register before!’” But now, they’re having trouble registering this many people at once.

ISSIE LAPOWSKY02-01-2016 | 08:15:48

 

[werepossum]

Ya the Carson pseudo-resignation threw a wild card in there. I really wasn't sure where they'd go.

Or which car they'd go in.

 

[shady28]

Looks like no slam dunk, really close so far.

I'm seeing Cruz 35 vs 33 Trump

Clinton 50 vs 48 Sanders. O'Malley doesn't even register yet.

 

[werepossum]

You are misinformed. Most of her official communication was not over email in the first place, but by secure diplomatic cables. Also, you think that doing it for political reasons (escaping responsibility for wrongfully firing US attorneys) is better than doing it for convenience?

<sigh> Post amended. LOL @ convenience.

 

[Jhhnn]

How would we know? Unless a hacker actually released emails, as with Sidney Blumenthal, no one would ever know there had been an intrusion.

As we both know, the absence of evidence is not evidence.