Judge says Hillary Clinton's private emails violated policy

[Pens1566]

Informative article on this.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schindler-emailgate-20150825-story.html


This is a step away from treason. Making unencrypted classified info public for any country to intercept. This woman and/or the staffers who cut and pasted the info should be in federal prison. What a clusterfuck this is.

I'd love to see the author of that article explain how classified info can be copied/pasted from/to completely separate environments ...

 

[cabri]

Tempest in a tea pot still over envy of Bill having sweet oral intern sex.

It will be interesting to see if the DEMOCRAT administration/FBI feels the same way.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Condi set up her own private server? Linky?

Bush set up his own private server? Linky?

Did either of them then destroy all the emails after a judge instructed them to retain them?

Actually many of the Bush admin used servers from the RNC for pretty much the same reason Hillary setup her own server. Years ago when this tidbit came out the Dems were demanding access while the Repubs cried foul. Years later the tables have turned and so has the response from both sides.


Brian

 

[cabri]

Actually many of the Bush admin used servers from the RNC for pretty much the same reason Hillary setup her own server. Years ago when this tidbit came out the Dems were demanding access while the Repubs cried foul. Years later the tables have turned and so has the response from both sides.


Brian

I knew that the RNC servers were intended to keep political communication separate from government correspondence.

That way, the Dems were unable to access that info.

Whether .gov info was kept on the servers, I never heard.
Same as was classified info on those servers.

 

[werepossum]

So you suspect something nefarious done with malicious intent?

Depends on your definitions of "nefarious" and "malicious intent". I suspect (hell, I am convinced) that she violated policy and law for her own political benefit. That satisfies my definition for both. YMMV

Informative article on this.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schindler-emailgate-20150825-story.html

This is a step away from treason. Making unencrypted classified info public for any country to intercept. This woman and/or the staffers who cut and pasted the info should be in federal prison. What a clusterfuck this is.

I fully agree that "Moscow and Beijing may know more about Clinton's activities at Foggy Bottom than Congress ever will." That is the whole point. Moscow and Beijing will use the info against the nation; Republicans will use the info against her, and on her balance sheet the nation comes in a distant second.

As far as her being in prison, I highly doubt that this is in any way unique in D.C. I would bet my last dollar the Republicans in the Bush administration used their RNC servers to discuss and coordinate similar things. Seeing the opposing party as THE enemy is not a uniquely Democrat trait. The two parties are very much two sides of the same coin, but at the end of the day each is very much concerned with which side (and which face) lands upward.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I knew that the RNC servers were intended to keep political communication separate from government correspondence.

That way, the Dems were unable to access that info.

Whether .gov info was kept on the servers, I never heard.
Same as was classified info on those servers.

And we won't ever know what classified info was on the RNC servers.


Brian

 

[Jhhnn]

Depends on your definitions of "nefarious" and "malicious intent". I suspect (hell, I am convinced) that she violated policy and law for her own political benefit. That satisfies my definition for both. YMMV


I fully agree that "Moscow and Beijing may know more about Clinton's activities at Foggy Bottom than Congress ever will." That is the whole point. Moscow and Beijing will use the info against the nation; Republicans will use the info against her, and on her balance sheet the nation comes in a distant second.

As far as her being in prison, I highly doubt that this is in any way unique in D.C. I would bet my last dollar the Republicans in the Bush administration used their RNC servers to discuss and coordinate similar things. Seeing the opposing party as THE enemy is not a uniquely Democrat trait. The two parties are very much two sides of the same coin, but at the end of the day each is very much concerned with which side (and which face) lands upward.

It's def your kind of hatchet job, with wild accusations framed as "increasingly likely"-

But it gets worse. Because top secret information travels on entirely separate systems throughout the federal government, it is virtually impossible that a Clinton staffer blithely or unknowingly pasted a top secret paragraph into an unclassified email.

On the contrary, it seems increasingly likely that Clinton's staff was engaged in a systematic effort to take details off classified IT systems and strip them of proper classification markings (every paragraph in an intelligence report is classified separately) before sending them out electronically. This was not only a violation of numerous federal regulations, but also a crime — a felony when it involves top secret information.

The author leaps to the conclusion that whole paragraphs were lifted from top secret information merely on the basis that some of the email has been deemed "top secret" after the fact.

That doesn't necessarily follow, at all. Anybody who swallows that one is a chump.

"Increasingly likely" as in wishful thinking vs not a fucking chance.

 

[werepossum]

And we won't ever know what classified info was on the RNC servers.

Brian

If any. And were the Hildabeast smart enough to maintain two separate servers, we'd be wondering the same about hers. But she was blatant and arrogant enough to use only one server, over which only she had control. That allows her to edit or select which emails to hide long after the fact, but it also removes any doubt about the violations.

 

[Brian Stirling]

If any. And were the Hildabeast smart enough to maintain two separate servers, we'd be wondering the same about hers. But she was blatant and arrogant enough to use only one server, over which only she had control. That allows her to edit or select which emails to hide long after the fact, but it also removes any doubt about the violations.

If any? Yes, that's what I said, we'll never know what, if any, classified info was on the RNC server.

That the right is getting all worked up over Hillary's server but played the "you have no right to question us" approach over the RNC server issue. And the Dems, while they demanded to know what the admin was doing with the RNC server, appear to feel Hillary has every right to hide her tracks with her own private server.

A pox on both there houses!


Brian

 

[Jhhnn]

If any? Yes, that's what I said, we'll never know what, if any, classified info was on the RNC server.

That the right is getting all worked up over Hillary's server but played the "you have no right to question us" approach over the RNC server issue. And the Dems, while they demanded to know what the admin was doing with the RNC server, appear to feel Hillary has every right to hide her tracks with her own private server.

A pox on both there houses!


Brian

Please. The fuss over RNC servers arose during the Plame affair, a demonstrable breach of national security reaching into the GWB White House. Scooter Libby took the hit on that, an obstruction of justice rap, sealed off the investigation in the process. His sentence was immediately commuted & he's become a minor folk hero on the right wing.

As has been pointed out in other threads, users could delete anything from their email on RNC servers, same as Hillary on her own server. We have no way to know for sure if they commingled govt & personal matters although it seems highly likely that there's a very, very blurry line there somewhere.

I personally don't have a problem with any of it. Using two servers just means that officials have plausible deniability as to using their private email for govt purposes, that's all.

It's all a load of trumped up outrage because Hillary did it, not for any other reason at all.

 

[Bowfinger]

Informative article on this.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schindler-emailgate-20150825-story.html

This is a perfect example of how the right wing propaganda machine substitutes supposition and innuendo for fact. It's not an article, it's an op-ed ... and a highly partisan op-ed at that. Moreover, his allegations are completely unsupported by all the evidence we've seen so far.

To date, we've seen no evidence ANY information was copied from classified documents. Claiming there was a "systematic effort" to do so is an outright lie.

Here's a very good review of the 63 emails flagged as potentially containing classified information. There's a paragraph of explanation for each, along with a (redacted) copy of each for those who want to do their own analysis: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/a-guide-to-hillary-clintons-most-sensitive-emails-121693.html

I won't pretend to have read all of them, but I did skim through the whole thing. They are almost entirely routine conversations where someone makes a comment that has been flagged (retroactively) as potentially confidential. For example:

November 27, 2009 – Clinton calls IAEA vote on Iran “great news,” asks Burns for vote breakdown. Classification: CONFIDENTIAL, diplomatic and foreign government information.
​

I get that this may be considered classified confidential per policy because it discusses a foreign government. But let's be honest, "great news" isn't exactly nuclear launch codes, and it certainly isn't treasonous. If you want to claim Clinton staff were careless, so be it, but let's not lie and claim they're copying paragraphs from classified documents, or that they removed security markings.

But, you and everyone else can judge for yourselves. Click the link, read through the mails, reach your own conclusions. IMO, it's almost entirely smoke, with no sign of actual fire. It's certainly not what your op-ed claims it to be.

This is a step away from treason. Making unencrypted classified info public for any country to intercept. This woman and/or the staffers who cut and pasted the info should be in federal prison. What a clusterfuck this is.

No, it's not in any way, shape, or form anywhere close to treason. What it is is a smear campaign, the usual RNC propaganda catapulted to its gullible followers. You were played. Again.

Perhaps the FBI will discover more, something that is clearly worthy of criminal prosecution. If so, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the current RNC allegations lack substance ... just like all the other scandals smears before them.

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually many of the Bush admin used servers from the RNC for pretty much the same reason Hillary setup her own server. Years ago when this tidbit came out the Dems were demanding access while the Repubs cried foul. Years later the tables have turned and so has the response from both sides.


Brian

Uh, so you're agreeing that the statement was false then. Neither Bush nor Rice set up their own server. They used a server set up by the RNC, which is not the same as setting up and using their own private server.

For the record, my stance on the matter is exactly the same now as it was then -- it's BS to try and do an end-run around retention and FOIA requirements, and no government official should be able to use private servers to bypass guidelines. I thought it was a terrible thing to do back then, and I think the same now.

 

[Bowfinger]

Uh, so you're agreeing that the statement was false then. Neither Bush nor Rice set up their own server. They used a server set up by the RNC, which is not the same as setting up and using their own private server. ...

So? Please explain how that makes it better. Hell, please explain how it is at all material. Are you presuming that the RNC staff that set up their servers are somehow more qualified than the staff who set up Clinton's? Based on what, exactly? Do you somehow think that Hotmail or Gmail or whatever Rice and Powell used are somehow better than Clinton's private server? Why? Again, based on what?

The bottom line remains that ANY use of email for classified material is inappropriate. That is true whether it went to Clinton's server, the RNC server, Hotmail, or even to the State Department email system. NONE of them are secure.

 

[PokerGuy]

So? Please explain how that makes it better. Hell, please explain how it is at all material. Are you presuming that the RNC staff that set up their servers are somehow more qualified than the staff who set up Clinton's? Based on what, exactly? Do you somehow think that Hotmail or Gmail or whatever Rice and Powell used are somehow better than Clinton's private server? Why? Again, based on what?

They were smart enough to set it up so that they used that server for "political" stuff, while using other channels for "official" stuff. Thus, nobody was ever able to know what was actually on the RNC servers.

In this case, by setting up a private server and using it for ALL communications, everything on the server is now fair game. Also, in fact, yes, hotmail and gmail would have been better, because at least that way there would have been copies of all documents, so at least from a retention perspective it's better. My guess is google's servers are also better protected from attacks and are physically secure, but that ultimately doesn't matter.

lol @ bowfinger, ever the loyal party hack, still carrying the torch

It's a vast right wing conspiracy! Smear! Misogyny! Any other things we can add to the arsenal??

The bottom line remains is that ANY use of email for classified material is inappropriate. That is true whether it went to Clinton's server, the RNC server, Hotmail, or even to the State Department email system. NONE of them are secure.

Hey, I don't disagree at all with that one, I thought use of the RNC server was BS too. However, the "hey, those guys did it too!" excuse doesn't get you a whole lot, just like saying "officer, those other cars were speeding too!" doesn't do much. She got caught, and her hubris and arrogance prevent her from acknowledging the screwup, and causing her to sink ever deeper into the quicksand.

 

[ivwshane]

So? Please explain how that makes it better. Hell, please explain how it is at all material. Are you presuming that the RNC staff that set up their servers are somehow more qualified than the staff who set up Clinton's? Based on what, exactly? Do you somehow think that Hotmail or Gmail or whatever Rice and Powell used are somehow better than Clinton's private server? Why? Again, based on what?

The bottom line remains that ANY use of email for classified material is inappropriate. That is true whether it went to Clinton's server, the RNC server, Hotmail, or even to the State Department email system. NONE of them are secure.

It's like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? His latest reply makes it obvious that he didn't get your point (nor do I think he cares). It's a point that's been made before and just like what happens to all other facts, the CBD simply ignores it or re images the fact into something else that they can easily dismiss.

 

[Bowfinger]

They were smart enough to set it up so that they used that server for "political" stuff, while using other channels for "official" stuff. Thus, nobody was ever able to know what was actually on the RNC servers.

So they claim. Do you have evidence that claim is true, or are you accepting it on faith since it's what you want to believe?

In this case, by setting up a private server and using it for ALL communications, everything on the server is now fair game.

So if Clinton had lied (like the Bush administration?) and claimed her personal email was only used for political email, you'd all accept that and let her off the hook? LOL. Yeah, when elephants fly.

lol @ bowfinger, ever the loyal party hack, still carrying the torch

It's a vast right wing conspiracy! Smear! Misogyny! Any other things we can add to the arsenal??

... cries the boy who once again offers nothing factual to back up his personal attacks. Auditioning for the RNC?

You could go through the emails yourself. I gave you the link. Of course, that would mean you'd have to think for yourself and face having your blind GOP faith challenged. Heresy!

Hey, I don't disagree at all with that one, I thought use of the RNC server was BS too. However, the "hey, those guys did it too!" excuse doesn't get you a whole lot, just like saying "officer, those other cars were speeding too!" doesn't do much. She got caught, and her hubris and arrogance prevent her from acknowledging the screwup, and causing her to sink ever deeper into the quicksand.

As I've said a dozen times, if the FBI finds Clinton broke the law, they should prosecute her appropriately. Unlike you, I'm unwilling to convict her based on the partisan propaganda of Fox and its ilk.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Please. The fuss over RNC servers arose during the Plame affair, a demonstrable breach of national security reaching into the GWB White House. Scooter Libby took the hit on that, an obstruction of justice rap, sealed off the investigation in the process. His sentence was immediately commuted & he's become a minor folk hero on the right wing.

As has been pointed out in other threads, users could delete anything from their email on RNC servers, same as Hillary on her own server. We have no way to know for sure if they commingled govt & personal matters although it seems highly likely that there's a very, very blurry line there somewhere.

I personally don't have a problem with any of it. Using two servers just means that officials have plausible deniability as to using their private email for govt purposes, that's all.

It's all a load of trumped up outrage because Hillary did it, not for any other reason at all.

I can interpret the things I see and read about as I see fit and given that I wasn't part of either the Hillary server or RNC server deal there's no way I can know for certain what they were used for. But, being somewhat cynical I feel justified in interpreting there actions as an attempt to hide something.

In the case of Hillary I believe she was trying to deny the Republicans the ability to search through her emails and find and then distort anything they could. The Republicans, OTH, I believe they, some of them anyway, used this external server as a means of talking about things that they'd prefer not be made public. So while I believe Hillary's effort was one of political trickery the Republican's I think had more to worry about in a criminal and constitutional way.

So, if I were the weight the offense I'd put the RNC server deal as more troublesome than Hillary's. But, I'm troubled by both.

Again, I wasn't there and can't know with certainty but that's how I see it.


Brian

 

[Bowfinger]

It's like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? His latest reply makes it obvious that he didn't get your point (nor do I think he cares). It's a point that's been made before and just like what happens to all other facts, the CBD simply ignores it or re images the fact into something else that they can easily dismiss.

I've become increasingly convinced that Fox "News" and sources like it are really hurting America. Yes, I know partisan propaganda is not new. But, in the old days of limited news outlets striving for accuracy first, Americans were regularly challenged with a spectrum of information. This tended to temper the extremists on both sides. Now, it's way too easy for ideologues to hide in a bubble where they never have to consider conflicting information.

This is aggravated by the Internet where there are scores of pseudo-news sites all parroting the same disinformation. It exploits the human tendency to conflate repetition with accuracy. This story is another good case study showing how disinformation, repeated consistently, comes to be accepted as fact.

Both sides do this, of course, but it works much better on the right. MSNBC has never been anywhere close to Fox in market share. There is also no left wing equivalent of talk radio. Further, the right is very good at keeping all of its sources on message, while the left tends to be more fragmented and independent.

 

[werepossum]

If any? Yes, that's what I said, we'll never know what, if any, classified info was on the RNC server.

That the right is getting all worked up over Hillary's server but played the "you have no right to question us" approach over the RNC server issue. And the Dems, while they demanded to know what the admin was doing with the RNC server, appear to feel Hillary has every right to hide her tracks with her own private server.

A pox on both there houses!

Brian

Exactly, and well said. This is more blatant that past abuses, but it's hardly unique.

So? Please explain how that makes it better. Hell, please explain how it is at all material. Are you presuming that the RNC staff that set up their servers are somehow more qualified than the staff who set up Clinton's? Based on what, exactly? Do you somehow think that Hotmail or Gmail or whatever Rice and Powell used are somehow better than Clinton's private server? Why? Again, based on what?

The bottom line remains that ANY use of email for classified material is inappropriate. That is true whether it went to Clinton's server, the RNC server, Hotmail, or even to the State Department email system. NONE of them are secure.

Of course public servers such as Hotmail and Gmail are superior to Clinton's set-up. Clinton retains sole discretion over what is shared, even going so far as to print them out, thus assuring her ability to edit anything she wishes. No such ability can exist with a commercial server, which is inherently subject to subpoena and not filled with people willing to risk prison to maintain Clinton's political viability. No honest person would even attempt to make such a ludicrous argument.

The RNC servers are arguably different from Clinton's, but mostly in scope. Much like the Clinton server they are controlled by people selected for political reliability. They might not particularly like Bush or Rice or Powell so there might be a bit more of a beloved patriot in the armor, but it's essentially the same thing. One huge difference though is that the Pubbies used their private RNC email server IN ADDITION TO official or commercial servers, whereas Clinton used ONLY her tame email server. We cannot prove the GOP used their server inappropriately - which is no doubt why they wiped their server, to keep it that way - whereas we absolutely know that Clinton did so.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! You should really encapsulate your posts with the [bs] tag. Email service providers do not retain deleted emails forever, doing so would result in massive amounts of data storage being required.


https://support.google.com/a/answer/151128?hl=en
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...n/33c0c2ec-757b-4670-a700-bf3cbeecfb5c?auth=1

Exactly, and well said. This is more blatant that past abuses, but it's hardly unique.


Of course public servers such as Hotmail and Gmail are superior to Clinton's set-up. Clinton retains sole discretion over what is shared, even going so far as to print them out, thus assuring her ability to edit anything she wishes. No such ability can exist with a commercial server, which is inherently subject to subpoena and not filled with people willing to risk prison to maintain Clinton's political viability. No honest person would even attempt to make such a ludicrous argument.

The RNC servers are arguably different from Clinton's, but mostly in scope. Much like the Clinton server they are controlled by people selected for political reliability. They might not particularly like Bush or Rice or Powell so there might be a bit more of a beloved patriot in the armor, but it's essentially the same thing. One huge difference though is that the Pubbies used their private RNC email server IN ADDITION TO official or commercial servers, whereas Clinton used ONLY her tame email server. We cannot prove the GOP used their server inappropriately - which is no doubt why they wiped their server, to keep it that way - whereas we absolutely know that Clinton did so.

 

[cabri]

We cannot prove the GOP used their server inappropriately - which is no doubt why they wiped their server, to keep it that way - whereas we absolutely know that Clinton did so.

Per Clinton supporters, there is no evidence that what Clinton did is inappropriate. She is not responsible for information that was found; because such information has not been made available to general public review.

What the FBI and IG have found does not count; they are partisan and out to get her.

And because full classified information will not be released to public viewing, they can always defend her is that the information should not be classified.:thumbsdown:

Dancing around the pin head to deny the fact that she did what should not have been done and knew it from day 0.

 

[PokerGuy]

So they claim. Do you have evidence that claim is true, or are you accepting it on faith since it's what you want to believe?

What are you talking about? It's not a matter of me accepting anything. They set it up that way and were able to claim that it only housed non-official-business documents. Whether you or I believe that or not is not relevant. hildabeast and her minions didn't set it up that way, they made everything go through that private server, so she's unable to claim that the server only contains her private stuff. That's why she was ordered to turn over the info while the RNC servers were never searched.

So if Clinton had lied (like the Bush administration?) and claimed her personal email was only used for political email, you'd all accept that and let her off the hook? LOL. Yeah, when elephants fly.

It's not a matter of me accepting it and letting her off the hook, I've explained the difference and why her particular setup got her in trouble.

You could go through the emails yourself. I gave you the link. Of course, that would mean you'd have to think for yourself and face having your blind GOP faith challenged. Heresy!

Why would I go through them? What's the point? It only matters in terms of criminal acts, it's irrelevant as to whether she acted inappropriately or not. Also, lets not forget that those are the emails that have already gone through "scrubbing" prior to release, it's amazing there is that much classified stuff even in the scrubbed emails.

As I've said a dozen times, if the FBI finds Clinton broke the law, they should prosecute her appropriately. Unlike you, I'm unwilling to convict her based on the partisan propaganda of Fox and its ilk.

Is it that hard to understand that criminal charges are only one part of the total picture? Regardless of criminal charges, she acted inappropriately. They are just investigating to see if she also acted criminally.

 

[PokerGuy]

I've become increasingly convinced that Fox "News" and sources like it are really hurting America.

Of course they are. Things would be so much better if we could silence all the non-leftist viewpoints.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Sorry - I am a bit slow; was this the official ruling from the judge(s) over looking and deciding this matter?

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course they are. Things would be so much better if we could silence all the non-leftist viewpoints.

Actually, it'd be a whole lot better if the right wing engaged in serious discussion about honest issues instead of playing partisan outrage.

That's all this is, given that the GWB Admin did much the same thing on a more massive scale, not to mention the damned if you do & damned if you don't aspect of Repub chutzpah-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...48ea56-494e-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html