State department: Hillary did not comply with policies

[Guurn]

It is interesting she has changed how she talks about it from, "It was allowed" to "I thought it was allowed".

Thought WHAT was allowed?
The private mail server set up in her home by someone lacking required credentials to do so?
Using a private mail server and failing to ensure the state department retained records of all work related emails?
Trying to destroy evidence by deleting work-related emails that were not retained by state dept upon being informed of an FBI investigation?
Lying about the deleted emails?
Having confidential and classified information stored on 3rd party cloud hosting services that were not authorized to host such data?

 

[werepossum]

The difference between memory retention and document retention is VAST and has significant legal differences. Simply possessing classified material without clearance is a major no-no. She had tons of it, then refused to give it over, then deleted some of it...

Saying X got away with something so Y shouldn't doesn't excuse Y. If one person gets away with murder should we no longer prosecute murder? Further, it's not one simply thing with Clinton, it's multiple major violations. Patreaus was sentenced for 2 years just for sharing info to counter your point.

I agree with both of those points. I'm just saying that these are documents to which she inarguable had access as SecState; while legally this matters not a whit, practically speaking it's a gray area to me. (Not the part about her giving a copy to her lawyer or sending the server to Platte River, those are cut-and-dried, but the part about her having them as a private citizen is to me a bit of a gray area.)

For the other, the Bush White House is in the exact same position as is Hillary; they have not been prosecuted YET. Unless a statute of limitations has run, they haven't yet gotten away with it. There is no moral justification for indicting Hillary without indicting the others, in my mind, although from what I have seen, Hillary would certainly deserve a stiffer sentence. The RNC server isn't a blatant as maintaining her own private server, but it's pretty damned close - it's still a tame server where documents can disappear if needed, just with slightly more very loyal people to break. Patreaus I think is a completely different issue. I agree that Hillary broke regulations and laws in her use of her own private system, but it was in the line of her official duties. Patreaus gave classified information to his biographer, which is in no way part of his official duties. Same crimes, but different mitigating circumstances. I dislike Hillary Clinton and I like and admire David Patreaus, but them's the facts.

In other words, no, she can't be blamed for merely receiving classified information via email.

Your inability to acknowledge that reveals your agenda of partisan hackery.

Well, at least you aren't completely useless. Your total lack of self-awareness at least proves that the Internet is proof against any possible attack using irony.

I saw that even the NYT Editorial Board has changed it's tone and admit that Hillary has a very real problem.

No matter how you feel of the severity of the email issue, how can anyone deny what a poor lapse in judgement this was? Has she stated why she set up her own personal server to conduct official business? Does her reason and rationale really boil down to "convenience"?

Everyone knows her reasons: maintaining her own private server gave her near-total control over the email document trail AND placed her beyond any Freedom of Information request or judge's order. State can't give up what it doesn't have. Just look at how she delivered her emails, which she was legally required to provide: In printed form, not digital. This gives her the ability to make emails say anything she wants them to say, or to simply disappear if she judges that best for Hillary. The Blumenthal hack proved that she utilized both strategeries. When proven a liar, she merely declines to make herself available, speaks only to absolutely safe media, and her followers eat it up. Same with Pagliani's missing emails: Just shrug and look stupid. As long as one doesn't mind being known as a liar, no probs. Mrs. Clinton obviously prefers it to having inconvenient truths come out, and obviously those running State feel the same.

She definitely has a very real problem right now, but this too shall pass and the media will soon be back declaring that Trump is the Devil whilst Mrs. Clinton is our salvation.

 

[UglyCasanova]

It is interesting she has changed how she talks about it from, "It was allowed" to "I thought it was allowed".

Thought WHAT was allowed?
The private mail server set up in her home by someone lacking required credentials to do so?
Using a private mail server and failing to ensure the state department retained records of all work related emails?
Trying to destroy evidence by deleting work-related emails that were not retained by state dept upon being informed of an FBI investigation?
Lying about the deleted emails?
Having confidential and classified information stored on 3rd party cloud hosting services that were not authorized to host such data?

And the big question of why? Why did she do all of that?

 

[feralkid]

And the big question of why? Why did she do all of that?

Probably for National and personal security.

FYI, State Department IT and Security suck.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's actually a major shift in reporting... Everyone but CNN, who technically reported it, but kind of buried it is talking about it like it's a big deal. Unlike months ago when it was already a big deal. ...

All of the major news media had multiple stories about Clinton's email issues. Granted, they mostly stuck to the facts and eschewed the hyperbolic speculation and innuendo of the right-wing "news", but that's the difference between journalism and propaganda.

At a bare minimum she had access to high level government documents as a private citizen. FULL STOP. That right there is huge.

Case in point. What "high level government documents" did she still have access to? Be specific and cite a credible source.

That's one of the most common mental disconnects we've seen over and over in those attacking Clinton. They hear "classified documents" and immediately envision nuclear launch codes or thick CIA reports with "Top Secret" stamped all over them. They think of America's deepest, most dangerous secrets, the crown jewels of our national security.

No.

The reality is our government considers even the most banal stuff to be classified. If our U.K. ambassador sent Clinton an email saying the Queen prefers tulips, that's classified. It's a foreign communications. If (when) Clinton's staff sends her a link to a New York Times article about our drone program, it's not only classified, it's top secret because the CIA considers the very existence of this program to be top secret ... even though it's openly discussed in the media.

All but 20-some of Clinton's emails were released. We know that the vast majority of her "classified" emails were just such routine fare, quick notes from abroad forwarded by her staff. We do not know what's in the handful of messages that were not released. We've been told by official sources that none were marked "Classified" when Clinton received them. We do not know how many of them were public things like the NYT article vs. how many were truly secret. We may get a better idea once the FBI investigation is done. Until then, it's all speculation and innuendo.

Can we safely assume we shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for you to answer this? It's funny how the names of the attackers change but the tactics remain the same: sling a lot of innuendo and speculation, then run away when pressed for facts.

 

[Phoenix86]

I agree with both of those points. I'm just saying that these are documents to which she inarguable had access as SecState; while legally this matters not a whit, practically speaking it's a gray area to me. (Not the part about her giving a copy to her lawyer or sending the server to Platte River, those are cut-and-dried, but the part about her having them as a private citizen is to me a bit of a gray area.)

For the other, the Bush White House is in the exact same position as is Hillary; they have not been prosecuted YET. Unless a statute of limitations has run, they haven't yet gotten away with it. There is no moral justification for indicting Hillary without indicting the others, in my mind, although from what I have seen, Hillary would certainly deserve a stiffer sentence. The RNC server isn't a blatant as maintaining her own private server, but it's pretty damned close - it's still a tame server where documents can disappear if needed, just with slightly more very loyal people to break. Patreaus I think is a completely different issue. I agree that Hillary broke regulations and laws in her use of her own private system, but it was in the line of her official duties. Patreaus gave classified information to his biographer, which is in no way part of his official duties. Same crimes, but different mitigating circumstances. I dislike Hillary Clinton and I like and admire David Patreaus, but them's the facts.

Having classified documents as a private citizen is in no way a gray area, it's clear violation of law. The day she was no longer SoS she should have handed over the physical server w/o deleting anything.

There's moral justification for indicting Bush folks, it's not mutually exclusive. However none of that pertains to actual prosecution, you need to build a case. Should a case have been built vs. Bush administration? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it relevant to the case against Clinton? Not one bit. There's mountains of evidence against her. I'm a bit ignorant of the amount of evidence against the Bush administration, but again it's not really relevant here. To drive the point home, if you have murder case with DNA, smoking gun, finger prints, video, and a dozen witnesses you prosecute it. That doesn't mean you prosecute all suspected cases. Just because you should (morality) doesn't mean you can (prosecution).

In the Patreaus example, passing information outside the job duties is moot. Private citizens cannot have access to information they are not cleared to have. She essentially gave herself, the staff, and especially the mail administrator, access to the documents by retaining them after she lost clearance to them.

 

[Phoenix86]

And the big question of why? Why did she do all of that?

This is possibly a MUCH larger issue than possessing the classified information. If I were to put take logical guesses it's that she wanted to hide the actions of the Clinton foundation. There's already smoke coming from that issue, lots of potential shady deals with others in a pay for play scheme.

It's not that far fetched to say she was taking donations and direct pay for speeches because there's already a trail of the companies and countries that donated or paid her getting favorable deals. If some of this is in the e-mails the classified information might be the tip of the iceberg.

Again, speculation, but entirely plausible.

 

[UglyCasanova]

This seems like a reasonable response as to why she did it:

Everyone knows her reasons: maintaining her own private server gave her near-total control over the email document trail AND placed her beyond any Freedom of Information request or judge's order. State can't give up what it doesn't have. Just look at how she delivered her emails, which she was legally required to provide: In printed form, not digital. This gives her the ability to make emails say anything she wants them to say, or to simply disappear if she judges that best for Hillary. The Blumenthal hack proved that she utilized both strategeries. When proven a liar, she merely declines to make herself available, speaks only to absolutely safe media, and her followers eat it up. Same with Pagliani's missing emails: Just shrug and look stupid. As long as one doesn't mind being known as a liar, no probs. Mrs. Clinton obviously prefers it to having inconvenient truths come out, and obviously those running State feel the same.

This does not:

Probably for National and personal security.

FYI, State Department IT and Security suck.

 

[Phoenix86]

Can we safely assume we shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for you to answer this? It's funny how the names of the attackers change but the tactics remain the same: sling a lot of innuendo and speculation, then run away when pressed for facts.

Sorry, it's only been 5 hours since your other post and I missed it. I am working too...

First, when I see people ask for "Be specific and cite a credible source" for things that have been reported on by multiple sources I really wonder wtf they are thinking. This stuff is EASILY searchable, but fine. I'll google it for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.

The analysis did not account for 22 emails that the State Department has withheld entirely from public release because they are “top secret,” the highest level of classification.

edit: Like the other person wanting sources cited for widely available information. I expect you to shift goal posts, attack the source, anything other than admit the statement was generally (if not EXACTLY) correct. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[werepossum]

Can we safely assume we shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for you to answer this? It's funny how the names of the attackers change but the tactics remain the same: sling a lot of innuendo and speculation, then run away when pressed for facts.

He cannot answer that because THESE DOCUMENTS ARE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED. Ergo it is a stupid question, and pretending this is much ado about a bunch of magazine articles does not make it a materially less stupid question.

Having classified documents as a private citizen is in no way a gray area, it's clear violation of law. The day she was no longer SoS she should have handed over the physical server w/o deleting anything.

There's moral justification for indicting Bush folks, it's not mutually exclusive. However none of that pertains to actual prosecution, you need to build a case. Should a case have been built vs. Bush administration? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it relevant to the case against Clinton? Not one bit. There's mountains of evidence against her. I'm a bit ignorant of the amount of evidence against the Bush administration, but again it's not really relevant here. To drive the point home, if you have murder case with DNA, smoking gun, finger prints, video, and a dozen witnesses you prosecute it. That doesn't mean you prosecute all suspected cases. Just because you should (morality) doesn't mean you can (prosecution).

In the Patreaus example, passing information outside the job duties is moot. Private citizens cannot have access to information they are not cleared to have. She essentially gave herself, the staff, and especially the mail administrator, access to the documents by retaining them after she lost clearance to them.

We will have to agree to disagree on these two items. I think that temporarily retaining the documents after resignation, while technically exactly the same violation, is still significantly different from having documents to which one never had legal access. Similarly, I think the Bush White House case is very much relevant to this one. If for instance the FBI revealed that it is a felony in D.C. to not securely tie up one's means of transportation to the federal building's hitching post and it had decided to prosecute Hillary Clinton - and no one else - for not tying her limousine to a non-existence hitching post, would that be fair? Obviously no law gets every offender and that is no defense, but on the other hand we must demand that laws be administered fairly, evenly and justly.

This is possibly a MUCH larger issue than possessing the classified information. If I were to put take logical guesses it's that she wanted to hide the actions of the Clinton foundation. There's already smoke coming from that issue, lots of potential shady deals with others in a pay for play scheme.

It's not that far fetched to say she was taking donations and direct pay for speeches because there's already a trail of the companies and countries that donated or paid her getting favorable deals. If some of this is in the e-mails the classified information might be the tip of the iceberg.

Again, speculation, but entirely plausible.

I would be amazed if there aren't some damaging emails regarding the Clinton Foundation (well, weren't some damaging emails, prolly none now) but I don't think necessarily need to go that far to find reasons. Mrs. Clinton is extremely arrogant and a control freak - qualities not at all scarce among the very powerful - and would find this a useful thing regardless of whether she commonly did anything illegal or seriously immoral. As is often the case, in D.C. appearance is reality, and controlling the evidence goes a long way toward controlling the appearance. Unfortunately for her, in this case it backfired.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sorry, it's only been 5 hours since your other post and I missed it. I am working too...

First, when I see people ask for "Be specific and cite a credible source" for things that have been reported on by multiple sources I really wonder wtf they are thinking. This stuff is EASILY searchable, but fine. I'll google it for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.

The analysis did not account for 22 emails that the State Department has withheld entirely from public release because they are “top secret,” the highest level of classification.

edit: Like the other person wanting sources cited for widely available information. I expect you to shift goal posts, attack the source, anything other than admit the statement was generally (if not EXACTLY) correct. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

So you're equating "high level government documents" with "classified" (which was my point, of course). It's a deceitful false equivalence. As I pointed out:

All but 20-some of Clinton's emails were released. We know that the vast majority of her "classified" emails were just such routine fare, quick notes from abroad forwarded by her staff. We do not know what's in the handful of messages that were not released. We've been told by official sources that none were marked "Classified" when Clinton received them. We do not know how many of them were public things like the NYT article vs. how many were truly secret. We may get a better idea once the FBI investigation is done. Until then, it's all speculation and innuendo.
​

Routine notes are hardly "high level government documents", and neither of us knows more about the 22 notes that have been withheld (except none were marked as classified when Clinton received them). So you're catapulting speculation and innuendo, not fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

He cannot answer that because THESE DOCUMENTS ARE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED.

Very good! Gold star for you! He cannot answer that question because he doesn't know. Calling them "high level government documents' is purely partisan propaganda, not fact. That was my point.

Ergo it is a stupid question, and pretending this is much ado about a bunch of magazine articles does not make it a materially less stupid question.

It's not stupid to call someone on spreading innuendo and speculation as fact. Which, by the way, is what you just did again. You don't know if there's anything more there than "magazine articles", but you keep spreading such unsupported assertions anyway.

 

[Phoenix86]

So you're equating "high level government documents" with "classified" (which was my point, of course). It's a deceitful false equivalence. As I pointed out:

All but 20-some of Clinton's emails were released. We know that the vast majority of her "classified" emails were just such routine fare, quick notes from abroad forwarded by her staff. We do not know what's in the handful of messages that were not released. We've been told by official sources that none were marked "Classified" when Clinton received them. We do not know how many of them were public things like the NYT article vs. how many were truly secret. We may get a better idea once the FBI investigation is done. Until then, it's all speculation and innuendo.
​

Routine notes are hardly "high level government documents", and neither of us knows more about the 22 notes that have been withheld (except none were marked as classified when Clinton received them). So you're catapulting speculation and innuendo, not fact.

Holy hair splitting batman!

Fine, call them classified. It's actually worse that way because it's specifically illegal...

There were over 100 classified documents in her mailbox alone, that she wrote, that were classified and should not have been on an unsecured system. There were 22 top secret documents in her mailbox, that she wrote, that should not have been on an unsecured system. There are an untold number of similarly classified documents on the server (other mailboxes) that she should not have been in possession of after her clearance expired.

This info is from the government agencies doing the investigation, the IG and state department currently. FBI's info will be coming soon.

In today's greatest "no shit sherlock" moment, of course there's no fucking way we know what's exactly on top secret documents! That's cap't obvious, really saved the day there.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds-n580131

"At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service," says an audit by the State Department Inspector General, obtained by NBC News.

"Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

Guess the state department inspector general is a partisan hack?

 

[Bowfinger]

Holy hair splitting batman!

Fine, call them classified. It's actually worse that way because it's specifically illegal...

[ ... old news omitted ... ]

I love how indignant you guys get when you're called on your partisan propaganda. News flash, boys, it's not unreasonable to ask you to stick to the actual facts instead of asserting innuendo and speculation as if they are facts. One of the reasons you as a group are so consistently misinformed is because you get your "news" from propagandists who thrive on speculation and innuendo (as well as outright lies, of course). Disinformation is their business.

Guess the state department inspector general is a partisan hack?

There have been complaints about that, as a matter of fact: neatly timed leaks that are entirely inappropriate for his position. That's beside the point, however. I just expect people to be honest about their propaganda.

 

[Phoenix86]

I love how indignant you guys get when you're called on your partisan propaganda. News flash, boys, it's not unreasonable to ask you to stick to the actual facts instead of asserting innuendo and speculation as if they are facts. One of the reasons you as a group are so consistently misinformed is because you get your "news" from propagandists who thrive on speculation and innuendo (as well as outright lies, of course). Disinformation is their business.



There have been complaints about that, as a matter of fact: neatly timed leaks that are entirely inappropriate for his position. That's beside the point, however. I just expect people to be honest about their propaganda.

It's funny you calling this partisan propaganda considering my political party of choice. Maybe I just think Clinton is just a terrible fucking candidate?

Your posts contain no content or retort, just random babbling "partisan hack!" and "partisan propaganda!" without addressing the claims or admitting it's correct. Your head is firmly planted in the sand.

If only I expected this...

Like the other person wanting sources cited for widely available information. I expect you to shift goal posts, attack the source, anything other than admit the statement was generally (if not EXACTLY) correct. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[werepossum]

I love how indignant you guys get when you're called on your partisan propaganda. News flash, boys, it's not unreasonable to ask you to stick to the actual facts instead of asserting innuendo and speculation as if they are facts. One of the reasons you as a group are so consistently misinformed is because you get your "news" from propagandists who thrive on speculation and innuendo (as well as outright lies, of course). Disinformation is their business.

There have been complaints about that, as a matter of fact: neatly timed leaks that are entirely inappropriate for his position. That's beside the point, however. I just expect people to be honest about their propaganda.

lol The vast right wing conspiracy strikes again. At this point it includes pretty much everyone except you, Jhhnn, ivwshane, and Hillary herself.

 

[buckshot24]

Holy hair splitting batman!

BF is the king of irrelevant quibbling.

 

[Phoenix86]

lol The vast right wing conspiracy strikes again. At this point it includes pretty much everyone except you, Jhhnn, ivwshane, and Hillary herself.

BTW, look at the first quote from that "old news omitted" link (from 2 days ago), it addresses the issue that she should have turned over all the records after she left office. By not doing that she violated the policy keeping in line with the FRA. Days? Sure, that's OK, but she was out almost 3 years and still had access. Seriously, there's no gray area on that point.

 

[werepossum]

BF is the king of irrelevant quibbling.

And proposing the most inane scenarios whilst bitterly complaining that we know nothing and thus cannot have an informed opinion.

Hey, at least it's amusing.

BTW, look at the first quote from that "old news omitted" link (from 2 days ago), it addresses the issue that she should have turned over all the records after she left office. By not doing that she violated the policy keeping in line with the FRA. Days? Sure, that's OK, but she was out almost 3 years and still had access. Seriously, there's no gray area on that point.

I wouldn't argue that legally it's a gray area. I can't imagine why it takes three years to sanitize one's hard drives and retype what one wants one's emails to say instead of what they actually say. 'Harriet, please type out this email, but change "Pay Clinton Foundation" to "save Western civilization".'

I'm just saying that it's different from Petreaus' behavior because whilst she undeniably kept them for an illegal amount of time, she at least once had legal access to them, albeit not on her home server. Three days versus three years is certainly a stretching of any grace period beyond recognition, but it's not as egregious (to me anyway) as handing classified documents to one's uncertified biographer for one's own aggrandizement. (And again, I say that as a registered Republican who sees very few Republicans who would make me vote for the Hildabeast, whereas I like and admire Petraeus and would vote for him today in a heart beat, as either party's nominee.)

 

[Phoenix86]

I'm just saying that it's different from Petreaus' behavior because whilst she undeniably kept them for an illegal amount of time, she at least once had legal access to them, albeit not on her home server. Three days versus three years is certainly a stretching of any grace period beyond recognition, but it's not as egregious (to me anyway) as handing classified documents to one's uncertified biographer for one's own aggrandizement. (And again, I say that as a registered Republican who sees very few Republicans who would make me vote for the Hildabeast, whereas I like and admire Petraeus and would vote for him today in a heart beat, as either party's nominee.)

The egregious part is keeping them on the unsecured, unauthorized server with security holes big enough to drive a mac truck through. One was intentional, the other was both gross negligence and intentionally against known policy. Note, gross negligence is all that's needed from a legal standpoint. You don't even need to consider the intent of breaking policy, but if you add that it's basically on par with intentionally sharing it. Double so if, as it seems, the server was successfully hacked.

 

[werepossum]

The egregious part is keeping them on the unsecured, unauthorized server with security holes big enough to drive a mac truck through. One was intentional, the other was both gross negligence and intentionally against known policy. Note, gross negligence is all that's needed from a legal standpoint. You don't even need to consider the intent of breaking policy, but if you add that it's basically on par with intentionally sharing it. Double so if, as it seems, the server was successfully hacked.

I agree that's pretty egregious, but I'm not sure how long that went on. At some point, the Clinton server in question was decommissioned and stored in a restroom closet. I am assuming that the hard drive had been professionally wiped before that, though that's just an assumption.

 

[Jhhnn]

Being sent unsolicited classified info? Sure, you're in the clear. Having it as your known work email for the SoS? Not so much. It's her job to view sensitive material, the private server was where she wanted to receive it. You can't claim that you didn't want to have it sent there when you were directing people to send it there.

As I said earlier, classified information should never be sent anywhere on the open internet. Obviously, she did not solicit classified material be sent to her that way.

Like all too many people, you're letting what you want to believe interfere with higher order of thought.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree that's pretty egregious, but I'm not sure how long that went on. At some point, the Clinton server in question was decommissioned and stored in a restroom closet. I am assuming that the hard drive had been professionally wiped before that, though that's just an assumption.

That's an incorrect & misleading assumption. Had the drive been professionally wiped there would be no retrievable information. That's obviously not the case or the FBI wouldn't have anything & the emails omitted in her original release would simply be gone, like the info the Bush Admin sent thru RNC servers.

 

[Jhhnn]

The egregious part is keeping them on the unsecured, unauthorized server with security holes big enough to drive a mac truck through. One was intentional, the other was both gross negligence and intentionally against known policy. Note, gross negligence is all that's needed from a legal standpoint. You don't even need to consider the intent of breaking policy, but if you add that it's basically on par with intentionally sharing it. Double so if, as it seems, the server was successfully hacked.

If that were true, she'd already be busted. Therefore it's not true, no matter how many times you claim that it is.

 

[buckshot24]

If that were true, she'd already be busted. Therefore it's not true, no matter how many times you claim that it is.

Is this selective naivete?