Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you) (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=788657)

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 08:31 AM

I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you)
 
When it was originally reported, my view of the scandal was that it was not properly a national security scandal but instead a scandal over the effort to hide emails from FOIA access. I believed that it was unlikely that she sent any truly sensitive information, as distinct from technically classified stuff like the existence of the drone program. I also believed that the security for the home server was likely good enough for these purposes.

In retrospect, I was incredibly naive about the level of security necessary to protect an email server from foreign governments, and the level of security employed for officials like SecState. I was also naive about Clinton's understanding of what information is sensitive. As it turns out, Clinton had people telling her how vulnerable this made her communications, and she continued to do it anyway--and sent highly sensitive information over a server without even using any form of encryption.

Here's what was reported last week in the Washington Post (and has previously been reported elsewhere):

Quote:

He emphasized: “Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars.”

Nine days later, Clinton told Boswell that she had read his memo and “gets it,” according to an email sent by a senior diplomatic security official. “Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates (Diplomatic Security) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia,” the email said.

But Clinton kept using her private BlackBerry — and the basement server.
That's pretty damning. If security people were telling her to knock it off for good reason, she acknowledged those concerns, and then essentially ignored them, then this is a justified national security scandal. I still doubt that a crime was committed, given the scope of the criminal law. But it has caused me to downgrade my estimation of Clinton's judgment by a good notch. I'm not sure she has worse judgment than her competitors, but it's now a closer call in my book.

CarnalK 03-29-2016 08:42 AM

If Blackberrys are so vulnerable, why do so many foreign governments demand that Blackberry give their security people access?

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 08:47 AM

As I understand it, it isn't so much that Blackberry is uniquely vulnerable. I suspect they would have said the same thing about her using an iPhone. The vulnerability is not the device, but the device's connection with a homebrew server that didn't even use encryption for the first few months.

There is often a spectrum of exploits ranging from possible but difficult and expensive to one-click easy-peasy. Often the access sought by foreign governments is to make their lives easier and to enable mass surveillance, and not because it is the only possible way in. When you're talking about targeting one high-profile individual, that's a whole different story.

iiandyiiii 03-29-2016 08:51 AM

If she knowingly discussed classified things on the BlackBerry, then that's a big problem. But were the security people really telling her she couldn't use a BlackBerry ever, for any reason? Or just not for classified information, and in secure spaces in which classified discussions take place?

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 19217520)
If she knowingly discussed classified things on the BlackBerry, then that's a big problem. But were the security people really telling her she couldn't use a BlackBerry ever, for any reason? Or just not for classified information, and in secure spaces in which classified discussions take place?

There's a few different issues, I suppose.

One issue is that the Blackberry could be hacked to transform it into a listening device. This was apparently one of the concerns expressed to her. It is why they would not let her take it into the SCIF. But if she was carrying it on her during all kinds of other official business, presumably some of that involved highly sensitive conversations.

The other issue is what information she sent using the device. Based on the reporting, it looks like at least some of it was indeed sensitive information, whether it was classified or not. In the context of knowing how vulnerable her security was, it strikes me as scandalous to send sensitive information regardless of whether it is classified.

Omar Little 03-29-2016 09:00 AM

I'm not sure that she violated any laws. But her own preference to keep things like she wanted them without thinking about potential security threats even after being told shows an arrogance and lack of judgment that is extremely concerning.

iiandyiiii 03-29-2016 09:09 AM

If the OP is correct, then this may demonstrate an extreme sense of entitlement that overrode good judgment, which would be a big mark against her.

It would take many, many such big marks against her to make her judgment anything close to as bad as any of the Republicans, though, in my opinion.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 19217568)
It would take many, many such big marks against her to make her judgment anything close to as bad as any of the Republicans, though, in my opinion.

It wouldn't shock me to learn that a majority of conservatives think Clinton has better judgment than Trump. That's about as low as a bar gets.

The comment at the end of my OP was mostly about Bernie and Jill Stein. And while I recognize that the Democratic primary is basically over, so forcing me to vote for Bernie doesn't mean much, I do feel less enthusiastic about volunteering for and donating to Hillary in the fall.

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217597)
It wouldn't shock me to learn that a majority of conservatives think Clinton has better judgment than Trump. That's about as low as a bar gets.

The comment at the end of my OP was mostly about Bernie and Jill Stein. And while I recognize that the Democratic primary is basically over, so forcing me to vote for Bernie doesn't mean much, I do feel less enthusiastic about volunteering for and donating to Hillary in the fall.

I just see it like this: This is a moot point since she will not be able to do that anymore and there will be many others at the behest of the conservatives keeping an eye at her future communications, regardless if there was any "scandal".

Donald Trump still should not be let to control the CIA (Trump is worse than Nixon on "the enemies list" front) The CDC (Trump is anti-vaccine) NOAA (Trump is climate change denier) and we also should not allow him to be closer to the nuclear football.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 10:14 AM

Bad judgment is never moot.

You're right, electorally. She is lucky that the only obstacles to her presidency are a 74-year-old atheist socialist and a wildly bigoted reality show character who singlehandedly proves David Dunning and Justin Kruger to be correct. But notwithstanding the forum choice of my OP, I think criticism is important even when it doesn't cause one to change one's voting behavior.

Procrustus 03-29-2016 10:24 AM

Getting a president with the judgment and temperament of Obama is a once in a generation thing, if we're lucky. Hillary Clinton will be an adequate President. I don't need her to be perfect. If there were qualified alternatives (with a chance of winning) this all might be more relevant

CaptMurdock 03-29-2016 10:34 AM

*snore*

Wha- -- What?

Dear Og, are we still talking about this??

Yes, Hillary didn't pay attention to security protocols. Neither has half the officials in Washington in the last twenty years, it seems. Dang this newfangled internet anyway.

Have Hillary and Colin and Condoleeza and the Bush administration secretaries and anybody else who couldn't read the directions, hold out their hands and then slap the back of them with the Sister Mary Elephant Memorial Ruler.

Then we can all go back to sleep. :rolleyes:

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock (Post 19217839)
Dear Og, are we still talking about this?

Yes, it has been all of two or three days since these latest details were reported. How can we still be talking about it?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock (Post 19217839)
Yes, Hillary didn't pay attention to security protocols. Neither has half the officials in Washington in the last twenty years, it seems. Dang this newfangled internet anyway.

Have Hillary and Colin and Condoleeza and the Bush administration secretaries and anybody else who couldn't read the directions, hold out their hands and then slap the back of them with the Sister Mary Elephant Memorial Ruler.

Then we can all go back to sleep. :rolleyes:

Were Colin Powell and anyone else specifically warned to stop doing this for security reasons, agreed to do so, and then didn't?

BobLibDem 03-29-2016 10:39 AM

It's hard for me to get excited about this "scandal". I think if the Chinese want to hack something bad enough, they have the expertise and the resources to do it regardless of how secure we think our systems are. Not the best idea to use devices that are more hackable, but I'm not really seeing a scenario where anything intercepted would adversely affect national security.

Your choice this fall will be between someone with a clear head but capable of making minor errors and someone compulsively ignorant and mentally unstable. It shouldn't take too long to figure out the right choice.

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217771)
Bad judgment is never moot.

Thing is that I read the article and it strikes me as yet another rehash of what was reported before with very little new details and omitting a few things to keep the "scandal" going.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/17/clint.../#TPauUO4o_aqJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217771)
You're right, electorally. She is lucky that the only obstacles to her presidency are a 74-year-old atheist socialist and a wildly bigoted reality show character who singlehandedly proves David Dunning and Justin Kruger to be correct. But notwithstanding the forum choice of my OP, I think criticism is important even when it doesn't cause one to change one's voting behavior.

Of course it is, and Clinton already admitted that it was a mistake, in the end the issue of the intention (No secrets were intended to be sent to enemies or for personal gain) is what makes this "scandal" underwhelming. What I do think is going is that a lot of members of the media do have to make the contest a horse race, after all they still have to get all those millions from Trump and the supporters of Hillary. If Clinton gets too high on the polls she must be taken a few pegs down by any means necessary. To make this a race worth covering and that also benefits their bottom line.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ails-ev/209574

Procrustus 03-29-2016 10:44 AM

Also, it's hard to take seriously a government security classification system that retains "top secret" coding for information published in the New York Times. As I understand it, truly sensitive stuff, like the names of spies, would never be emailed around in the first place. If the Chinese hack in and find out the Secretary is planning on raising a particular issue in her talks with the Prime Minister of India next month, I doubt they'd be surprised or have any "actionable intelligence." Remember, the NSA listened in to phone conversations of some European leaders a while back, and I don't recall any of them getting in hot water for lax security precautions.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 19217858)
I think if the Chinese want to hack something bad enough, they have the expertise and the resources to do it regardless of how secure we think our systems are.

This is not an evidence-based belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 19217858)
Not the best idea to use devices that are more hackable [ . . . ]

This is quite an understatement. You don't think it's a good idea to keep sensitive information secret from foreign governments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 19217858)
[ . . . ]but I'm not really seeing a scenario where anything intercepted would adversely affect national security.

This is naive. It could very easily harm national security for a foreign power to listen in on a private conversation between Clinton and a foreign leader, or intercept trip reports sent by Clinton back to the White House.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19217874)
[I]n the end the issue of the intention (No secrets were intended to be sent to enemies or for personal gain) is what makes this "scandal" underwhelming.

That's the whole point. It would be one thing if this were just ignorance about security. But what's being reported now (among the new details you hand-wave away based on your conspiracy theory about the media) is that she was specifically warned, acknowledged the problem, and then ignored the warning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Procrustus (Post 19217886)
Also, it's hard to take seriously a government security classification system that retains "top secret" coding for information published in the New York Times. As I understand it, truly sensitive stuff, like the names of spies, would never be emailed around in the first place. If the Chinese hack in and find out the Secretary is planning on raising a particular issue in her talks with the Prime Minister of India next month, I doubt they'd be surprised or have any "actionable intelligence." Remember, the NSA listened in to phone conversations of some European leaders a while back, and I don't recall any of them getting in hot water for lax security precautions.

This is half-correct. Yes, over-classification is rampant and a problem. But no, it's not true that "truly sensitive stuff" is never communicated electronically.

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217915)
That's the whole point. It would be one thing if this were just ignorance about security. But what's being reported now (among the new details you hand-wave away based on your conspiracy theory about the media) is that she was specifically warned, acknowledged the problem, and then ignored the warning.

Actually the NSA ignored the warning, but once again, she already admitted her mistake.

And yes, after many back eyes the media got by exaggerating and even lying (they had to backtrack several reports already) I will be happy to continue to hand wave away, it is not done just on a whim.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19217955)
Actually the NSA ignored the warning, but once again, she already admitted her mistake.

Even if your claim were true, that the NSA ignored the warning, that would only mean they both ignored it. Not that the NSA "actually" ignored it. But I don't see that your claim is based on any evidence anyway.

As for her mea culpa. She has generally admitted making a mistake. She has denied that she did anything to compromise national security.

Try2B Comprehensive 03-29-2016 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217915)
This is not an evidence-based belief.

Yes it is. According to NPR anyway, when the Pentagon plays cyber-warfare games, there has not yet been an instance when the "bad guy team" was not able to compromise the Pentagon's networks. Everything we have is, apparently, hackable.

BobLibDem 03-29-2016 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217915)
This is naive. It could very easily harm national security for a foreign power to listen in on a private conversation between Clinton and a foreign leader, or intercept trip reports sent by Clinton back to the White House.

I still don't see it. Let's say she goes off to Germany. In her hotel she fires off a summary to the White House. What's the worst that can happen? She lets on that we weren't ready to go to war if the Ukraine was invaded? Hell, everybody already knew that.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive (Post 19217971)
Yes it is. According to NPR anyway, when the Pentagon plays cyber-warfare games, there has not yet been an instance when the "bad guy team" was not able to compromise the Pentagon's networks. Everything we have is, apparently, hackable.

The Pentagon being able to hack some unspecified part of its own network is different from claiming that "if the Chinese want to hack something bad enough, they have the expertise and the resources to do it regardless of how secure we think our systems are."

Indeed, it's not even relevant to that claim. We know that some of our systems are not well secured. It does not follow that none of our systems are--especially not when we're talking about protecting the communications of a single high-level official.

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217965)
Even if your claim were true, that the NSA ignored the warning, that would only mean they both ignored it. Not that the NSA "actually" ignored it. But I don't see that your claim is based on any evidence anyway.

I already did link to the Mashable report, that quotes BTW messages obtained by Judicial Watch.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19218061)
I already did link to the Mashable report, that quotes BTW messages obtained by Judicial Watch.

You just inserted the link, but didn't characterize it at all. Looking at it now, I don't see where it supports your thesis. Perhaps you could favor me with a quote?

Johnny Ace 03-29-2016 11:55 AM

When somebody tells me I SHOULD think something, I immediately look at that with a jaundiced eye.

Just the next in the series of molehills that conservatives will do their utmost to make into mountains. Sounds familiar, huh?

Boyo Jim 03-29-2016 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217915)
... That's the whole point. It would be one thing if this were just ignorance about security. But what's being reported now (among the new details you hand-wave away based on your conspiracy theory about the media) is that she was specifically warned, acknowledged the problem, and then ignored the warning.
...

I would say it still WAS ignorance, not about the vulnerability of the equipment, but about the probability that someone was actively trying to hack it or listen through it. If her Blackberry tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it, has it made a sound?

Or perhaps she didn't care if someone was listening because she didn't believe that what she was discussing posed a risk even if it was intercepted. In fact I would be much more concerned if lower level people did what she did, such as people on various treaty negotiating teams. I think when someone at her level steps in the room, she's more likely there to put in an appearance, sign a document, and add some political weight to a situation, not to discuss the terms in depth in advance.

However, if she genuinely broke a law, she should be held accountable. I would love to see Bernie as the Democratic nominee.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 12:35 PM

So if you were to learn that, contrary to your expectation, the Secretary of State routinely discusses sensitive matters and doesn't just do ceremonial bullshit, would that change your mind?

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218080)
You just inserted the link, but didn't characterize it at all. Looking at it now, I don't see where it supports your thesis. Perhaps you could favor me with a quote?

Quote:

Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

The messages made public Wednesday were obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal advocacy group that has filed numerous lawsuits seeking the release of federal documents related to Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat.
Quote:

"We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure 'BlackBerry-like' communications," wrote Donald R. Reid, the department's assistant director for security infrastructure. "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive."

Reid wrote that each time they asked the NSA what solution they had worked up to provide a mobile device to Obama, "we were politely told to shut up and color."
Again, the point was that the NSA IMHO were acting like cads. But IIUC then a more secure Blackberry was provided, as it is clear that other email accounts can not be added as this exchange in the news (yes, this is not as new an issue as implied in the article on the OP) showed:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03...couldnt/202833
Quote:

After playing video of Clinton's comment, Bolling asked, "Are you kidding me? Any tenth grader could set up multiple email accounts on a single handheld device. Does she think the American people are that stupid?"

But as the technology blog Mashable reports, maintaining separate personal and government accounts on the same device is less secure, presenting a "real concern of attack vectors on the personal side." Moreover, when Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, "there was no standard way to secure a BlackBerry like Clinton's with two email accounts, at least not without giving the IT person in charge complete dominion over all the data on the phone. To fulfill the criteria that Clinton demanded -- secure email that's not sitting on a cloud service, plus a single-BlackBerry solution -- she had just one option: Set up her own email server."

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 12:57 PM

Your initial claim was that the NSA knew about and ignored the problem. Nothing in the quoted matter supports that claim.

Your new claim is that the NSA was bad for refusing to give Hillary the same secured communications device that Obama received. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion without knowing how much it cost, how difficult it would be, etc.

Martin Hyde 03-29-2016 01:25 PM

I do think Hillary's judgment was poor here. But I don't view this as changing the degree to which I view it as poor--anyone that knows what the State Department and the SecState do already knew that she was privy to sensitive information, and to be frank as loose as high political officials have been with such information since basically forever it'd be shocking if none of it made its way into email like it wasn't supposed to.

I will say this though--there's a big difference between information that the government would like secret and information that if disclosed would genuinely hurt national security. The former is a huge portion of all information the government holds, the latter is almost none of it. I mean our enemies know how to make nuclear weapons. Let that sink in. What exactly are they going to get from us that's worse than that on a strategic scale?

The answer is really very little. Specifications for U.S. military hardware? They largely have that already. Sure, it's classified, but they can analyze things based on performance in the real world that is harder to keep secret.

Probably the most sensitive information would be information on imminently occurring U.S. military actions, specific targets for troop deployments and etc--because that information will put troops in harm's way. Once an operation is over, that information is of almost no value. Additionally things like the identity of covert operatives overseas (which if leaked could endanger their lives)--note that a Republican leaked some of that deliberately just to hurt a political opponent. The SecState has access to information we'd like to not have leaked, but almost no access to genuinely important national security info--most of which is very time sensitive (i.e. it's only really important for a few weeks/days.)

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218273)
Your initial claim was that the NSA knew about and ignored the problem. Nothing in the quoted matter supports that claim.

"we were politely told to shut up and color."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218273)
Your new claim is that the NSA was bad for refusing to give Hillary the same secured communications device that Obama received. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion without knowing how much it cost, how difficult it would be, etc.

That is what Juditial Watch and then Mashable reported. IMHO it should had prevented all her poor decisions, (It is looking as if the refusal of the secure blackberry at the beginning was the main reason for setting the personal e-mail server)

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 01:34 PM

Obviously there is a spectrum of the sensitivity of information, ranging from technically classified but well-known (e.g., the CIA drone program) to critically sensitive (say, troop movements or which biological attacks we have not prepared well for).

You speculate that the SecState lacks access to the most sensitive stuff. I doubt that's true. We know, for example, that she is given information about what our intelligence services know about foreign military capabilities. You don't think it's highly sensitive what our best guess is about Iranian or North Korean missile ranges, for example? If not, I think you're not using your imagination.

But even if I was willing to accept your speculation that she lacks access to the most sensitive stuff, she clearly has access to a lot of the middle ground stuff. That is self-evident based on who she talks to, the meeting she attends, and what we know from things like WikiLeaks.

As a check of your calibration of what counts are highly sensitive, is it your position that none of the stuff in Wikileaks was a damaging disclosure?

Boyo Jim 03-29-2016 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218199)
So if you were to learn that, contrary to your expectation, the Secretary of State routinely discusses sensitive matters and doesn't just do ceremonial bullshit, would that change your mind?

It depends what the sensitive information is. Yes, it would change my mind if it is information that would genuinely endanger the country or the people in it, or US citizens abroad. But I believe that's very unlikely.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19218396)
"we were politely told to shut up and color."

That does not support your claim. It supports the claim that she was told by the NSA that she would not get a secure blackberry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19218396)
That is what Juditial Watch and then Mashable reported. IMHO it should had prevented all her poor decisions, (It is looking as if the refusal of the secure blackberry at the beginning was the main reason for setting the personal e-mail server)

No, it isn't. They reported that the NSA said no. They didn't report anything about whether that was a reasonable decision. Your argument assumes without evidence that it wasn't. Indeed, you go further and assume that the NSA knew Hillary lied to them about stopping using her Blackberry and that they just didn't care.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19218405)
It depends what the sensitive information is. Yes, it would change my mind if it is information that would genuinely endanger the country or the people in it, or US citizens abroad. But I believe that's very unlikely.

So what's an example? Are you saying it's only a problem if she discloses something like the names of spies, but not a big deal if she reveals our negotiating strategy for a treaty?

Boyo Jim 03-29-2016 01:47 PM

I'll give you an example of some information that I believe did put American lives at risk, though I can no longer remember the details of who was responsible, or even where it was.

You may recall some years back the news got out that American troops were coming ashore at dawn. And at the landing beach were loads of reporters with cameras and bright lights, and it was IIRC carried on live TV. I was appalled by that. That could have turned into a shooting gallery, and everybody concerned was lucky that it didn't.

Whoever let that out should have been prosecuted and if it was the president he should have been impeached.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 01:54 PM

I don't understand why you would only be concerned about Hollywood movie-style secrets.

I can imagine a whole wealth of information that as an individual unit of information might not cause imminent death, but would nevertheless make it easier for our adversaries to harm Americans or allies. Why should we be OK with releasing that kind of data?

I mean, take the negotiations over the Iranian sanctions. It is entirely plausible that one piece of information that might be shared with Sec. Clinton is whether a given country, like France, would have been willing to carry on with international sanctions if a deal broke down. If Iran got that information, it would be critical in assessing the strength of different negotiating positions. In turn, that could lead to things like the release or non-release of hostages, or how much money they got from us (that can then be used to fund terror), or a hundred other things. Why wouldn't you care about them getting that info?

Boyo Jim 03-29-2016 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218429)
So what's an example? Are you saying it's only a problem if she discloses something like the names of spies, but not a big deal if she reveals our negotiating strategy for a treaty?

What are you looking for? I agree that it shows bad judgment. Is that not enough? Are you personally going to vote for a Republican candidate because of this, or a third party candidate, or stay home and not vote at all? What do you think is an appropriate level of response from a concerned American?

Our primary is Tuesday. I will be voting for Bernie Sanders, which I would have done whether this news came to light or not. And if Hilary wins the Dem nomination, I will be (reluctantly) voting for her in the general election over any Republican candidate now in the running. Again, true whether these new facts came to light or not.

How should I change my behavior?

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19218495)
How should I change my behavior?

Perhaps I put this in the wrong forum, because I'm not suggesting you ought to change your voting behavior.

I think an open and honest accounting for this is important regardless of whether it changes any of your personal behavior. It is simply wrong to downplay the security breach because the Secretary of State only performs ceremonial duties.

And maybe taking the breach seriously would change your non-voting behavior. Perhaps there will come a time before or after November when the Democratic Establishment will start to characterize this as a partisan witch-hunt and call for an end to the investigation. Some posters in this thread are already championing that position. Taking this seriously means rejecting that position because you understand the importance of getting to the bottom of what kind security might have been breached and what needs to be changed to ensure it never happens again.

Boyo Jim 03-29-2016 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218487)
I don't understand why you would only be concerned about Hollywood movie-style secrets. ...

The example I chose might or might not have been "Hollywood movie-style", but it happened in the real world, and it involved the release of information that might have genuinely put lives at risk.

Procrustus 03-29-2016 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218511)
Perhaps I put this in the wrong forum, because I'm not suggesting you ought to change your voting behavior.

I think an open and honest accounting for this is important regardless of whether it changes any of your personal behavior. It is simply wrong to downplay the security breach because the Secretary of State only performs ceremonial duties.

And maybe taking the breach seriously would change your non-voting behavior. Perhaps there will come a time before or after November when the Democratic Establishment will start to characterize this as a partisan witch-hunt and call for an end to the investigation. Some posters in this thread are already championing that position. Taking this seriously means rejecting that position because you understand the importance of getting to the bottom of what kind security might have been breached and what needs to be changed to ensure it never happens again.

Did the bad guys even know she had a private email server while she was in Office? If not, they wouldn't even know to try to access her basement server. If I'm some agent in Iran, how would I even know where to start looking? I'd probably start trying to hack into the State Department server. Clinton outsmarted them.

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218421)
That does not support your claim. It supports the claim that she was told by the NSA that she would not get a secure blackberry.

Indeed, put that under the rug, IOW, ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218421)
No, it isn't. They reported that the NSA said no. They didn't report anything about whether that was a reasonable decision. Your argument assumes without evidence that it wasn't. Indeed, you go further and assume that the NSA knew Hillary lied to them about stopping using her Blackberry and that they just didn't care.

I was only reporting what the emails are telling us, and I did not say that Hillary lied, IMHO the early report points to Hillary getting a more secure one and it would only be a guess to assume that no talk in other medium took place about the blackberry. I only can make an observation, based on the reports, that she got some sort of arrangement with the security groups, that now it looks bad and the fact that so far the FBI has pointed that Clinton is not being investigated, points to what the nature of the investigation is: They are investigating if other parties got access to secret information and how to prevent that from happening again. Because I do have the feeling that some security people did not see anything wrong then.

I'm already accepting that there was an error here from Clinton, but as pointed many times before, a very underwhelming one, unless it can be show that she on purpose let our enemies get information or that she had personal profit as a motive.

Boyo Jim 03-29-2016 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218511)
Perhaps I put this in the wrong forum, because I'm not suggesting you ought to change your voting behavior.

I think an open and honest accounting for this is important regardless of whether it changes any of your personal behavior. It is simply wrong to downplay the security breach because the Secretary of State only performs ceremonial duties. ...

I am not downplaying the security breach. I may be downplaying the risk of what particular information might have been leaked, and you may be overplaying that same risk, and neither of us can really know.

And as far an open and honest accounting of what happened, I've very hard-pressed to come up with any examples of when that happened or about what. Maybe NTSB crash investigations? Maybe some portions of the Abu Graib and related torture scandals, but certainly not others. And even when the facts do come out, what are the consequences? Few to none, and not very serious in any case, because actual facts have become issues of partisan squabbling.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Procrustus (Post 19218535)
Did the bad guys even know she had a private email server while she was in Office? If not, they wouldn't even know to try to access her basement server. If I'm some agent in Iran, how would I even know where to start looking? I'd probably start trying to hack into the State Department server. Clinton outsmarted them.

I sympathize with this kind of statement, because it seems sort of intuitive and I used to share it.

But that was before I had any idea how the modern communications technology works. The encryption used to protect data transmitted by a Blackberry over cell networks is very weak. Even relatively unsophisticated actors can crack it without too much trouble. Once you do so, you know what server the phone is communicating with. Indeed, since the email traffic apparently wasn't even encrypted, once you do so, that might be the whole ballgame.

The other concern was using the Blackberry itself as a listening device. AFAIK, we know that other countries have that capability and would have no way of verifying whether they used it on Clinton's unsecured phone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19218541)
Indeed, put that under the rug, IOW, ignore it.

That's a bizarre interpretation. They told her they could not give her a secure Blackberry and not to use an unsecured one. She agreed, but continued to use it! That's them ignoring it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19218541)
I'm already accepting that there was an error here from Clinton, but as pointed many times before, a very underwhelming one, unless it can be show that she on purpose let our enemies get information or that she had personal profit as a motive.

She apparently chose personal convenience over national security. That's not as bad as selling secrets or something. But it's still pretty bad.

GIGObuster 03-29-2016 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218583)
That's a bizarre interpretation. They told her they could not give her a secure Blackberry and not to use an unsecured one. She agreed, but continued to use it! That's them ignoring it?

Until more info is available I have to go with the idea that someone did not see anything wrong with her solution, of course here I have to remind you that I already acknowledged that it was not a good solution but the way the investigation is going (with the FBI going on record of reporting that she is not under investigation) points to someone not minding about that solution in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218583)
She apparently chose personal convenience over national security. That's not as bad as selling secrets or something. But it's still pretty bad.

Again, if my hunch is right, someone later did not mind much and so it follows that the investigation concentrates on the failures in security, not much about who is at fault as there was no ill intention; but, very likely there was also a failure of communication and not much damming as the right wing would like it to be.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19218616)
Until more info is available I have to go with the idea that someone did not see anything wrong with her solution...

Why? Because they didn't arrest her? I don't get why that's a better inference than either: (1) they didn't know that she continued to use it despite her telling them she would; or (2) they knew and there wasn't anything they could do about it short of trying to keep her from having access to their classified info.

wolfpup 03-29-2016 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218583)
She apparently chose personal convenience over national security.

Funny you should say that because I was just thinking that this pretty much sums up the whole thing, whatever one wants to make of it. And statements like this one from the article ... A request for a secure device from the NSA was rebuffed at the outset: "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive" ... is one that would be very familiar to many who have to deal with government or even large institutions, and I think provides a sympathetic glimpse into the frustrations of an ambitious high-energy person just wanting to get things done and being thwarted by an intransigent unproductive bureaucracy.

I'm not defending Clinton, but I think that's a valid perspective, and I can well believe the claims that she was far from the only one who bypassed official security protocols for the sake of productivity and effectiveness. If you remove the "national" from that quoted sentence and substitute "personal" or "corporate" then the number of people to whom that transgression applies probably numbers in the millions, including probably you and me. What I guess I'm saying is that even if what she did was wrong, I'm relatively sympathetic to the reasons she may have done it, namely for reasons of effectiveness rather than some nefarious desire to "control" the information.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 03:01 PM

I mostly agree. In fact, I think this new information makes clear that this probably wasn't a FOIA-avoidance scheme.

The part where I disagree is the empathy for the choice she made given the role she accepted. It's one thing to compromise your business's trade secrets in the relatively unlikely event that you are personally subject to a corporate espionage attempt. It is quite another thing to be Secretary of State of the United States--a figure who will be the target of ceaseless and sophisticated espionage with 100% certainty, and who has access to a whole wealth of sensitive information--deciding that her personal convenience is more important.

Even then I would be sympathetic if she was expected to understand this on her own. Most people, myself included until recently, didn't really understand how cybersecurity works. But she was told specifically that, for example, China could easily hack her Blackberry. And she kept using it.

Martin Hyde 03-29-2016 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218401)
You speculate that the SecState lacks access to the most sensitive stuff. I doubt that's true. We know, for example, that she is given information about what our intelligence services know about foreign military capabilities. You don't think it's highly sensitive what our best guess is about Iranian or North Korean missile ranges, for example? If not, I think you're not using your imagination.

I don't believe SecState would have any legitimate reason to be forwarding operational deployment/planning documents for upcoming military operations, or covert operative names. I don't believe that knowing our guesses on foreign state's military capabilities to be that sensitive because most countries probably have made very similar assessments of these sorts of things.

Quote:

But even if I was willing to accept your speculation that she lacks access to the most sensitive stuff, she clearly has access to a lot of the middle ground stuff. That is self-evident based on who she talks to, the meeting she attends, and what we know from things like WikiLeaks.
A lot of the WikiLeaks stuff was from a low level, but was potentially more dangerous because it contained information on say, Afghans who worked with the U.S. government covertly. The thing about SecState is it's a very high level/abstraction position, the SecState has no reason to even read that information, it'd be like the SecState being told what type of door handle they're installing in a U.S. Consulate in Münich.

Quote:

As a check of your calibration of what counts are highly sensitive, is it your position that none of the stuff in Wikileaks was a damaging disclosure?
Eh, it was damaging because it was public disclosure of America's internal stances on some foreign powers. None of that was stuff they didn't know, but because it was leaked openly the foreign power could use it for PR purposes. The most damaging aspects of what say, Bradley Manning leaked was information about people in Iraq and Afghanistan who were working with the U.S., and who might be targeted for retribution. But again--that stuff isn't going to be on a SecStat's desk or in her emails. It's too low level.

The Secretary of State may have access to a greater breadth of information, theoretically, than a low level operative. But a low level operative is more likely to be in more regular contact with lots of information that is highly sensitive.

I also think that, considering the NSA has security policies like letting one SysAdmin have full privileges on the entire network and all its machines so he could write a simple program to crawl/pull files for hours and hours suggests that the high level, mostly abstract documents that come across Hillary's desk as SecState possibly being leaked are comparatively so unimportant as to be almost irrelevant.

Like I said, she showed poor judgment, but I already knew the moment I heard she was using a private email server that a) some classified information almost certainly had made its way onto that server and b) it'd probably already been exploited by some third party. So this revelation didn't change my reaction, and part of my reaction is based on thinking none of this is materially very important.

The President doesn't even have to deal with this stuff at all, his high level security aides do all the reading of it and then brief him--so as President she won't be in a position like this.

Martin Hyde 03-29-2016 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218487)
I don't understand why you would only be concerned about Hollywood movie-style secrets.

I can imagine a whole wealth of information that as an individual unit of information might not cause imminent death, but would nevertheless make it easier for our adversaries to harm Americans or allies. Why should we be OK with releasing that kind of data?

I mean, take the negotiations over the Iranian sanctions. It is entirely plausible that one piece of information that might be shared with Sec. Clinton is whether a given country, like France, would have been willing to carry on with international sanctions if a deal broke down. If Iran got that information, it would be critical in assessing the strength of different negotiating positions. In turn, that could lead to things like the release or non-release of hostages, or how much money they got from us (that can then be used to fund terror), or a hundred other things. Why wouldn't you care about them getting that info?

What you're not realizing is that the people that do diplomatic negotiations and top military/intelligence types largely know what the other side is thinking anyway. Ever seen The Lion in Winter? Maybe not, it's an old movie. There's a quote from that movie that is applicable:

Quote:

Prince Geoffrey: I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it.
[smiles]
Prince Geoffrey: We're a knowledgeable family.
It's not really a game of poker because both sides know what the cards are, it's largely about reaching an agreement on terms.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde (Post 19218687)
I don't believe SecState would have any legitimate reason to be forwarding operational deployment/planning documents for upcoming military operations, or covert operative names.

She wouldn't have to forward it. Half of the security problem was that she carried around an unsecured Blackberry everywhere. If she was briefed about something outside of Mahogany Row or some other secured space, then it could have been intercepted.

But that's sort of a side point. Your main contention is that she didn't have access to anything sensitive. Given all of the things you put in that category, then I think that might be true for your particular definition of sensitive. But for what most of us think of as sensitive, I think that claim is false. Your notion that all of our adversaries already know things like our negotiating positions is just not true. It happens, of course. But there are also countless examples in diplomatic history of countries getting a better deal because of asymmetric information about their counter-party's plans and alternatives.

Martin Hyde 03-29-2016 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218721)
She wouldn't have to forward it. Half of the security problem was that she carried around an unsecured Blackberry everywhere. If she was briefed about something outside of Mahogany Row or some other secured space, then it could have been intercepted.

I very seriously doubt she ever received a briefing from anyone on her blackberry, or that she received emails that she read on her blackberry or elsewhere, that contained detailed military operations stuff. The SecState literally has no reason to be briefed on that stuff, and likely isn't. Likewise she has no reason to be briefed on the identity of covert operatives, and likely isn't. Cheney's office had access to that because he was Vice President and due to peculiarities in the Bush administration he basically had access to everything that W. did, and actively used said access.

Quote:

But that's sort of a side point. Your main contention is that she didn't have access to anything sensitive. Given all of the things you put in that category, then I think that might be true for your particular definition of sensitive. But for what most of us think of as sensitive, I think that claim is false. Your notion that all of our adversaries already know things like our negotiating positions is just not true. It happens, of course. But there are also countless examples in diplomatic history of countries getting a better deal because of asymmetric information about their counter-party's plans and alternatives.
My opinion is that very little that government keeps secret has much utility. I think the lion's share of the security apparatus is both absurd and pointless.

Richard Parker 03-29-2016 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde (Post 19218782)
I very seriously doubt she ever received a briefing from anyone on her blackberry.

That's not the point. She was told that the microphone on her Blackberry could be used to record in-person conversations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde (Post 19218782)
My opinion is that very little that government keeps secret has much utility. I think the lion's share of the security apparatus is both absurd and pointless.

Right. And that's fine. Obviously, if that's your opinion, then you're almost never going to be upset about an information security breach.

I think with more information you would change this position, but that's a topic for another thread.

SlackerInc 03-29-2016 04:25 PM

<yawn>

Stringbean 03-29-2016 06:16 PM

There's a wide divide between

"reckless with securing important information"

and

"setting up a private server in your home to intentionally shield all correspondence and possibly putting highly-classified information at risk"

Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

sleestak 03-29-2016 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Procrustus (Post 19218535)
Did the bad guys even know she had a private email server while she was in Office? If not, they wouldn't even know to try to access her basement server. If I'm some agent in Iran, how would I even know where to start looking? I'd probably start trying to hack into the State Department server. Clinton outsmarted them.

This is a trivial thing to figure out. You simply set up wireshark, check the destination address and there it is.

If Clinton used her Blackberry (or, actually accessed any email from her cheap ass server) in any foreign country I can pretty much guarantee that the countries security staff had packet capture running on the switches attached to the nearest cell towers. And that is the hard route. If any foreign country got a hold of an email with Clintons email address on it, all that needs to be done is a MX lookup.

Since Clinton didn't use encryption for three months, those foreign countries probably didn't even need to worry about what the IP of the receiving server was during that time. After that, Clinton was using a known to be broken version of SSL and her email server failed an outside security review. So that didn't really secure anything.

So it should be assumed that all communications that traversed Clinton's email server have been seen by other countries. Period.

And I just found this out. Clinton was running VNC on her server. Holy crap, that is pretty much the equivalent of handing the server over to <insert bad guys here> along with the admin password. (Unless they were running a VPN, however with how bad the security was I doubt they did setup a VPN. Just go to the public address and use VNC, what could go wrong?)

Regarding this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde
]My opinion is that very little that government keeps secret has much utility. I think the lion's share of the security apparatus is both absurd and pointless.

That may be. However, if the security apparatus is absurd and you are SecState, then the proper thing to do is fix the security apparatus, not sidestep it or ignore it.

Slee

PhillyGuy 03-29-2016 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218429)
Are you saying it's only a problem if she discloses something like the names of spies, but not a big deal if she reveals our negotiating strategy for a treaty?

A treaty like the TPP? Yes, that's not a big deal. Woodrow Wilson's "''open covenants, openly arrived at'' is fine there. The chamber of commerce types were given inside information; why not Vietnam? As far as I'm concerned, we owe Vietnam (this being a reason I favor the TPP despite bad intellectual property provisions).

If it was the Iran treaty, yes, it's a problem.

Should she have done it? No.

As far as I'm concerned, President of the United States is an awful job. You have all the responsibility and little power to prevent disaster. Only an arrogant person is likely to want the job. And it's good that a few people do want the job. For this reason, I don't judge a president, or potential president, the same way I'd judge a low level government official who acted similarly.

furt 03-29-2016 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19218405)
It depends what the sensitive information is. Yes, it would change my mind if it is information that would genuinely endanger the country or the people in it, or US citizens abroad. But I believe that's very unlikely.

This is the problem with trying to figure out what is or isn't "really sensitive:" even if you were handed the information, you wouldn't be able to tell. Very often, even people on the inside can't, even people at the top of the food chain like the SoS. This is why classification levels are set by the agency that originated the data, and others can't change it.

Very often, what's much more important than the information itself are the sources and methods used to gather such information. Even seemingly innocuous information can in fact be highly classified because of the source. As a silly hypothetical, imagine a classified email that mentions that Hu Jiantao farts during sex. The information itself is trivial, but were the Chinese to see that mentioned in a US State department email, the odds are some woman in Beijing is going to die.

And that actually is a straightforward and obvious case; much more often, the intelligence game is about putting together this tidbit of information with that tidbit along with digging deep into publically-available information. It's easy to look at a single jugsaw puzzle piece and say that there's no harm in anyone seeing this one piece ... but you don't know what other pieces they already have.

Johnny Ace 03-29-2016 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19218468)
I'll give you an example of some information that I believe did put American lives at risk, though I can no longer remember the details of who was responsible, or even where it was.

You may recall some years back the news got out that American troops were coming ashore at dawn. And at the landing beach were loads of reporters with cameras and bright lights, and it was IIRC carried on live TV. I was appalled by that. That could have turned into a shooting gallery, and everybody concerned was lucky that it didn't.

Whoever let that out should have been prosecuted and if it was the president he should have been impeached.

Sounds like something that one of the most idiotic 'journalists' of all time, Geraldo Rivera, did...but I don't think it was a beach.

Grumman 03-29-2016 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Procrustus (Post 19217805)
Getting a president with the judgment and temperament of Obama is a once in a generation thing, if we're lucky.

Only because people settle for "slightly less shit than the Republican/Democrat candidate" and demand others do the same. And Obama's the jackass who keeps on fucking shooting the messenger whenever the government is up to no good. It speaks volumes about what kind of man Barack Obama is that John Kiriakou was sent to prison while the CIA's rapists and torturers walked free, explicitly protected by Obama's Department of Justice.

jayjay 03-29-2016 11:04 PM

I see the usual suspects have arrived to burn the witch...

Frank 03-30-2016 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayjay (Post 19219840)
I see the usual suspects have arrived to burn the witch...

You've got to admit, Obama weighs more than a duck.

CaptMurdock 03-30-2016 07:20 AM

I heard Hillary turned that Gingrich guy into a Newt!

asahi 03-30-2016 07:30 AM

I think that laws related to the possession and communication of classified information are confounded by communication in the modern age. Most professional people work at home or on the go to varying degrees. A lot of people use personal email to conduct business in various lines of work. I get that public regulations may prohibit this technically in certain instances, but people are probably prone to forget. I'm not saying it's right, but Clinton doesn't appear to have done anything that Bush's own national security adviser hadn't done. How do we know that the people who are prosecuting the case against Clinton haven't also committed similar violations? We're talking about Clinton because Republicans wanted us to talk about Clinton. So here we are.

steronz 03-30-2016 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19218681)
I mostly agree. In fact, I think this new information makes clear that this probably wasn't a FOIA-avoidance scheme.

I've accepted Clinton's "I did it for convenience" argument from day one, but I've never felt particularly empathetic towards this decision for the reasons you state.

What this new information shows is that she didn't just make her decision to maintain a personal BB only and then forget about, but that this decision had a consequence she perhaps didn't see at first -- she couldn't access her email at all from inside the SCIF on mahogany row. Can't bring a wireless device in, can't bring it up as webmail (presumably because she didn't have webmail set up on her server at that point, but even if it were it probably would have been blocked), and you can't configure Outlook to point to a commercial/civilian email server on a government computer. I'm amazed at one proposed solution, bringing in a private computer with a dedicated commercial line. In a SCIF! It's laughably absurd from a security perspective. And yet, apparently she pushed hard for some kind of workaround.

In the end, she chose to simply not have access to her email while in the SCIF. While I still give her the benefit of the doubt that being able to carry a single BB instead of 2 outweighed the difficulty of not having email access in one of her offices, it certainly puts a dent into the "convenience" argument. It's not exactly convenient to argue with security folks about why you can't bring an outside computer with it's own network access into a SCIF.

adaher 03-30-2016 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 19217568)
If the OP is correct, then this may demonstrate an extreme sense of entitlement that overrode good judgment, which would be a big mark against her.

It would take many, many such big marks against her to make her judgment anything close to as bad as any of the Republicans, though, in my opinion.

That's a very understandable argument. But you should know your candidate, their strengths and their flaws. As you know, I'm a John Kasich supporter. But I know who the guy is: a career politician with no private sector accomplishments, he's prickly, can be arrogant, and his mind can be a bit loopy at times in a Jerry Brown sort of way.

Likewise, Clinton has a sense of entitlement. This is nothing new and something that many liberal commentators have talked about for years. That sense of entitlement leads her to believe that the rules don't apply to her. I'm a bit disappointed that you're just now realizing that this isn't "Halperinesque" commentary, it's who she is. It's understandable to still support her despite this(I'd be voting for her myself if Gary Johnson wasn't in the race), but don't kid yourself about who this person is. As Bill Maher would state, "She's your President, not your girlfriend."

adaher 03-30-2016 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy (Post 19219301)
As far as I'm concerned, President of the United States is an awful job. You have all the responsibility and little power to prevent disaster. Only an arrogant person is likely to want the job. And it's good that a few people do want the job. For this reason, I don't judge a president, or potential president, the same way I'd judge a low level government official who acted similarly.

One of the most fascinating things about the Presidency is that we do in fact hold the President to lower standards pretty much across the board.

iiandyiiii 03-30-2016 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19220470)
That's a very understandable argument. But you should know your candidate, their strengths and their flaws. As you know, I'm a John Kasich supporter. But I know who the guy is: a career politician with no private sector accomplishments, he's prickly, can be arrogant, and his mind can be a bit loopy at times in a Jerry Brown sort of way.

Likewise, Clinton has a sense of entitlement. This is nothing new and something that many liberal commentators have talked about for years. That sense of entitlement leads her to believe that the rules don't apply to her. I'm a bit disappointed that you're just now realizing that this isn't "Halperinesque" commentary, it's who she is. It's understandable to still support her despite this(I'd be voting for her myself if Gary Johnson wasn't in the race), but don't kid yourself about who this person is. As Bill Maher would state, "She's your President, not your girlfriend."

None of this would be new to me, even if it's proven to be so (and it hasn't yet). Clinton's a flawed candidate, and it's not a surprise that she has a sense of entitlement. But that doesn't mean that this particular accusation is true, or true for the reasons surmised.

What's Halperinesque is the tendency to wrap everything up in a neat little package as if "Clinton thinks the rules don't apply to her" is actual analysis, as opposed to lazy sloganeering. It's never that simple. There are reasonable criticisms of her, and reasonable criticisms relating to this kind of attitude, but something like that is just lazy faux-analysis punditry, not actual discussion, in my view.

TheSeaOtter 03-30-2016 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock (Post 19220279)
I heard Hillary turned that Gingrich guy into a Newt!

He didn't get better.

YogSothoth 03-30-2016 11:32 AM

I've never cared about the email thing and I'm not about to start now.

If you looked back at some of the security issues we've had in the recent past, and at what people care about, its never been an instance in which sensitive info was leaked that caused the problem. The negative public opinion, as it relates to people like Snowden, the NSA spying on American citizens and hoarding information, unreported software vulnerabilities, Valerie Plame, Iraq WMD lies, the recent San Bernadino phone cracking demand of Apple, etc. has been about the government trying to get too much information or deliberately lying about leaks to promote an agenda. Its never been "Oh look, the government didn't keep this a secret enough, bad government!". In fact, people are more pissed when government does not leak or hold on to information because everyone has the unrealistic expectation that the government should be completely transparent and share everything.

What Clinton did is a bit of laziness on her part to not use a secure server, maybe for accessibility, maybe for ease, but we now know its not to hide information. Can you honestly say that the information we've received from her servers are things you wanted her to keep secret, or that we shouldn't know about? Of course not, everybody wants to know what's there! So I really don't care about this fake scandal at all, it will not be a factor in my vote for her

Sherrerd 03-30-2016 12:08 PM

The anti-Clinton arguments in this thread boil down to: she MIGHT have revealed details of treaty negotiations in her emails; she MIGHT have posted gossip about world leaders in her emails; she MIGHT have sent bits of information that could be assembled into something that would hurt the USA.

In other words: the entire argument that Clinton is a Bad, Bad person rests on what she MIGHT have done.

What if she did none of those things? What if her emails consist of requests for a particular type of sandwich for lunch, or queries about changing the time of a meeting, or reminders to aides to bring along a gift recently purchased for a diplomat, or questions about how a new recharger works?

If your entire argument against a candidate is founded on what she might have done, then you haven't accomplished your undercutting goals very effectively.

Boyo Jim 03-30-2016 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19219494)
Sounds like something that one of the most idiotic 'journalists' of all time, Geraldo Rivera, did...but I don't think it was a beach.

SOMEONE told Geraldo, or the whole press corps, that these soldiers were landing on a particular beach at a particular time in a potentially hostile environment, and there were probably more reporters than soldiers at the site. And they were lighting up the soldiers with spotlights for their cameras. And it was a beach, because they came in by boat to an empty stretch of one, IIRC.

Johnny Ace 03-30-2016 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19220506)
One of the most fascinating things about the Presidency is that we do in fact hold the President to lower standards pretty much across the board.

Lesser of two evils. Not quite the same thing.

Fotheringay-Phipps 03-30-2016 12:22 PM

I don't understand the whole issue of whether the information Clinton sent was classified at the time.

That would be the crux of the issue if she was forwarding some sort of report that had already had someone rule on its classification status. But the nature of the job of SoS is that you exchange a lot of information on an informal basis that no one is going to rule on in advance. It's not as if every time the SoS sends an email to some other government person she will clear it with security first to ascertain the proper level of secrecy. If she sends an email with some confidential information in the text it will never be classified as secret at the time she sends it. It's only after someone wants to know whether it can be released to the public that a determination will be made as to what status of secrecy it has.

In that context, pointing out that she never sent any emails that were classified as secret at the time she sent them seems like a pointless legalism. So I don't understand why people keep bringing this up.

Am I missing something here?

Boyo Jim 03-30-2016 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19221011)
SOMEONE told Geraldo, or the whole press corps, that these soldiers were landing on a particular beach at a particular time in a potentially hostile environment, and there were probably more reporters than soldiers at the site. And they were lighting up the soldiers with spotlights for their cameras. And it was a beach, because they came in by boat to an empty stretch of one, IIRC.

This is the incident I'm referring to, a SEAL team landing at a beach in Mogadishu, Somalia. Less than a year later, the rather large firefight that inspired the book and movie Back Hawk Down, took place in the same area.

According to the article, it seems the whole Pentagon was rather press-happy at the time, and quite freely dispensed information about upcoming military movements. So if I was gonna pick a military guy to can over this, it would be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- who at the time of the landing was Colin Powell. Too bad, I rather liked him.

Bush 1 was President at the time, though he'd already lost the election by the time of the landing.

steronz 03-30-2016 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps (Post 19221034)
I don't understand the whole issue of whether the information Clinton sent was classified at the time.

That would be the crux of the issue if she was forwarding some sort of report that had already had someone rule on its classification status. But the nature of the job of SoS is that you exchange a lot of information on an informal basis that no one is going to rule on in advance. It's not as if every time the SoS sends an email to some other government person she will clear it with security first to ascertain the proper level of secrecy. If she sends an email with some confidential information in the text it will never be classified as secret at the time she sends it. It's only after someone wants to know whether it can be released to the public that a determination will be made as to what status of secrecy it has.

In that context, pointing out that she never sent any emails that were classified as secret at the time she sent them seems like a pointless legalism. So I don't understand why people keep bringing this up.

Am I missing something here?

Yeah, I'm not sure how much of a primer you want on classified messages. We don't know the nature of the classified information that was supposedly found. But if we assume a typical very-bad-case scenario, imagine that you have a clearance and sit in on a intelligence briefing. A slide pops up on the screen with a classification label, SECRET/NOFORN, and one of the bullets (marked with an S, for Secret) is "steronz wears panties." You leave the briefing, sit down at your computer, and send an email to your buddy that says "steronz wears panties." This is OK if A) you're sending it on a classified network that can handle information up to Secret, B) your email is properly labelled so that all recipients know the information is secret, C) your buddy has a proper clearance, and D) he has a need to know. All of those conditions must be met. The scenario you described where you can send that information to anyone internally and a classification only needs to be determined at the time of a FOIA request is just bad on many, many levels.

Again, full caveat, that's probably not the sort of thing that happened in this case. But that should help explain the issue.

Johnny Ace 03-30-2016 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19221011)
SOMEONE told Geraldo, or the whole press corps, that these soldiers were landing on a particular beach at a particular time in a potentially hostile environment, and there were probably more reporters than soldiers at the site. And they were lighting up the soldiers with spotlights for their cameras. And it was a beach, because they came in by boat to an empty stretch of one, IIRC.

Geraldo chose to try to advance his career by endangering the lives of a division of soldiers. That, or he was just completely clueless. Neither is flattering.

He was embedded with the 101st Airborne and drawing a map of his location in Iraq on camera, during combat operations.

Boyo Jim 03-30-2016 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19221138)
Geraldo chose to try to advance his career by endangering the lives of a division of soldiers. That, or he was just completely clueless. Neither is flattering.

He was embedded with the 101st Airborne and drawing a map of his location in Iraq on camera, during combat operations.

See a couple of posts up. This isn't what I was referring to.

steronz 03-30-2016 01:01 PM

Just to close the loop a bit in case you haven't participated in any of the other threads, there's also a typical very-good-case for Clinton scenario. Imagine I'm a defense attache to Libya, and my choice of underwear is somehow important. A state department aide is having lunch with a Libyan foreign aide of some sort, and the Libyan fellow happens to mention a rumor going around that the US defense attache wears panties. You pull our your blackberry while waiting for the bus and send an email to your boss, saying "Libyans are worried about steronz wearing panties, we may need to do something about this." That email gets forwarded to HRC.

Years later, the DIA is reviewing a massive dump of emails from Clinton's private server and discovers, much to their dismay, that the panties bullet from one of their own classified briefings is just hanging out in one of these emails. Even though the path it took to get there wasn't through classified channels, even though it was probably printed in some Libyan tabloid and much discussed in all foreign affairs departments, even though it's completely asinine to consider this information SECRET/NOFORN, it still technically is, which means technically there's classified information on this unclassified server.

Again, 3rd time, full caveat, we have no idea what classified information was actually on this server, but that's probably closer to what it actually was.

In any case, I don't know that any of that is relevant to this thread. The bigger concern, really, isn't classified information, but stuff that's considered SBU -- sensitive but unclassified. That's the sort of thing that really is appropriate to send internally around an office, but is still not great if it escapes out into the wild.

furt 03-30-2016 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19220988)
The anti-Clinton arguments in this thread boil down to: she MIGHT have revealed details of treaty negotiations in her emails; she MIGHT have posted gossip about world leaders in her emails; she MIGHT have sent bits of information that could be assembled into something that would hurt the USA.

In other words: the entire argument that Clinton is a Bad, Bad person rests on what she MIGHT have done.

What if she did none of those things? What if her emails consist of requests for a particular type of sandwich for lunch, or queries about changing the time of a meeting, or reminders to aides to bring along a gift recently purchased for a diplomat, or questions about how a new recharger works?

If your entire argument against a candidate is founded on what she might have done, then you haven't accomplished your undercutting goals very effectively.

What a spectacularly ignorant post. Have you not read a single news story?

Requests for sandwiches would not be classified. We already know that over 2,000 of the emails in question contain classified information, and that's after she deleted many thousands more. The only question at hand is whether or not her mishandling of classifed information rises to the level of criminal offense.

Geez, read a newspaper.

Fotheringay-Phipps 03-30-2016 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 19221131)
Yeah, I'm not sure how much of a primer you want on classified messages. We don't know the nature of the classified information that was supposedly found. But if we assume a typical very-bad-case scenario, imagine that you have a clearance and sit in on a intelligence briefing. A slide pops up on the screen with a classification label, SECRET/NOFORN, and one of the bullets (marked with an S, for Secret) is "steronz wears panties." You leave the briefing, sit down at your computer, and send an email to your buddy that says "steronz wears panties." This is OK if A) you're sending it on a classified network that can handle information up to Secret, B) your email is properly labelled so that all recipients know the information is secret, C) your buddy has a proper clearance, and D) he has a need to know. All of those conditions must be met. The scenario you described where you can send that information to anyone internally and a classification only needs to be determined at the time of a FOIA request is just bad on many, many levels.

Again, full caveat, that's probably not the sort of thing that happened in this case. But that should help explain the issue.

But you're seizing on the case that I specifically said was not the issue.

What I'm thinking of is like where Clinton sends something to her Assistant SoS along the lines of "I spoke to President Obama and we've agreed that we will arm the Ukrainians if the conflict continues for another 2 months". That's not something that is going to be classified at the time - she is not going to be seeking a classification review before sending that email. But meanwhile, it could tick off the Russians if they found out, or could embolden the Ukrainians to prolong the conflict if they did. If someone was later doing some sort of FOIA request for Clinton emails a decision would have to be made as to whether it's secret or not. But the fact that it wasn't officially classified as secret at the time it was sent is just due to the nature of the process, and is not a legitimate defense.

steronz 03-30-2016 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps (Post 19221199)
But you're seizing on the case that I specifically said was not the issue.

What I'm thinking of is like where Clinton sends something to her Assistant SoS along the lines of "I spoke to President Obama and we've agreed that we will arm the Ukrainians if the conflict continues for another 2 months". That's not something that is going to be classified at the time - she is not going to be seeking a classification review before sending that email. But meanwhile, it could tick off the Russians if they found out, or could embolden the Ukrainians to prolong the conflict if they did. If someone was later doing some sort of FOIA request for Clinton emails a decision would have to be made as to whether it's secret or not. But the fact that it wasn't officially classified as secret at the time it was sent is just due to the nature of the process, and is not a legitimate defense.

Ah, if you're talking about information that originated from Clinton herself, then she would know better than to send anything like that over an unclassified network to begin with. It's been reported that state department officials are given a classified guide book that says things like, "Information regarding arming of Ukranian militants is [typically] SECRET/NOFORN." Bandying about information in that category on a classified network with unclassified headers might be fine, but it would represent poor judgement to use an unclassified network, and extremely poor judgement to use a private server, although there's not much difference between the two.

Now it may be that Clinton carefully considered those sorts of emails and decided that the unclassified network was fine, and then another agency did a review and came to a different conclusion. And it could be that they're both "right," as it were -- the other agency might have concerns that the state department didn't or couldn't have known about. But we really don't know what time of information it was. Generally, I think the classified angle is overplayed, but that doesn't really excuse the hubris of running a private server.

Fotheringay-Phipps 03-30-2016 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 19221226)
Ah, if you're talking about information that originated from Clinton herself, then she would know better than to send anything like that over an unclassified network to begin with. It's been reported that state department officials are given a classified guide book that says things like, "Information regarding arming of Ukranian militants is [typically] SECRET/NOFORN." Bandying about information in that category on a classified network with unclassified headers might be fine, but it would represent poor judgement to use an unclassified network, and extremely poor judgement to use a private server, although there's not much difference between the two.

Now it may be that Clinton carefully considered those sorts of emails and decided that the unclassified network was fine, and then another agency did a review and came to a different conclusion. And it could be that they're both "right," as it were -- the other agency might have concerns that the state department didn't or couldn't have known about. But we really don't know what time of information it was. Generally, I think the classified angle is overplayed, but that doesn't really excuse the hubris of running a private server.

This seems to be a circular argument.

You're asserting that Clinton "would know better than to send anything like that over an unclassified network to begin with", and that at most she "carefully considered those sorts of emails and decided that the unclassified network was fine, and then another agency did a review and came to a different conclusion". But that's exactly what's in question at this time.

And my point here is that the evidence relevant to this question is whether the information was of the sort that would have been classified at the time, not whether it actually was - because it wouldn't have been classified at that time in any event due to the nature of the process.

You saying that you personally don't believe Clinton would have done something of the sort does not add anything in this regard.

steronz 03-30-2016 01:37 PM

Sorry, that should have been a "should" and not a "would." She may have fucked up, or it may be all a bunch of hooey. Without knowing what the supposedly classified information is, it's impossible to say. But she's not automatically absolved of any wrongdoing for the reason you believe, is my point. It very well could have been classified at the time and she just didn't realize it, or didn't care.

Sherrerd 03-30-2016 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19220988)
The anti-Clinton arguments in this thread boil down to: she MIGHT have revealed details of treaty negotiations in her emails; she MIGHT have posted gossip about world leaders in her emails; she MIGHT have sent bits of information that could be assembled into something that would hurt the USA.
In other words: the entire argument that Clinton is a Bad, Bad person rests on what she MIGHT have done.

What if she did none of those things? What if her emails consist of requests for a particular type of sandwich for lunch, or queries about changing the time of a meeting, or reminders to aides to bring along a gift recently purchased for a diplomat, or questions about how a new recharger works?
If your entire argument against a candidate is founded on what she might have done, then you haven't accomplished your undercutting goals very effectively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by furt (Post 19221194)
What a spectacularly ignorant post. Have you not read a single news story?
Requests for sandwiches would not be classified. We already know that over 2,000 of the emails in question contain classified information, and that's after she deleted many thousands more. The only question at hand is whether or not her mishandling of classifed information rises to the level of criminal offense. Geez, read a newspaper.

Here you are making an unsupported assumption about the nature of the emails that "contain classified information," relying heavily on the implication that if it is "classified" it must be information that presents a danger to US interests if hacked or otherwise revealed.

As anyone who is even marginally informed on the matter would know, items are retroactively labelled "classified" even if readily available in, say, The New York Times (a la the 'drone article' forwarded via Clinton's email). http://www.mediaite.com/online/hilla...campaign-ploy/

The fact that you have to resort to insults says a great deal about the weakness of your position. Enough information about the emails has been released so that opponents of Clinton should be able to dispense with guessing games about what Clinton might, hypothetically, have revealed (the Chinese premiere's farts? really?) and pivot to actual, supportable facts.

But that's not happening.







Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps (Post 19221199)
What I'm thinking of is like where Clinton sends something to her Assistant SoS along the lines of "I spoke to President Obama and we've agreed that we will arm the Ukrainians if the conflict continues for another 2 months". That's not something that is going to be classified at the time - she is not going to be seeking a classification review before sending that email. But meanwhile, it could tick off the Russians if they found out, or could embolden the Ukrainians to prolong the conflict if they did. .

Again with the hypotheticals. Unconvincing.

Chefguy 03-30-2016 02:18 PM

Tempest in a teacup, for the most part. I've mentioned in the past that I worked for Diplomatic Security for some years during the last of the Cold War. Part of our job was to try to make sure that people were observing correct protocol both in what they did and in what they said. I can't begin to tell you how many ambassadors we told about security issues right in their own office suites, only to be told to basically mind our own business. These sorts of breaches ranged from having a personal television or radio (which oscillate) sitting next to the computer terminal, to having classified discussions in their offices, where the Euro phones were telephonic on hook (which means that anybody downstream could clip onto the line and hear everything going on in the office, even when the phone was hung up).

The worst that will happen to someone doing these things would be loss of security clearance, and then only if a serious information leak was traced back to that particular person. Nobody is really willing to fuck with a Senior Foreign Service Officer over something like this. That doesn't make it right or even advisable to ignore warnings, but there are no teeth behind the regs. It's like a cop trying to enforce a jay-walking charge against the chief of police. If Clinton sent sensitive info in email form, I'm fairly confident that it didn't rise to the level of breaching national security.

iiandyiiii 03-30-2016 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chefguy (Post 19221374)
Tempest in a teacup, for the most part. I've mentioned in the past that I worked for Diplomatic Security for some years during the last of the Cold War. Part of our job was to try to make sure that people were observing correct protocol both in what they did and in what they said. I can't begin to tell you how many ambassadors we told about security issues right in their own office suites, only to be told to basically mind our own business. These sorts of breaches ranged from having a personal television or radio (which oscillate) sitting next to the computer terminal, to having classified discussions in their offices, where the Euro phones were telephonic on hook (which means that anybody downstream could clip onto the line and hear everything going on in the office, even when the phone was hung up).

The worst that will happen to someone doing these things would be loss of security clearance, and then only if a serious information leak was traced back to that particular person. Nobody is really willing to fuck with a Senior Foreign Service Officer over something like this. That doesn't make it right or even advisable to ignore warnings, but there are no teeth behind the regs. It's like a cop trying to enforce a jay-walking charge against the chief of police. If Clinton sent sensitive info in email form, I'm fairly confident that it didn't rise to the level of breaching national security.

I'll add that in my experience in the Navy, both active duty and civilian, emailing classified information (or otherwise mishandling it) is incredibly common, and except in circumstances in which information was sold for profit or released for ideological (i.e. traitorous) reasons, it was never prosecuted. People were disciplined, certainly, but this was usually in the form of temporary loss of clearance and re-training, and that's about it.

Richard Parker 03-30-2016 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19220988)
If your entire argument against a candidate is founded on what she might have done, then you haven't accomplished your undercutting goals very effectively.

It is sort of bizarre to frame your rebuttal as being against people trying to undercut Clinton's candidacy, given that I am the OP and I plan to vote for her.

And the substance of your argument doesn't fare much better. Yes, it's true, that we haven't been shown everything considered classified that was discovered on her server (for obvious reasons). It does not follow that the case against her is pure speculation. It rests on the entirely reasonable inference--though apparently denied by some in this thread--that since she used her Blackberry almost exclusively then some of the many sensitive electronic documents that would have crossed her eyeballs ended up the server.

There is, of course, reasonable debate to be had about how much sensitive information a Secretary of State has access to. And if you're persuaded by Martin Hyde's assertions that the government has very few real secrets worth keeping, then it's obvious what side of that you'll come out on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps (Post 19221034)
I don't understand the whole issue of whether the information Clinton sent was classified at the time.

I think the relevance is solely to the ease of proving a criminal charge against her. If a document is marked classified, there is no need to further prove that she should have understood it to be classified.

sleestak 03-30-2016 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19221316)
Here you are making an unsupported assumption about the nature of the emails that "contain classified information," relying heavily on the implication that if it is "classified" it must be information that presents a danger to US interests if hacked or otherwise revealed.

As anyone who is even marginally informed on the matter would know, items are retroactively labelled "classified" even if readily available in, say, The New York Times (a la the 'drone article' forwarded via Clinton's email). http://www.mediaite.com/online/hilla...campaign-ploy/

The fact that you have to resort to insults says a great deal about the weakness of your position. Enough information about the emails has been released so that opponents of Clinton should be able to dispense with guessing games about what Clinton might, hypothetically, have revealed (the Chinese premiere's farts? really?) and pivot to actual, supportable facts.

This attitude is baffling to me.

There are two separate issues. The first is the way Clinton dealt with handling classified information on her personal server that was not secure.

The second issue is the actual information that crossed her server.

The problem I have is with the first issue and second issue is trivial. The reason is simple. Clinton, as SecState, should have known that she would get email on her work email that was classified and that, at least some of that classified information would be damaging to the U.S. if her server was hacked.

Yet she used a personal, insecure server anyway because carrying multiple devices was too hard. Or something.

That is a gigantic lapse in judgement.

Slee

Sherrerd 03-30-2016 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19221623)
... Yes, it's true, that we haven't been shown everything considered classified that was discovered on her server (for obvious reasons). It does not follow that the case against her is pure speculation. It rests on the entirely reasonable inference--though apparently denied by some in this thread--that since she used her Blackberry almost exclusively then some of the many sensitive electronic documents that would have crossed her eyeballs ended up the server. ...

This really is nothing but speculation, you know. This board is no stranger to tortured lines of reasoning springing from hypotheses about What Must Be, certainly. We've all waded into such threads from time to time. But why are you using this style of argument? Enough has been published about specific emails that you could form your argument by at least beginning from them, heavily redacted though they might be.

All you have posted, so far, is tut-tutting about how she MUST have posted "sensitive" information, and more tut-tutting about her failure to be obedient enough. It's thin soup.

Richard Parker 03-30-2016 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19221704)
This really is nothing but speculation, you know.

Nah. What you call speculation when it suits you is the same thing you'd call inference in another context.

The difference between abject speculation and reasonable inference is the distance of the leap. It is a short leap from what we know to the inference that Clinton reviewed and sent sensitive documents.

The thin soup is assuming that all of the classified documents are actually non-sensitive. How is it reasonable for you to make that assumption? Over-classification is real. It doesn't follow that nothing classified is sensitive.

Sherrerd 03-30-2016 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19221747)
Nah. What you call speculation when it suits you is the same thing you'd call inference in another context.

Neither is fact. That is the point.

I'm not claiming to have factual evidence that Clinton never emailed something "sensitive" enough to matter.

I am saying that it is pointless to argue that Clinton has committed disqualifying acts on the basis of inference. For a respectable argument, you need a foundation composed of facts.

Chefguy 03-30-2016 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19221747)
Nah. What you call speculation when it suits you is the same thing you'd call inference in another context.

The difference between abject speculation and reasonable inference is the distance of the leap. It is a short leap from what we know to the inference that Clinton reviewed and sent sensitive documents.

The thin soup is assuming that all of the classified documents are actually non-sensitive. How is it reasonable for you to make that assumption? Over-classification is real. It doesn't follow that nothing classified is sensitive.

It is, however, reasonable to assume that the SecState (in this case, somebody who was in the US Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee) would be smart enough to know what could be sent via email, and what could not. As you point out, all manner of silly shit is sent as classified/noforn, including such mundane stuff as "Ambassador Smith has departed post on vacation." Is it classified? Yes, because some knucklehead put "CLASSIFIED" at the top of the cable, not because it's actually detrimental to national security. I, for one, trust that she exercised due caution and discretion when emailing.

Richard Parker 03-30-2016 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19221874)
Neither is fact. That is the point.

I'm not claiming to have factual evidence that Clinton never emailed something "sensitive" enough to matter.

I am saying that it is pointless to argue that Clinton has committed disqualifying acts on the basis of inference. For a respectable argument, you need a foundation composed of facts.

As much fun as it would be to delve into the epistemology by which you separate fact from inference, I think that's a thread about Hilary Putnam, not Hillary Clinton.

In the real world, you rely on inferences all the time in all your arguments, even the respectable ones.

Richard Parker 03-30-2016 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chefguy (Post 19222047)
I, for one, trust that she exercised due caution and discretion when emailing.

Is that trust tested at all when you learn that she was specifically advised that continuing to do this posed security risks, she agreed, and she continued to do so anyway?

Chefguy 03-30-2016 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19222090)
Is that trust tested at all when you learn that she was specifically advised that continuing to do this posed security risks, she agreed, and she continued to do so anyway?

Not at all. As I said, I've had a lot of experience with people doing the same sorts of things. We specifically advised ambassadors that what they were doing was a security risk because it was our job to do so: err on the side of caution. They could choose to follow our advice or not, and there were no repercussions. I'm as sure that all of them knew the limits that they could go to, just like the SecState knows those same limits, and exercised due caution.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 03-31-2016 11:32 PM

Two words: Chicken Little.

Republicans have been throwing shit at Hillary Clinton for more than two decades now. Including a time when Republicans had the executive office and all of congress.

If she so much as jay-walked, they would ensure that there was a hefty fine and media coverage of her blatant disregard of intersections.

And how about Benghazi? Spent millions of tax-payer dollars and a ton of investigations in what was a transparent attempt to get that to stick to her as well.

Until I see a mug shot and hear about charges being filed, it's safe to assume that nothing will come from anything.

I'll just wait over here for that to happen. Any day now.

adaher 03-31-2016 11:46 PM

If Comey recommends an indictment, then that's just as good as charges actually being filed. I'm sure we all know that Obama's Justice Department will not actually file charges. But if Comey recommends charges, then it's as if they were actually filed, since Comey is non political.

I'd also note that the deception is on both sides. The investigation is in fact a criminal investigation, and the liberal argument that "Clinton is not a target" is about as relevant as the "marked classified" talking point. Criminal investigations don't always have targets until they are complete. But there is in fact a criminal investigation around the email issue, and it's not merely an "intelligence review" or whatever BS Clinton's supporters are trying to feed us.

GIGObuster 04-01-2016 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19225583)
If Comey recommends an indictment, then that's just as good as charges actually being filed. I'm sure we all know that Obama's Justice Department will not actually file charges. But if Comey recommends charges, then it's as if they were actually filed, since Comey is non political.

I'd also note that the deception is on both sides. The investigation is in fact a criminal investigation

[/full stop]

Can you tell us what is your source of that? I want to know who to put in the iron maiden.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/
Quote:

Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry to which Bush refers revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state. And it is not a criminal investigation.

Here are the facts.

In July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent what is called a security referral to members of the executive branch. A security referral is essentially a notification that classified information might exist in a location outside of the government’s possession. In this case, the location was Clinton’s private email server.

Soon after, the New York Times incorrectly reported that the inspectors general requested a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email use — as opposed to a security referral. But the newspaper later issued two corrections. The referral was in connection with Clinton’s account, not whether Clinton herself mishandled information, and did not allege criminal activity.

Officials told reporters at the time that the FBI was not targeting Clinton specifically.

As part of its inquiry, the FBI has looked into the security setup for Clinton’s home server and a thumb drive that has copies of Clinton’s work emails. But most details of the investigation have remained secret. It’s even unclear at this point whether the FBI probe is just a preliminary inquiry or if it has evolved into a true investigation, according to Politico.
Quote:

Our ruling

Bush said Clinton is "under investigation with the FBI right now."

Not quite. The FBI is conducting a general inquiry into the security of Clinton’s private email server. But law enforcement officials have said Clinton herself is not the target of the inquiry, and it is not a full-blown criminal investigation.

Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in an FBI investigation. But Bush goes too far to claim Clinton herself is under investigation. We rate his statement Half True.

adaher 04-01-2016 12:50 AM

I may have erred. Many sources are calling it a criminal investigation, based on inside sources, but they are all right-wing news sites and Fox.

Richard Parker 04-01-2016 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear (Post 19225556)
Until I see a mug shot and hear about charges being filed, it's safe to assume that nothing will come from anything.

I'll just wait over here for that to happen. Any day now.

An action can be an example of terrible judgment without being a crime. In this case, we will likely never know if her Blackberry was hacked or if sensitive documents were retrieved from her server. At most we might learn what sensitive documents were on the server, but probably not until they are declassified in a couple of decades.

It should be enough to know that she was specifically and individually advised that this was a gaping security flaw, she agreed that it was, but she continued to use her unsecured Blackberry to communicate using her badly secured server.

The only real counterargument available is to claim that the Secretary of State of the United States both doesn't have any sensitive conversations outside secured areas, and never receives or sends sensitive information over email. While I concede that those are metaphysical possibilities, I think it requires a certain kind of special partisan faith to believe them.

Left Hand of Dorkness 04-01-2016 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
The only real counterargument available is to claim that the Secretary of State of the United States both doesn't have any sensitive conversations outside secured areas, and never receives or sends sensitive information over email. While I concede that those are metaphysical possibilities, I think it requires a certain kind of special partisan faith to believe them.

What about this counterargument:
-Her communication via a private server does create a nontrivial security risk. However,
-Government communication protocols are (or were at the time) so cumbersome that rigid adherence to them would materially and adversely affect her ability to perform her job, and those adverse affects would also create a nontrivial security risk to our country.
-A secretary of state able to function in the most efficient manner available increases our nation's security to a degree sufficient to outweigh concerns about leaky email systems.

I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I suspect it's the one Clinton consciously or unconsciously relied on.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 04-01-2016 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
An action can be an example of terrible judgment without being a crime.

Don't care.

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 19227521)
What about this counterargument:
-Her communication via a private server does create a nontrivial security risk. However,
-Government communication protocols are (or were at the time) so cumbersome that rigid adherence to them would materially and adversely affect her ability to perform her job, and those adverse affects would also create a nontrivial security risk to our country.
-A secretary of state able to function in the most efficient manner available increases our nation's security to a degree sufficient to outweigh concerns about leaky email systems.

I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I suspect it's the one Clinton consciously or unconsciously relied on.

I think it's a better argument.

But the only people capable of intelligently evaluating the magnitude of the security risk posed by her IT practices had told her it was a big deal. She did not have the technological knowledge to evaluate that risk for herself. So any balancing of the risks she did was a blindfolded one, and therefore still quite reckless.

And I think it's important to keep in mind that we aren't just talking about leaky email. Equally important, in my view, is that she was warned that her unsecured Blackberry posed the risk of remote monitoring of her in-person conversations.

One upshot of this should be, even for the people who claim they "don't care," that we find the money to get the Secretary of State a secure mobile communication system. I would be very curious to know if people like Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden carry unsecured phones.

Fear Itself 04-02-2016 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19228847)
She did not have the technological knowledge to evaluate that risk for herself. So any balancing of the risks she did was a blindfolded one, and therefore still quite reckless.

Are you suggesting she personally set up her email server? She has already confirmed an IT professional did the setup. How do know that person was not completely equipped to install sufficient security measures?

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 19228856)
She has already confirmed an IT professional did the setup. How do know that person was not completely equipped to install sufficient security measures?

Because we know what security he put in place, and it was shitty. A smart teenager would have done a better job.

And, again, that's only part of the issue, the other part being the monitoring of communications at the device-level.

Johnny Ace 04-02-2016 10:46 AM

It's REALLY hard for me to take this seriously. I've worked in IT for half my life, and even in this day and age I run into a large number of people who just have no clue when it comes to digital security. Regular, intelligent people who can't seem to follow the simplest of rules, and you can talk to them until you're blue in the face. ESPECIALLY executives. That doesn't make them criminal, regardless of the Republicans and other anti-Clintonites who want to make this into the next great conspiracy.

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 10:49 AM

And so I'll just observe one last time that (1) I am voting for Clinton; and (2) I do not believe she committed a crime.

It beggars belief that people think this is irrelevant unless it somehow damages Clinton politically or puts her in jail.

Sherrerd 04-02-2016 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
An action can be an example of terrible judgment without being a crime. ... It should be enough to know that she was specifically and individually advised that this was a gaping security flaw, she agreed that it was, but she continued to use her unsecured Blackberry to communicate using her badly secured server.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19228847)
But the only people capable of intelligently evaluating the magnitude of the security risk posed by her IT practices had told her it was a big deal.

You continue to speak of the Warning as if it had been the Burning Bush speaking to Moses. (And Moses ignoring the BB.)

But as several posting here have intimated, when you work for the government, you have people coming in all the time and telling you that you HAVE to do such-and-such. Some of these exhortations are contradictory. You have no real way of knowing who is a Burning Bush and who is just a self-important, officious bureaucrat.

It's worth recalling, too, that in 2009 we did not possess all the knowledge that the intervening years have brought us, here in 2016.

Today we are hyper-aware of the power and reach of hacking. But the list of major hacking scandals that directly affected millions of consumers was notably shorter in 2009, and hacking was not established as so pervasive a part of normal life. The Target breach--perhaps the most widely-publicized at that time--didn't make the news until late 2013. It was followed later by Adobe, Sony, Staples, Home Depot, Ashley Madison etc. Before 2009 hacking was in the news, but not in the 'not another one' way we've come to consider "normal" in 2016.








Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
One upshot of this should be, even for the people who claim they "don't care," that we find the money to get the Secretary of State a secure mobile communication system. I would be very curious to know if people like Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden carry unsecured phones.

I agree with you, here.

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19229652)
You have no real way of knowing who is a Burning Bush and who is just a self-important, officious bureaucrat.

How many secret memos addressed to her individually and exhorting her to stop a particular communications practice do you think she received and directly responded to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19229652)
It's worth recalling, too, that in 2009 we did not possess all the knowledge that the intervening years have brought us, here in 2016.

In January 2009, WikiLeaks began publishing intercepted phone calls. Around that time, the British phone hacking scandal received widespread attention. Accordingly, she was individually and specifically warned of the vulnerabilities in her use of an unsecured Blackberry on March 6, 2009.

WikiLeaks started publishing stolen State Department documents in February 2010, and became world news in April 2010. For many months after that, her server still had remote access capabilities activated without use of a VPN and had no threat monitoring software installed, among other vulnerabilities.

I do not expect Hillary Clinton to have appreciated how insecure her setup was. I do expect her, and anyone in her position, to take seriously individualized warnings from people she receives on subjects she doesn't know enough about to judge for herself. And I certainly expect that if she agrees with the security threat assessment that she will then change her behavior.

sleestak 04-03-2016 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19228901)
It's REALLY hard for me to take this seriously. I've worked in IT for half my life, and even in this day and age I run into a large number of people who just have no clue when it comes to digital security. Regular, intelligent people who can't seem to follow the simplest of rules, and you can talk to them until you're blue in the face. ESPECIALLY executives. That doesn't make them criminal, regardless of the Republicans and other anti-Clintonites who want to make this into the next great conspiracy.

If you cannot expain the importance of security to someone in a way that they will take seriously then you shouldn't be speaking to them about security. Let someone who can do it.

I've been in IT for along time and I have managed to convince every exec that balked at doing things the right way to actually do things in the right way. It took some persuasion, and in one case a threat to go to the state government about it, but in the end they always complied.

Clinton was told by experts that this was a bad idea and did it anyway. That shows either astoundingly bad judgement or a don't give a fuck attitude.

Given that Clinton wants to hold one of the most powerful positions on the planet, why would anyone think she would listen to experts in other fields? And the President has to listen to experts in all kinds of areas to be able to govern well.

When a government employee puts their convenience ahead of everything else, there is a serious problem.

Slee

GIGObuster 04-03-2016 06:30 PM

Based on what I have seen so far, and the fact that the investigation so far is an FBI review of the security of the data, it is clear that the IT also noticed how "stupid" the setup was and while there was criticism of what Clinton was doing I also think that there were IT workers that also did agree with what Clinton was doing or did not see what the big deal was.

I would not be surprised that some of those experts did mess up. They were not supposed to be there and those are the ones that I think will suffer the consecuences the most.

Johnny Ace 04-03-2016 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleestak (Post 19231722)
If you cannot expain the importance of security to someone in a way that they will take seriously then you shouldn't be speaking to them about security. Let someone who can do it.

I've been in IT for along time and I have managed to convince every exec that balked at doing things the right way to actually do things in the right way. It took some persuasion, and in one case a threat to go to the state government about it, but in the end they always complied.

Clinton was told by experts that this was a bad idea and did it anyway. That shows either astoundingly bad judgement or a don't give a fuck attitude.

Given that Clinton wants to hold one of the most powerful positions on the planet, why would anyone think she would listen to experts in other fields? And the President has to listen to experts in all kinds of areas to be able to govern well.

When a government employee puts their convenience ahead of everything else, there is a serious problem.

Slee

Well, that's an interesting way of denigrating both my abilities and Hillary's. Thanks for that. But since you know pretty much nothing of the circumstances surrounding either nor exactly what those abilities are, I suggest maybe you should stick to doing your own job.

Oh yeah and I'd love to see you threaten the Secretary of State. Good luck with that.

steronz 04-03-2016 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19231856)
Based on what I have seen so far, and the fact that the investigation so far is an FBI review of the security of the data, it is clear that the IT also noticed how "stupid" the setup was and while there was criticism of what Clinton was doing I also think that there were IT workers that also did agree with what Clinton was doing or did not see what the big deal was.

:dubious: I don't know who these people are who don't see what the big deal is.

I work in IT for the government, so I'm imagining myself in that situation. Clinton wants to check her private email from a government BB; I can (and would) say no to that. Clinton doesn't want to carry 2 BBs so she says she doesn't even want a government email account then; great, I can't force her to use one. Clinton wants to check her email at work (in the SCIF) though, so she needs to bring her BB inside. I can say hell no to that. Clinton wants to configure a desktop (unclassified) computer inside the SCIF to connect to her IMAP server; I can sell Jesus Christ no way to that. Clinton then (according to this latest round of emails) proposes the absurd solution of bringing a dedicated computer into the SCIF and connecting it to the outside world via a separate (commercial?) line, so she can connect to her email server. I throw my hands up in the air and wonder what planet I'm on while I say no and walk away.

But that's all I can do. I can say no, no, no, to every stupid workaround she proposes for the situation she's put herself in by refusing to carry 2 Blackberries, but I can't actually dictate which email address all of her contacts use to email her.

I've gone on record here saying that I think the classified email info is overblown, but I can't stress enough just how dumb it was to insist on using her own private server despite all the annoyances it must have caused. I think Richard Parker is right, at some point with all the IT people saying no, no, no, it should have clicked that it was just a bad idea.

GIGObuster 04-03-2016 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 19232071)
I've gone on record here saying that I think the classified email info is overblown, but I can't stress enough just how dumb it was to insist on using her own private server despite all the annoyances it must have caused. I think Richard Parker is right, at some point with all the IT people saying no, no, no, it should have clicked that it was just a bad idea.

But there is trouble with that affirmation, you do not know how many did say no, or that there were other conversations made in other channels that told her to go ahead, I have the hunch (yes it is a guess too, but I do think it fits the information given so far) that this is the main reason why the FBI is not considering this a criminal investigation, we should not forget that even early it was pointed out that what Clinton did was not illegal regarding her server, unless we want to become a nation that will base their rules on post hock laws.

Of course I do think that those IT minions were in turn shown to be wrong later. I also have experience in IT, and this looks like a case of minions letting it go for convenience too and finding later that no, they should not had let go, but it is too late now; the FBI is left to figure out if information was indeed looked at by enemies and how to prevent this issue from happening again. And because it is not likely to happen again and it is so unlikely that she could be indicted for this, this is mostly useful now to see who's Republicans get blamed for using a bazooka to get the Clinton fly..

And missing still, I expect to see more Republicans get in trouble by the angry citizens that got promises that they would see Hillary going to jail for this.

BigT 04-04-2016 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217845)
Yes, it has been all of two or three days since these latest details were reported. How can we still be talking about it?!

That would be far more convincing if those details told us anything we didn't already know. Even if you hadn't already guessed that, I can't see how it's supposedly something that would take someone on one side to the other side.

Nor do I see a point when you admit she didn't do it nefariously, which gets rid of the real problem. She's just like every other person in the world, who puts convenience above security.

I only fault the system for allowing her to do it in the first place, instead of forcing her to set up a secure server.

sleestak 04-05-2016 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19232049)
Well, that's an interesting way of denigrating both my abilities and Hillary's. Thanks for that. But since you know pretty much nothing of the circumstances surrounding either nor exactly what those abilities are, I suggest maybe you should stick to doing your own job.

Oh yeah and I'd love to see you threaten the Secretary of State. Good luck with that.

I don't care what your abilities are unless you start claiming that your inability to do your job should be the standard everyone is held to in the field.

If some one is asking an IT person (actually anyone, the field doesn't really matter) to do things that are highly questionable and/or possibly illegal, the only response is to educate them on the proper method

If the person refuses then the two options are to a) quit or b) go to the proper authority. If, in the case of Clinton, the proper authority is the boss, then you go to the press. If the person is in a position of great importance, then the proper response should be a and b if the person will not budge.

I would have had no problem telling Clinton that what she was doing was insanely stupid. Might have been fired but there are other jobs and there wouldn't be the whole grilled by the F.B.I. thing.

I have told a multiple billionaires no during my career. The guy who I threatened with going to the state board was a billionaire who could have fired my ass on the spot since he owned the business.

One of the problems is that too many people kowtow to people like Clinton. Instead of making a stand on what is right too many people get all impressed with titles and do things that they know they shouldn't.

And Clinton knows this. Clinton also knows that lying works. So instead of doing things the right way she has (and will continue) to do things her way regardless of how stupid it is. This will go on until there are real consequences for her actions.

Slee

Fotheringay-Phipps 04-05-2016 12:58 PM

I don't know how this applies to the specific case of Clinton, but I disagree as a general rule. Meaning, there are a lot of areas where you do one thing "by the book" but as a practical matter things are just not done that way. (Of course, this applies to a whole lot of other political (& business) scandals, and many of the people who are vehemently defending Clinton don't take that same approach when it's a politician (or business executive) who they dislike.) But as a practical matter, if you're some low-level guy with expertise in a certain area, it's very difficult to try to force senior people in your organization to keep things by the book, especially if these are these are things that are widely disregarded by many other senior leaders.

Johnny Ace 04-05-2016 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleestak (Post 19236231)
I don't care what your abilities are unless you start claiming that your inability to do your job should be the standard everyone is held to in the field.

If some one is asking an IT person (actually anyone, the field doesn't really matter) to do things that are highly questionable and/or possibly illegal, the only response is to educate them on the proper method

If the person refuses then the two options are to a) quit or b) go to the proper authority. If, in the case of Clinton, the proper authority is the boss, then you go to the press. If the person is in a position of great importance, then the proper response should be a and b if the person will not budge.

I would have had no problem telling Clinton that what she was doing was insanely stupid. Might have been fired but there are other jobs and there wouldn't be the whole grilled by the F.B.I. thing.

I have told a multiple billionaires no during my career. The guy who I threatened with going to the state board was a billionaire who could have fired my ass on the spot since he owned the business.

One of the problems is that too many people kowtow to people like Clinton. Instead of making a stand on what is right too many people get all impressed with titles and do things that they know they shouldn't.

And Clinton knows this. Clinton also knows that lying works. So instead of doing things the right way she has (and will continue) to do things her way regardless of how stupid it is. This will go on until there are real consequences for her actions.

Slee

Ri-ight. You know jackshit about me, so I'll skip the perhaps part and say stfu with your judgment of that which you know nothing.

Lots of big talk there, Mr. internet, and no substantiation, other than moral judgment of that which you, once again, do not know.

Richard Parker 04-05-2016 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 19232528)
That would be far more convincing if those details told us anything we didn't already know.

On what date was the March 6, 2009 memo, and her response to it, first reported? This was the first article in which I saw those details, among others.

In my view, that memo and her response is one of the biggest things that makes this a scandal. She wasn't just violating some generic protocol, in a way she didn't fully appreciate, and in a way lots of her predecessors did. Instead, she was contradicting specific advice given individually to her, with lengthy explanation and justification warning her of a specific threat, which she agreed with and then continued to ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 19232528)
Nor do I see a point when you admit she didn't do it nefariously, which gets rid of the real problem. She's just like every other person in the world, who puts convenience above security. I only fault the system for allowing her to do it in the first place, instead of forcing her to set up a secure server.

She isn't just like every other person in the world. She was the Secretary of State of the United States of America. She was easily in the top five targets of foreign intelligence surveillance. Her deciding to put convenience above security is quite different in character from the low-level DOD employee who backs stuff up to Dropbox instead of using his secured USB drive.

I don't know by what mechanism you imagine "the system" could force her to use better security. The way "the system" does that is to send her a strongly-worded memo telling her that her actions risk national security. I suppose they also take it over her head and talk to POTUS if need be. But that assumes they knew she continued to use the unsecured phone after she told them she had gotten the message.

Sam Stone 04-06-2016 03:33 PM

The fact that she went to so much effort in the beginning belies the excuse that her home server was just 'convenient'. She either knew she was taking big risks, or she's too stupid to be president. If she knew she was taking risks and still went to extraordinary lengths to avoid using government mail services, you really have to step back and ask why.

The most charitable explanation is that she thought Republicans would go on endless FOIA expeditions, and she wasn't about to let them get away with it. The least charitable explanation is that she was avoiding FOIA because she was up to something shady, possibly involving the Clinton Foundation.

The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. It doesn't take that many agents just to go through the E-mails, so I am sure they have agents following up chains of information, trying to find out where the classified info came from, who else might know about it, etc. If it's true that SAP information was found on her hard drive with passages word-for-word from the original documents, then someone committed a felony transcribing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if multiple indictments come out of this, including people who we don't even know about yet. Whether Hillary will be one of them is an open question.

Hillary seems to me to be very Nixonian in disposition. Nixon was smart and pretty effective, but his undoing was his personal paranoia and secretive disposition, coupled with a 'rules don't apply to me when I am right' attitude.

ElvisL1ves 04-06-2016 03:34 PM

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Lightnin' 04-06-2016 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents.

Actually, it's apparently more like twelve.

Sherrerd 04-06-2016 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. ....

Uh, no.

Quote:

On Monday, it was reported that 147 FBI agents have been working on the review of Hillary Clinton‘s email server, a report which I immediately called BS on loudly and thoroughly. As the week progressed, the reporting caught up with what was already obvious, and it turns out there are only about 12 agents working on it, maybe. On Thursday night, All In with Chris Hayes host Chris Hayes did a segment debunking the reporting:
...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-d...hillary-email/

GIGObuster 04-06-2016 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. It doesn't take that many agents just to go through the E-mails, so I am sure they have agents following up chains of information, trying to find out where the classified info came from, who else might know about it, etc. If it's true that SAP information was found on her hard drive with passages word-for-word from the original documents, then someone committed a felony transcribing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if multiple indictments come out of this, including people who we don't even know about yet. Whether Hillary will be one of them is an open question.

So it follows that if that number of agents involved was pulled by the media from their nether regions then it is less likely that the FBI is not doing more than what they told us before no?

Well..:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03...hat-nea/209615
Quote:

Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are Investigating
The Post Now Reports "The Number Of FBI Personnel Involved Is Fewer Than 50"

The Washington Post has retracted its anonymously sourced claim that 147 FBI agents are detailed to the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, and is now reporting that the real number is fewer than 50. Media outlets trumpeted the Post's report of the supposedly "staggering" number of FBI agents working the investigation as bad news for Clinton.

On March 27, the Post published a 5,000-word article detailing the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email and personal Blackberry device during her time as secretary of state. The original story reported: "One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey."

The Post's claim spread throughout the media, with outlets frequently highlighting the 147 figure in their headlines and some using the report to attack Clinton. National Review termed the figure "a staggering deployment of manpower," while Breitbart News celebrated the "FBI recently kick[ing] its investigation into high gear." The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza highlighted the "eye-popping" 147 figure by commenting, "W-H-A-T?", adding that the reported number of agents seemed "like a ton for a story that Clinton has always insisted was really, at heart, a right-wing Republican creation," while MSNBC's Joe Scarborough called the number the "worst kept secret in DC for months." The story was also highlighted in several segments on Fox News.

But the next day, Politico reported that the Post's story might be inaccurate. According to Politico, an official close to the investigation refuted the Post's report, saying that "The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server" and that the Post's "number is greatly exaggerated."

The Washington Post issued a correction to both their initial story on March 29, explaining that they incorrectly reported "that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation" and that multiple U.S. law enforcement officials "have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high" and the actual number of "FBI personnel involved in the case is fewer than 50":
It remains a security audit or review made by the FBI that is not a criminal investigation. So, yeah, it would still be surprising to see recommendations (the FBI can not indict people as it was pointed many times before) to indict.

Sam Stone 04-06-2016 03:46 PM

Interesting. I am pretty sure I read that in the Washington Post's long article about it. I stand corrected.

Edit after seeing Gigobuster's post: I guess I did see it there.

Boyo Jim 04-06-2016 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
...The most charitable explanation is that she thought Republicans would go on endless FOIA expeditions, and she wasn't about to let them get away with it. ...

No, the most charitable explanation is that she saw no compelling reason to change the emails system she was already using. I'm not saying this was the right decision, but it doesn't require a deliberate attempt on her part to stifle Republican inquiries.

Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system after she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office?

Richard Parker 04-06-2016 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19239597)
Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system after she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office?

I think you have that right. She continued to use the system she had used during the campaign, which had been set up even before that.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 04-07-2016 02:10 AM

Want to see why I don't care?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleestak (Post 19236231)
One of the problems is that too many people kowtow to people like Clinton. Instead of making a stand on what is right too many people get all impressed with titles and do things that they know they shouldn't.

And Clinton knows this. Clinton also knows that lying works. So instead of doing things the right way she has (and will continue) to do things her way regardless of how stupid it is. This will go on until there are real consequences for her actions.

This. Shrill, Clinton bashing. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Benghazi. The Clinton Foundation. Vince Foster. Yeah, very familiar that sound.

Let me know when the sky is actually falling. Thanks.

adaher 04-07-2016 06:37 AM

Since we now know that the investigation won't be complete until after she's nominated, and you really don't care what she did(and many Clinton supporters share your view), then if she is indicted, or the damage is so bad from the final report that her candidacy is sunk, that means I'll hear no whining from you about a replacement candidate? Because once she's nominated, she's the candidate. No backsies.

ElvisL1ves 04-07-2016 06:41 AM

A man can dream.

iiandyiiii 04-07-2016 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19240962)
Since we now know that the investigation won't be complete until after she's nominated, and you really don't care what she did(and many Clinton supporters share your view), then if she is indicted, or the damage is so bad from the final report that her candidacy is sunk, that means I'll hear no whining from you about a replacement candidate? Because once she's nominated, she's the candidate. No backsies.

How do we know that the investigation won't be complete until after she's nominated? Share your time machine, please.

adaher 04-07-2016 07:31 AM

Comey didn't say for sure that it would be after the convention, but he did say there's no pressure to get it done by then.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-by-convention

jayjay 04-07-2016 07:38 AM

Frankly, I don't care if she's convicted of killing Vince Foster before or after the convention. She's STILL better than anyone who's ever been running on the Republican side this cycle. Anyone.

iiandyiiii 04-07-2016 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19241037)
Comey didn't say for sure that it would be after the convention, but he did say there's no pressure to get it done by then.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-by-convention

So he pretty much said nothing, then.

LonghornDave 04-07-2016 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19239597)
Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system after she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19240339)
I think you have that right. She continued to use the system she had used during the campaign, which had been set up even before that.

I think this is partially true and partially false. The domain she used was set up immediately prior to becoming Secretary of State (registered on 1/13/09, the day of her Senate confirmation hearings).

https://who.is/whois/clintonemail.com

Having said that, there was a prior email server set up at their home (used by Bill Clinton). They replaced that prior to becoming Secretary of State with a server that her presidential campaign had been using.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7ae_story.html

Quote:

For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.
Seems like the timeline is that Bill Clinton had a private server installed at their Chappaqua home for his use. Hillary Clinton's campaign set up a private server for her campaigns use. When preparing to become Secretary of State, they took her campaign's server and installed it at their Chappaqua home, replacing Bill's old server, and registered a new domain to use.

So it's definitely not true to say she was just continuing to use the same setup she was using before as some matter of convenience. It is true that she (and Bill Clinton) used private servers before and that they were essentially updated and upgraded prior to taking on the position.

Richard Parker 04-07-2016 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19241228)
So it's definitely not true to say she was just continuing to use the same setup she was using before as some matter of convenience.

It depends on what you mean by "same setup." If you mean an unsecured Blackberry using a personal email server located at her home, then the setup didn't change, right?

LonghornDave 04-07-2016 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19241764)
It depends on what you mean by "same setup." If you mean an unsecured Blackberry using a personal email server located at her home, then the setup didn't change, right?

Well, wasn't she using a personal server located somewhere other than her home during her campaign. From what I've read, I think Bill Clinton was using a personal email server (different from the Hillary Clinton campaign server) located at their home. Not sure where her server was located, maybe where ever her campaign headquarters was located. Re-quoting from here.

Quote:

For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.
This gets a little ridiculous though. When average people talk about keeping their same email for convenience they would mean the same email address. She clearly was using a different email address since they didn't even register the domain until her confirmation hearings.

Richard Parker 04-07-2016 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242401)
Well, wasn't she using a personal server located somewhere other than her home during her campaign. From what I've read, I think Bill Clinton was using a personal email server (different from the Hillary Clinton campaign server) located at their home. Not sure where her server was located, maybe where ever her campaign headquarters was located. Re-quoting from here.

I don't read your quote as saying they moved the server from somewhere else to her home, but even if that's so, I'm not sure it matters to the lay definition of "same setup." See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242401)
When average people talk about keeping their same email for convenience they would mean the same email address. She clearly was using a different email address since they didn't even register the domain until her confirmation hearings.

I disagree. When people talk about keeping the same setup convenience, they aren't talking about domain names. They mean her continuing to use an unsecured Blackberry accessing some personal server, as distinct from PCs accessing a government server.

LonghornDave 04-07-2016 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19242411)
I don't read your quote as saying they moved the server from somewhere else to her home, but even if that's so, I'm not sure it matters to the lay definition of "same setup." See below.

I don't see how it can be read any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19242411)
I disagree. When people talk about keeping the same setup convenience, they aren't talking about domain names. They mean her continuing to use an unsecured Blackberry accessing some personal server, as distinct from PCs accessing a government server.

This seems incredibly strange to me. What would inconvenience you more, if your work email address changed or if they swapped out servers and your email address stayed the same? I am guessing 99.9% of people would be far more inconvenienced by having to change their email address than any change to the server.

Further, I think you are confusing the issue. She could have still used a Blackberry to access her email even if she was using a government address. She wasn't supposed to use a smart phone of any type in certain secure locations. Further, she wasn't supposed to send classified information in email regardless of whether it was a personal email address or a state address. The fact is that when you are handling classified material there are going to be some inconveniences involved.

Sage Rat 04-07-2016 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19228847)
But the only people capable of intelligently evaluating the magnitude of the security risk posed by her IT practices had told her it was a big deal. She did not have the technological knowledge to evaluate that risk for herself.

You don't have to be technologically knowledgeable to get the idea, "China is reading all (100%) of your e-mails."

Richard Parker 04-07-2016 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242793)
This seems incredibly strange to me. What would inconvenience you more, if your work email address changed or if they swapped out servers and your email address stayed the same? I am guessing 99.9% of people would be far more inconvenienced by having to change their email address than any change to the server.

That's irrelevant to what it means to use the "same setup" in the context of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242793)
She could have still used a Blackberry to access her email even if she was using a government address. She wasn't supposed to use a smart phone of any type in certain secure locations. Further, she wasn't supposed to send classified information in email regardless of whether it was a personal email address or a state address. The fact is that when you are handling classified material there are going to be some inconveniences involved.

Incorrect. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Respectively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sage Rat (Post 19242972)
You don't have to be technologically knowledgeable to get the idea, "China is reading all (100%) of your e-mails."

Yes, I agree, which is pretty much the whole thesis of my thread here.

adaher 04-07-2016 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayjay (Post 19241051)
Frankly, I don't care if she's convicted of killing Vince Foster before or after the convention. She's STILL better than anyone who's ever been running on the Republican side this cycle. Anyone.

And the voters will get to judge that if she's indicted after being nominated, with no switches allowed. You either choose Sanders now or never. It's not "Clinton, then if indicted, go with Sanders."

Trinopus 04-07-2016 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19243244)
. . . with no switches allowed. . . .

Cite?

(Also, this is absurd. There isn't even a criminal investigation. You're imagining things if you think an indictment is in the offing. You might as well bring up Benghazi again. Seriously: this is a really dumb idea, and is not going to happen.)

Jophiel 04-07-2016 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19240962)
Because once she's nominated, she's the candidate. No backsies.

Well, not necessarily. If she was to withdraw between the convention and the election then the Democratic party picks a new nominee.
Quote:

Since the time of Andrew Jackson's run for the presidency in 1828, individual political parties have had the job of filling any vacancy on their national ticket, either that of their presidential or vice-presidential candidate. If one of their candidates vacates the ticket after they are nominated, either because of death or withdrawal, the party selects a replacement.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party's nod.

The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College voting. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party's responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote.
You're voting on electoral college members to pick a president in December, not on a specific person. Provided that the DNC can get the electoral college members who stay in line, the candidate for president is whoever they want it to be.

Johnny Ace 04-07-2016 09:51 PM

Quote:

The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College voting. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party's responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote.
That would be chaos. I would think that the likelihood would be that the opposing party's candidate would win in that situation. You can't just apply states' electoral votes to a new candidate.

Grumman 04-07-2016 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19243334)
That would be chaos. I would think that the likelihood would be that the opposing party's candidate would win in that situation.

I agree. If the Democratic Party tells everyone Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job, and then have to pick someone else because the best person for the job is being indicted for criminal negligence in her handling of classified information, the Democratic Party's credibility will be shaken and their endorsement will be less effective.

adaher 04-07-2016 10:24 PM

Especially since they can't claim ignorance about what she did. But sure, there are various ways to change the candidate, depending on state ballot laws, and I guess the EC could be a final shot at doing a switcheroo.

My point was simply that I don't want to hear whining if for whatever reason the switch can't be successfully pulled off. The party had every opportunity to back a challenger and declined. The voters were well informed of her issues. There's just no excuse if it all goes tits up between the convention and the election.

GIGObuster 04-07-2016 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumman (Post 19243374)
I agree. If the Democratic Party tells everyone Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job, and then have to pick someone else because the best person for the job is being indicted for criminal negligence in her handling of classified information, the Democratic Party's credibility will be shaken and their endorsement will be less effective.

That would be a big problem if the Democrats had a choice like the Republicans have now, that choice looks like picking between Tamerlane and Attila the Hun. The Democrats "problem" is to choose between two politicians that look like Margaret Thatcher and Benjamin Disraeli.

I actually do not see a big issue for a switch among the Democrats if it is needed. The republicans are the ones that wished that they had the "problems" the democrats have now.

adaher 04-07-2016 10:49 PM

We'll see if that's true come August or so. By then the national polls actually will have meaning, and Clinton will be in the clear by then, assuming she hasn't gotten her entitled self into more problems by bending the rules.

GIGObuster 04-07-2016 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19243437)
We'll see if that's true come August or so. By then the national polls actually will have meaning, and Clinton will be in the clear by then, assuming she hasn't gotten her entitled self into more problems by bending the rules.

Speaking of meaning, I think the polling now has more meaning than in older contests, I do take into account here the polarization seen in the current environment and that leads IMHO to an early crystallization of what is coming in the general election, in the current environment I think that many are assuming that the polls will look like Carter vs Reagan,

http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/...lheats1980.png

When in reality they are looking more like Obama vs Romney.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...omney-vs-obama

What it is important to note IMO is that Obama usually maintained a 3 point lead over Romney and rarely was Obama ahead by more than 5, Clinton and Sanders have remained ahead by 9 or more points during the whole month of March in the aggregate over Trump.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...ump-vs-clinton

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...ump-vs-sanders

I still expect the media to make it into a horse race by any means necessary, so I also expect the polls to tighten but I expect also to see it end like the Obama vs Romney contest.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 06-07-2016 03:20 PM

Revive!
 
Bernie supporters on my Facebook are screaming about how Obama is barring the release of Hillary's emails until after the election.

I Googled it and it's all the Right Wing Bubble websites who are not trustworthy and who do not deserve my clicks and other unreliable sources (in order they are International Business Times, Observer, BizPac Review, Daily Caller, PJ Media, a Huffington Post article penned by H.A. Goodman whose pro-Bernie bias renders him useless - the headline is "Why Hillary Clinton Could Face Indictments and How This Makes Bernie Sanders Nominee" - Fox News, etcetera).

Can someone tell me why I am supposed to be outraged?

adaher 06-07-2016 03:27 PM

Well, if you're cool with nontransparency, even to the extent of destroying federal records....

Sherrerd 06-07-2016 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear (Post 19387926)
Bernie supporters on my Facebook are screaming about how Obama is barring the release of Hillary's emails until after the election.
I Googled it and it's all the Right Wing Bubble websites who are not trustworthy and who do not deserve my clicks and other unreliable sources (in order they are International Business Times, Observer, BizPac Review, Daily Caller, PJ Media, a Huffington Post article penned by H.A. Goodman whose pro-Bernie bias renders him useless - the headline is "Why Hillary Clinton Could Face Indictments and How This Makes Bernie Sanders Nominee" - Fox News, etcetera).

Can someone tell me why I am supposed to be outraged?

Well, the Sanders people just don't have much to work with. So inevitably the outrage seems a bit manufactured.

Sanders himself is reduced to saying, in essence, I Won't Suspend Because The People Must Be Allowed to Vote, and Then Super Delegates Must Ignore the Votes of the People (and nominate ME!!!!1!!) Democracy is very important and democracy is irrelevant to this process!

He's going to get dizzy from doing all that flipping.

Fear Itself 06-07-2016 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19387942)
Well, if you're cool with nontransparency, even to the extent of destroying federal records....

There is no evidence she deleted federal records. She turned over thousands of government related emails, and deleted personal emails. Now, you may not believe her, but you can't just conclude there must have been official emails, because Hillary. Lots of Republicans have personal email accounts. Can they prove they never deleted a government related email? Why should Hillary be held to a different standard?

adaher 06-07-2016 04:05 PM

The IG report found a few emails that she didn't turn over that were work emails.

elucidator 06-07-2016 05:15 PM

And who knows what's in them? Could be anything! Could be damning evidence of....something!

ElvisL1ves 06-07-2016 05:21 PM

Be charitable. It's all he's got.

adaher 06-07-2016 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 19388223)
And who knows what's in them? Could be anything! Could be damning evidence of....something!

Actually we do know because the IG found them. They were emails about her email system and her concerns for her privacy.

For something that was supposedly allowed, the people close to her sure wanted to make sure it was never a topic of discussion around the State Dept bureaucracy. Of course, it was not allowed. She lied. Lies also don't bother many Clinton supporters.

Moriarty 06-07-2016 06:10 PM

My biggest frustration with the whole "email scandal" is the apparent perception of people that Clinton only communicated via her Blackberry. This defies logic.

We know, from the OIG report, that the Secretaries of State who used emails were basically Colin Powell and Clinton (Albright never did; Rice and Kerry basically never did. Before Albright, email wasn't a thing). Are we to conclude that no other Secretary of State received confidential information? Of course not! That defies logic. Rather, they used other (secure) channels to receive and communicate top secret information.

So why should people assume that Clinton never received any of those secure, secret diplomatic cables? I'm not saying that she never dealt with confidential information in her emails, but I seriously doubt that she was getting her most sensitive information on her Blackberry.

So while the possibility exists that she had sensitive information on an unsecure server, that sounds like mere speculation unless and until this is shown to be true. Point being, the mere fact that she used a personal email server does not tend to elucidate her handling of sensitive information.

Fear Itself 06-07-2016 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19388252)
Actually we do know because the IG found them. They were emails about her email system and her concerns for her privacy.

At least it wasn't government business. Way to move the goalposts.

adaher 06-07-2016 06:37 PM

Those are government business because they dealt with an official issue: her need to get a State Dept email address.

But that brings up the other problem: she doesn't get to decide what's personal and what's government.

Fear Itself 06-07-2016 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19388420)
Those are government business because they dealt with an official issue: her need to get a State Dept email address.

But that brings up the other problem: she doesn't get to decide what's personal and what's government.

But Republican Congressmen do? How do we know what they use their private email accounts for? Shouldn't we demand to see their email too, just in case?

Richard Parker 06-07-2016 06:55 PM

The problem with our current partisan media environment is that Democrats don't bother to learn the details of democratic scandals and vice versa. Many of the Dem posters in this thread don't know the actual factual details of the email controversy. It reminds me about how Republicans didn't know what all the talk of yellow cake was about.

adaher 06-07-2016 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 19388473)
But Republican Congressmen do? How do we know what they use their private email accounts for? Shouldn't we demand to see their email too, just in case?

Does the Federal Records Act cover Congress?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act

From the wikipedia article, it seems to only apply to federal agencies, which would not include the President and VP, who I believe do have the right of executive privilege.

adaher 06-07-2016 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19388475)
The problem with our current partisan media environment is that Democrats don't bother to learn the details of democratic scandals and vice versa. Many of the Dem posters in this thread don't know the actual factual details of the email controversy. It reminds me about how Republicans didn't know what all the talk of yellow cake was about.

Oh, we knew, we were just inclined to view the controversy giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. "Britain has learned" pretty much gave Bush total deniability if it was wrong, but that got blown out of the water by the Wilson/Plame issue, which simply could not be justified at all. But the thing is, when you support someone a lot, you'll latch onto anything you can and for a lot of us it was Joe Wilson, whose investigation basically consisted of asking around. It almost seemed like Plame had sent him there because the couple wanted a certain result. For a long time those of us who supported Bush thought that the State Dept and CIA bureaucracy were intentionally trying to kneecap the President.

But at some point the scandals just become too numerous and actions become too indefensible. The administration revealing the name of a covert agent in retaliation for Joe Wilson going to the media can't be excused under any conditions.

Clinton's sins are much smaller in scale, but still pretty inexcusable. It doesn't matter how much Republicans have been out to get her, her obsession with secrecy borders on criminal.

ElvisL1ves 06-07-2016 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19388475)
Many of the Dem posters in this thread don't know the actual factual details of the email controversy.

What don't we know that matters?

And what do we know that you would prefer we didn't?

adaher 06-07-2016 07:09 PM

Why don't you summarize what you know, and be honest, have you explored this controversy or just dismissed it, only absorbing the occasional headline?

ElvisL1ves 06-07-2016 07:18 PM

Or you could answer the question. If you could.

adaher 06-07-2016 07:41 PM

I've been. She set up the server to evade the Freedom of Information Act, she violated the Federal Records Act by destroying work related emails, and she decided at her discretion what was work related and what wasn't, which you can be sure an underling wouldn't have gotten away with. Further, she lied pretty much every step of the way and then spun the rather damning IG report as an exoneration. Because she thinks you're stupid.

ElvisL1ves 06-07-2016 08:09 PM

Fact count in that post: Zero.

Amusing as usual, though.

Moriarty 06-07-2016 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19388584)
I've been. She set up the server to evade the Freedom of Information Act

Do we know this to be true? I've endeavored to be honest about her activities, but this sounds like speculation. Is there anything to show why she set up the server?

Quote:

she violated the Federal Records Act by destroying work related emails
Did she (I truly don't know)? From your own Wikipedia link about the act, it sounds like electronic records were added in 2014. She stopped being Secretary of State in 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In December 2014, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 was signed into law by President Barack Obama.[2][3] This bipartisan act, which followed the 2011 President's Memorandum on Managing Government Records, modernizes the Federal Records Act.[2][3] The act expressly expands the definition of federal records to include electronic records (the first change to the definition of "Federal record" since the enactment of the act in 1950).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adaher
and she decided at her discretion what was work related and what wasn't, which you can be sure an underling wouldn't have gotten away with.

Can you show me where this is not allowed? As Secretary of State, I know that she has wide discretion on what classification to apply to information. But does she have discretion to delete personal emails (i.e. if she emailed her daughter about her grandchild's birthday, is she able to delete it, or does that email need to go through some sort of review process before it is deemed not work-related?)

Quote:

Further, she lied pretty much every step of the way and then spun the rather damning IG report as an exoneration.
I do agree that she has been cagey. However, I sympathize with her frustration, given that her predecessor was the first Secretary of State to request an internet connection in his office once he realized that he could not email people outside of the department on the government intra-net. She didn't initiate the private email use (nor is it necessarily unprecedented to have a private server; Jeb Bush used one while Governor of Florida).

And given that it recently came out that the government was still using old style floppy disks for nuclear weapons, I do honestly wonder how modern and sophisticated the government's own system was.

Quote:

Because she thinks you're stupid.
I know that you are editorializing, but I don't see why this is the only explanation.

adaher 06-07-2016 08:19 PM

Because there is no way one can read any media summary of the IG report and conclude that the most important point is that what she did was just like what everyone else did.

Moriarty 06-07-2016 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19388670)
Because there is no way one can read any media summary of the IG report and conclude that the most important point is that what she did was just like what everyone else did.

Why just read media summaries? The report is online.

Skimming it again, I do note that it does answer some questions. For one, the server had existed from her time in the Senate.

Quote:

Secretary Clinton employed a personal email system to conduct business during her tenure in the United States Senate and her 2008 Presidential campaign. She continued to use personal email throughout her term as Secretary, relying on an account maintained on a private server, predominantly through mobile devices. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the server was located in her New York residence.
And while President Obama did sign a law in 2014 expressly clarifying that email records are included, they were reasonably included previously. So I was wrong on that point (see Dopers? You can say you were wrong and your posting privileges won't be revoked or anything!)
Quote:

NARA promulgates regulations providing guidance to agencies on implementation of the Federal Records Act and recordkeeping obligations more generally. Since 1990, the regulations issued by NARA have explained that the medium of the record may be “paper, film, disk, or other physical type or form” and that the method of recording may be “manual, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or any other combination of these or other technologies.”...In 1995, NARA amended the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm that “messages created or received on electronic mail systems may meet the definition of record.”
But those same regulations seem to acknowledge that private email use is allowed (as long as the records are preserved)

Quote:

The regulations also referenced the use of electronic communications systems external to the Government, indicating that “agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that Federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system.”
Further, the report notes that in 2009, the Code of Federal Regulations was changed to say that "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record system."

And the report later confirms that the use of private email was permissible.

Quote:

As discussed earlier in this report, laws and regulations did not prohibit employees from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business.
So is the scandal that she used private email, or is the scandal that she didn't initially print and catalogue the private emails with the government?

If the scandal is the failure to print and file the records with the government, then we should certainly throw the book at her. What sort of punishment is she facing?

Quote:

...S/ES staff told OIG that employees in the Office of the Secretary have printed and filed such emails only sporadically. In its discussions with OIG, NARA stated that this lack of compliance exists across the government. Although the Department is aware of the failure to print and file, the FAM contains no explicit penalties for lack of compliance, and the Department has never proposed discipline against an employee for failure to comply.
I'm guessing that an indictment is not forthcoming, especially since this is endemic across government.

Quote:

According to a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, most agencies do not prioritize records management, as evidenced by lack of staff and budget resources, absence of up-to-date policies and procedures, lack of training, and lack of accountability. In its most recent annual assessment of records management, NARA identified similar weaknesses across the Federal Government with regard to electronic records in particular. NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory environments.
But, it's Hillary. Just because other people do it, too, doesn't make it right! She didn't properly print and catalogue her emails, and that is scandalous! The report says so!

Quote:

Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure.
As for the actual conclusion of the report

Quote:

Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership.
Now, it should be noted that Clinton is criticized for not having her private email system "vetted" by the government. But I'll let somebody else take a stab at quoting those critiques. From where I sit, this is not such a severe breach of protocol that it warrants disqualification to be President.

GIGObuster 06-07-2016 09:34 PM

As seen, I still expect that while a lot of Republicans will still swallow the idea from congress Republicans that Hillary will be indicted or arrested when the most likely outcome comes, that there will not be any serious charges, I do think that there will a good number of Republicans that will once again realize that they were duped by the Republican "leadership".

What about the Libertarians?

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/li...ws-republicans
Quote:

Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld joined Chuck Todd for an exclusive interview to launch their quixotic campaign to woo the Republican Party into Libertarian ranks.

...

But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."
Well, at least they are getting one thing right! :)

Sam Stone 06-07-2016 10:34 PM

There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed.

adaher 06-07-2016 10:56 PM

Moriarty, taking a step back from going after Clinton, she's had two main defenses which are perfectly valid, IF she does something about those two problems as President:

1) Everyone does it. That has to stop. Government transparency demands records be retained, plus it's just sensible even if the public doesn't get to see it.

2) Overclassification. Nothing chaps my ass more than hearing Presidents complain about things they have the power to change. If State overclassifies things, issue new guidelines! You can do that, you're the President! Another example is when the President said in his SOTU that the government had all kinds of contradictory and duplicative rules for tangerines or some such. Wow, if only there was someone in charge of the executive branch who could put a stop to duplicative or contradictory rulemaking. Fix this shit! This is why few respect government's competence.

GIGObuster 06-07-2016 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19388950)
There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed.

As even the FBI told us that Hillary Clinton is not the target of the security review, I have to agree with Weld.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/

JohnT 06-07-2016 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19388837)
As seen, I still expect that while a lot of Republicans will still swallow the idea from congress Republicans that Hillary will be indicted or arrested when the most likely outcome comes, that there will not be any serious charges, I do think that there will a good number of Republicans that will once again realize that they were duped by the Republican "leadership".

What about the Libertarians?

Quote:

Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/li...ws-republicans


Well, at least they are getting one thing right! :)

You can bet that line is already cued up in the Clinton's team response to Trump's "major" speech next week about Bill and Hillary.

ElvisL1ves 06-08-2016 06:43 AM

Unless you're a ham sandwich. There can certainly be charges and indictments that can't hold up under the law, if the prosecutor is on a political vendetta.

But that isn't the case here either.

Richard Parker 06-08-2016 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19388950)
There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed.

I think you must be using some colloquial definition of "criminal intent" here--i.e., that people have been convicted for knowingly disclosing or mishandling classified information for non-criminal purposes. If so, I'm sure that's true. But if you're using the actual definition of "criminal intent"--i.e., relevant knowledge (or recklessness) that the information was classified--then I think your claim is probably false depending on what you mean by "plenty." Notwithstanding loose talk about strict liability by some ill-informed bloggers, I don't think any of the relevant laws actually lack criminal intent requirements.

LonghornDave 06-08-2016 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19389065)
As even the FBI told us that Hillary Clinton is not the target of the security review, I have to agree with Weld.

Where in your link did the FBI tell us that? I've seen reports from unnamed FBI sources leaked to media members that go both directions. Here the only FBI comment I saw in your link.

Quote:

Describing the inquiry, FBI Director James Comey told Congress in October 2015, "The FBI is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former Sec. Clinton’s use of a private email server."

He declined to give any more specifics.
Having said that, your link is from January. Here's from the same source in May.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-emails-recap/

Quote:

Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown.

LonghornDave 06-08-2016 01:23 PM

It seems to me that any claim that Clinton is not being investigated or is not the target of an investigation is without support. The same could be said for people claiming she definitively is the target. The FBI simply hasn't told us yet.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case

Quote:

In a separate filing Monday, the Justice Department refused to detail the nature of the FBI probe connected to Clinton’s machine, except that it was based on a “security referral” from inspectors general at the State Department and federal intelligence agencies.

“[T]he FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation,” in order to keep the information secret, it asserted.

adaher 06-08-2016 03:11 PM

It's all technical. It's a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone's getting indicted.

GIGObuster 06-08-2016 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19390318)
It seems to me that any claim that Clinton is not being investigated or is not the target of an investigation is without support. The same could be said for people claiming she definitively is the target. The FBI simply hasn't told us yet.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case

I got the information from here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15...ment.html?_r=0
Quote:

The F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.

Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.
Incidentally the FBI would not tell such a thing to all who ask, but to the persons who are suspected or being targeted if they request to know. In this case it would be less likely for a lawyer like Clinton to not had done as such a thing, and her actions afterwards do reflect that that took place indeed.

elucidator 06-08-2016 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19390540)
It's all technical. It's a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone's getting indicted.

And the full weight of your expertise and authority is behind that?

adaher 06-08-2016 03:33 PM

Well, I could be wrong, maybe they actually will indict the email account.

GIGObuster 06-08-2016 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19390597)
Well, I could be wrong, maybe they actually will indict the email account.

And indeed you are, the FBI can not indict anyone, they can only recommend that. Bottom line is that on this subject the Republicans have ramped up the bullshit and just like in other past "scandals" the end result IMHO is that there will be many Republicans that will become unhinged when they realize that a lot of what they promised will not take place regarding Hillary going to Prison.

Unhinged yes, but many will still go back for other bullshit. But, what I also expect is to see more than a few Republicans that will, in combination of seeing Trump become the nominee and realizing that they were had once again by the Republican party regarding the Clintons, vote for Hillary in disgust for all the bullshit that was tossed at them.

LonghornDave 06-08-2016 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19390540)
It's all technical. It's a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone's getting indicted.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-d...ry?id=39048269

Quote:

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."

One reporter noted that former Secretary of State Clinton often refers to it as a "security inquiry."

The word "investigation" -- "it’s in our name,” Comey responded. “And I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’”

adaher 06-08-2016 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19390636)
And indeed you are, the FBI can not indict anyone, they can only recommend that. Bottom line is that on this subject the Republicans have ramped up the bullshit and just like in other past "scandals" the end result IMHO is that there will be many Republicans that will become unhinged when they realize that a lot of what they promised will not take place regarding Hillary going to Prison.

If the FBI recommends indictment, it's game over, regardless of what Loretta Lynch does.

LonghornDave 06-08-2016 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19390543)
I got the information from here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15...ment.html?_r=0


Incidentally the FBI would not tell such a thing to all who ask, but to the persons who are suspected or being targeted if they request to know. In this case it would be less likely for a lawyer like Clinton to not had done as such a thing, and her actions afterwards do reflect that that took place indeed.

Your story is pretty old (August 2015). Look again at the story I posted regarding the motion filed this week (6/6/16).

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12

Directly from the motion from the Justice Department.

Quote:

Because the FBI’s principal function is law enforcement, the FBI’s claimed purpose for the withheld records is entitled to deference here.

...

Therefore, the FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation

...

The FBI met both parts of the deferential standard here. The FBI has publicly stated that it is working on a referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State in connection with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.

...

Thus, the FBI identified a particular incident in connection with the investigation, not merely “a general monitoring of private individuals’ activities.”
Pratt
, 673 F.2d at 420. And the referral from the Inspectors General to the FBI provided a rational nexus between the pending investigation and the FBI’s law enforcement duties.


adaher 06-08-2016 04:05 PM

Oh, it's definitely an investigation of Clinton, she's just not a "target", which is a purely technical term. If she was a target, she'd be quite screwed already. Once the FBI is targeting you, they'll get you for something.

LonghornDave 06-08-2016 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19390682)
Oh, it's definitely an investigation of Clinton, she's just not a "target", which is a purely technical term. If she was a target, she'd be quite screwed already. Once the FBI is targeting you, they'll get you for something.

Even that doesn't seem right. How do we know she's not a target? They're coming out and directly saying they aren't naming their targets.

She's trying to characterize this as a general review of policies of the past several secretaries of state. It's not an investigation, it's an inquiry. She's not a target. She followed all the rules and did the same thing as Powell and Rice. Rules have since been clarified. At the same time the Justice Department is filing motions saying it is an investigation related specifically to the FBI's principal role of law enforcement and relates directly to "Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server".

I'm not saying I think she's going to jail, but I think these blanket assertions that she's not a target of any investigation and has not broken any laws are just wishful thinking. That might be true, but we don't know it because the FBI hasn't told us anything yet. It simply can't be proven either way. Common sense tells me, though no doubt most of this board would disagree, that the FBI thinks there is at least something there worth investigating. I think they would have dropped it long before now if it was as simple as she's doing the same thing as Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice.

It further seems to me that there is a greater than zero chance that the clear Presidential front runner and only remaining viable candidate running may face a criminal indictment a few short months before the election date. The prospect of that terrifies me. Not sure what percentage chance I put on it happening; it's certainly less than 50% but probably greater than 10%. I hope the Democrats have a good fall-back plan.

GIGObuster 06-08-2016 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19390680)
Your story is pretty old (August 2015). Look again at the story I posted regarding the motion filed this week (6/6/16).

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12

Directly from the motion from the Justice Department.

And nowhere there contradicts what I said, even if old. The point stands as you also helped establish it, most of what the right wing has going on has been bullshit. And the ones that could be targets can demand the FBI to confirm if that is the case, one can dismiss what Hillary has said but it is less likely IMHO that she did not ask, and her behavior afterwards points to what she reported about what the FBI told her that she is not the target; so far, but that is what it should be reported, not the certifiable bullshit that we have seen coming from the right. Some of what they say about Clinton is accurate, but this only underlines what I think is going to happen.

The results are likely to be embarrassing to Clinton, but it is more likely that there will not be a recommendation to an indictment and even going farther a less likely conviction; it will underline how bad the right has been when giving information to their readers and viewers.

GIGObuster 06-08-2016 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19390719)
Even that doesn't seem right. How do we know she's not a target? They're coming out and directly saying they aren't naming their targets.

That is right, because it is not the beeswax business of people that are not involved. However, this has been known for ages:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-emails-recap/
Quote:

If people ask about their status in an investigation, it’s common practice for the Justice Department to tell them whether they’re targets or not, said Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law.

"If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate,"

Trinopus 06-08-2016 06:05 PM

This isn't quite a "they did it too" argument, but, rather, "a much worse offense was never indicted," and that's Cheney and Libby and the Plame affair. (Libby was indicted for lying to investigators.)

If something of that magnitude never resulted in an indictment, it seems absurd that something a millionth as bad possibly could.

adaher 06-08-2016 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinopus (Post 19390921)
This isn't quite a "they did it too" argument, but, rather, "a much worse offense was never indicted," and that's Cheney and Libby and the Plame affair. (Libby was indicted for lying to investigators.)

If something of that magnitude never resulted in an indictment, it seems absurd that something a millionth as bad possibly could.

That's not how the law works though. It's about what you can prove. The whole investigation was looking in the wrong place. Richard Armitage was the source of the leak. There's a lot less ambiguity in legal terms around Clinton's email server. We don't know for sure what exactly they are looking into, but assuming it's about security, "Secure vs. not secure" isn't really difficult to determine and prosecute.

adaher 06-08-2016 06:59 PM

Now on the poitics of it you are right, but in political terms Clinton vs. Bush isn't the race, it's Clinton vs. Trump, so it's actually Clinton's lack of transparency vs. Trump basically being a fraud in general. Clinton probably wins there too. Although politically, scandal as a member of the government might be frowned upon more than private sector scandal. And as with any scandal, it depends on how it's handled as much as the merits of the scandal itself.

kaylasdad99 06-09-2016 09:42 PM

'Nuff said.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 06-09-2016 11:54 PM

Meh.

Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She claimed that she didn't delete anything very important. The FBI has since recovered most of the emails she deleted.

She knows they are investigating and have all of the evidence. She knows that if she was a liar comma it would be exposed for all to see.

Hillary Clinton has not blinked since the FBI said they recovered all of those emails. This is why, along with the long history of scandals that went up in smoke, I don't think anything will come of this.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.