Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-29-2016, 04:15 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
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.
  #52  
Old 03-29-2016, 04:34 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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.
  #53  
Old 03-29-2016, 04:37 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #54  
Old 03-29-2016, 05:25 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
<yawn>
  #55  
Old 03-29-2016, 07:16 PM
Stringbean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,829
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.
  #56  
Old 03-29-2016, 07:20 PM
sleestak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sin City
Posts: 3,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
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
  #57  
Old 03-29-2016, 08:07 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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.
  #58  
Old 03-29-2016, 08:27 PM
furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
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.

Last edited by furt; 03-29-2016 at 08:30 PM.
  #59  
Old 03-29-2016, 09:28 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
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.
  #60  
Old 03-29-2016, 10:06 PM
Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
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.
  #61  
Old 03-30-2016, 12:04 AM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,174
I see the usual suspects have arrived to burn the witch...
  #62  
Old 03-30-2016, 08:06 AM
Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
I see the usual suspects have arrived to burn the witch...
You've got to admit, Obama weighs more than a duck.
  #63  
Old 03-30-2016, 08:20 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,088
I heard Hillary turned that Gingrich guy into a Newt!
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #64  
Old 03-30-2016, 08:30 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
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.
  #65  
Old 03-30-2016, 09:43 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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.
  #66  
Old 03-30-2016, 09:51 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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."

Last edited by adaher; 03-30-2016 at 09:52 AM.
  #67  
Old 03-30-2016, 10:06 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
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.
  #68  
Old 03-30-2016, 10:10 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #69  
Old 03-30-2016, 11:20 AM
TheSeaOtter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Strictly nowhere.
Posts: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I heard Hillary turned that Gingrich guy into a Newt!
He didn't get better.
  #70  
Old 03-30-2016, 12:32 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
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
  #71  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:08 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
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.
  #72  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:15 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
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.
  #73  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:21 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #74  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:22 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
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?
  #75  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:38 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
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.
  #76  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:50 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
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.

Last edited by steronz; 03-30-2016 at 01:52 PM.
  #77  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:51 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
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.
  #78  
Old 03-30-2016, 01:53 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
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.
  #79  
Old 03-30-2016, 02:01 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,147
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.
  #80  
Old 03-30-2016, 02:10 PM
furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
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.
  #81  
Old 03-30-2016, 02:11 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
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.
  #82  
Old 03-30-2016, 02:22 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
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.
  #83  
Old 03-30-2016, 02:33 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
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.
  #84  
Old 03-30-2016, 02:37 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,147
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.

Last edited by steronz; 03-30-2016 at 02:38 PM.
  #85  
Old 03-30-2016, 02:54 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #86  
Old 03-30-2016, 03:18 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,603
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.
  #87  
Old 03-30-2016, 03:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
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.
  #88  
Old 03-30-2016, 04:49 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #89  
Old 03-30-2016, 05:17 PM
sleestak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sin City
Posts: 3,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
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
  #90  
Old 03-30-2016, 05:17 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
... 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.
  #91  
Old 03-30-2016, 05:29 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
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.
  #92  
Old 03-30-2016, 06:22 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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.
  #93  
Old 03-30-2016, 07:23 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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.
  #94  
Old 03-30-2016, 07:44 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
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.
  #95  
Old 03-30-2016, 07:45 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
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?
  #96  
Old 03-30-2016, 11:56 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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.
  #97  
Old 04-01-2016, 12:32 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
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.
  #98  
Old 04-01-2016, 12:46 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
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.
  #99  
Old 04-01-2016, 01:21 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-01-2016 at 01:23 AM.
  #100  
Old 04-01-2016, 01:50 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
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.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017