There is a lot that is just factual wrong in your statements here.
“If she suspected that someone would send her classified information via email then setting up the private server was a crime.” Really? If I told you I might send you classified information to your e-mail address, are you a criminal now? If I send you unlabeled classified information, is it assumed that you do not take handling of classified information seriously?
By the way, I assume Clinton discussed a lot of classified information over e-mail but used a classified network to do so. I don’t understand why people continue to assume that the Clinton server was her only e-mail address at the department.
Again, it wouldn’t even need to be classified, for official use and often even interdepartment communication or official communication would be a breach of security procedures, multiple breaches, which would have most peoples clearance revoked.
Even sending over " business related" emails in the investigation was an admittance of how ever many thousands of security breaches.
Now, here’s the problem, and why I believe politicians get away with this.
If I commit multiple breaches and have my clearance revoked and I’m no longer eligible for my position, fine they can remove me.
Here you have politicians who must have security clearance to do their job but they’re in publicly elected office, you can’t just remove them, and you can’t revoke their clearance thereby making them unable to do their job.
So in effect, they all have immunity from security policies by virtue of being elected.
You don’t have to suppose the FOIA or paranoia had anything to do with it. You just have to know that (1) this was completely normal when it was setup, (2) she continued to use her existing mail system after it was already setup, (3) the state department mail system was a well-know mess that was really dreadful to use and (4) people who had to use the state department mail system understood what a mess it was.
At the time it became a public issue, it was well past the time when people like me, or people like her, were setting up private mail servers, and a competent IT person would have advised against it. But lots and lots and lost of small companies and people like her still had their existing private mail servers, and were still using them.
If she had been getting advice that there was a better system that she should be using, then she would need another explanation. Nobody ever suggested that had happened. Only that she did know better, or that she should have known better. You don’t need paranoia or dishonesty to explain inertia.
12 FAM 531 states “c. You must use, hold, process, or store classified material in data and word processing systems, to include magnetic storage media, only under conditions that will prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access. The Directorate of Cyber and Technology Security (DS/CTS) establishes requirements for the protection of classified information resident on automated information systems (AIS).”’
If I created the email account just to communicate with you and knew when I set it up that classified information would be transmitted via the email then that is in violation of the rules for handling classification.
In the OIG report Clinton is listed as a person who used exclusively a private email account. This is despite the fact that Clinton sent an all-staff cable that said for department employees not to use personal email for business purposes because it is not secure.
You should read wikipedia, the first sentence on executive orders is “In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law”
This was not completely normal in the government. She was advised against it as soon as it was proposed. She was told that using blackberries would not be secure and that she should use a secure computer in her office. She declined to set the computer up and continued to use her blackberry despite being briefed by security that they were vulnerable.
Not properly labeling classified information by accident happens probably dozens of times per day in the single building I work in, and thousands of times per day nation-wide. I’ve never heard of anyone going to prison over it. People get chewed out, and then (perhaps) disciplined, and if it keeps happening maybe they lose their clearance. But no one loses their clearance after a single accidental mislabeling, much less is fired or prosecuted.
And yet it’s not a law. It’s a policy. That’s why you had to gloss over manson1972’s request for the “penalties for it,” because your cite doesn’t list any. Isn’t that strange for a law?
Also, there’s no reason to specifically point to part 2, sec 1.6 covers markings for all classified, derivative classified just has additional marking guidelines based on the source material.
I don’t think they’re stupid. The comment and the argument contained within it was, though - it demonstrated at best a gross misunderstanding of what I stated my position was. I’d prefer to respond to probing questions that tore apart my actual position.
Interesting word, that. What “things” are you talking about?
This goes directly to #2 of the OP. What nefarious purpose was in play here and what did she gain?
Was the security of our country compromised? Was something nefarious hidden? Given that this nonsense was investigated what seems like a dozen times, you’d think something would have come up by now.
And we also know that some of the most accomplished hackers in the world, with the resources of a global power behind them, had significant motivation to both hack into her e-mail and to release whatever they found to the public, but they didn’t do that. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I have been a federal contractor since before email existed and it is not illegal. Departments may set their own policies but there is now a general acceptance that, unless you are working on a secure network (particularly a SCIF), people will occasionally use equipment for personal use. I have been doing work for the Department of Education for 11 years and their policy is that it’s OK if not abused, and there arecertain things you can’t do (porn, gambling, racist content, etc.) and some web sites are prohibited.
However, the smart thing to do is to keep them separate.
When you get into “We know that if they broke into the computer they would have done X; that didn’t happen, so the computer was not broken into” you’ve literally embraced the definition of a fallacy.
Actually if we are certain that persons who broke into the computer would have done X, then it’s rock solid logic of the simplest order. (Modus tollens, specifically.)
If we’re less than 100% certain of the premise about the nefarious persons’ existence and behavior then the resulting conclusion is commensurably less certain, but it’s still sound logic in the rhetorical realm, allowing us to deduce probable conclusions.