What exactly did Hillary Clinton do that was so bad with the email scandal?

Great Debates
61

My take on this subject, based on military document handling 30 years ago, is that Ms. Clinton was just plain slacking. It’s a well known human weakness to shave a little off one rule, shave a little off another and so on until the procedures are so “holey” as to render it worthless for security. An infamous example is the Soviet cryptographer who failed to encode the spaces between the words of the message. US intelligence quickly had not only that message cracked, but also every message that used that particular code. Typically, it is the responsibility of the document’s originator to determine it’s classification. In my case the standard was “If the enemy had this information, would it damage the military’s ability to do it’s job”. I was told to just stamp everything as “Secret”, it’ll never be anyone’s business to know what we were up to.

I’m imagining many e-mails flashing back and forth and the Good Woman just lost track of where she was in cyberspace … nothing bad happened at that time so she just kept using the wrong e-mail account. Totally slacking, as soon as she found out, she should have stopped what she was doing, file all the paperwork required when classified information is compromised … and go back to work following every rule to the letter, no exceptions.

Classified information isn’t subject to review for 30 years generally, and if still damaging the FOIA request will be denied. I wouldn’t think a mother’s e-mails to her pregnant daughter are subject to FOIA, half of us maybe should be glad Ms. Clinton deleted them.

The whole controversy smells of sexism, guys are supposed to make back-room deals, if there’s a woman there we hear nothing but Victorian indignation. Just because she’s mastered the craft of avoiding FOIA issues doesn’t mean she does, just like catching an expert thief with a handful of diamonds doesn’t mean he stole them, now does it?

62

Right. Any problem faced by the government can be solved by spending more of other people’s money. Sure. :rolleyes:

63

Spending money to solve a problem makes a lot more sense than cutting funding (for such things as security) and then pointing fingers and issuing blame when things go poorly.

The Veterans’ Administration is a poster-child here: funds have been cut for medical care for Veterans, leading to long waiting lists. Some politicians have then pointed at these long waiting lists as an indication that the V.A. is poorly administered.

The deaths in Benghazi came about because Congress turned down State Department requests for security funding.

It seems to be a strange fixation among some conservatives that “government can’t function” and therefore the best response is to cut funding for programs. A pathological vicious circle, but that’s the nature of conservatism these days.

64

A few questions:

  1. How many military personnel with clearances do you suppose have read any of the documents released by Snowden or Manning, and posted on all sorts of media websites, on their work computers? Zero? Dozens? Thousands?
  2. Is this not a security violation potential involving TS/SCI information?
  3. How many of these security violations do you suppose have ended up in prosecutions as you have described above?

Here’s why I ask: because the fact that emails were found to contain highly classified information could be a very serious matter, and it could also be that most people would have no damned idea why it was a big deal at all.

It could also potentially be the case that the information was not classified at the time it was written, but was later viewed to be classified. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say that Clinton had a conversation with some foreign leader in which the leader gave assurances that he would help the US with some important diplomatic activity, or the leader shared an insight on a meeting he had with Putin, or something like that. Clinton then writes an email about it to some other State Department official.

Later, it is judged that the assistance of that leader in the diplomatic maneuver could jeopardize other US interests, or that the insights of the meeting with Putin take on greater sensitivity. Someone then decides that such information needs to be protected, and it becomes classified.

I have no damned idea whether Clinton used the email system in a negligent manner, or if this controversy is a quirk of a classification system that sometimes seems like something out of Catch 22. Since it seems like nobody has seen the content of the emails in dispute, I have no clue how anyone can say with any confidence whether this is a big deal or not.

65

(post shortened)

The FBI will be able to say, with confidence, if classified information was mishandled and indict those who show a pattern of mishandling classified information.

The pundits, campaign surrogates, and media outlets have no access to the ongoing FBI investigation. They can only report on what they think, or what they would like the public to think.

Since Hillary was Sec. of State at the time these documents were being transmitted and received, it’s safe to say that the Sec. of State would have been sending and receiving classified documents. It’s a part of the job. I assume that the FBI is also investigating if the Sec. of State was directing people who did not have the proper clearance(s) to send or read classified documents were in fact sending and reading classified documents.

66

Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests

[QUOTE=New York Times]
The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.

It was only last month that the House committee appointed to investigate Benghazi was provided with about 300 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails related to the attacks. That was shortly after Mrs. Clinton turned over, at the State Department’s request, some 50,000 pages of government-related emails that she had kept on her private account.

It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=New York Times]
In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
[/QUOTE]

67

Do you care about fixing the problem or fixing the blame?

Hah, just kidding. I know the answer.

68

I understand that the Government had other ways of communicating classified information outside of the email system.

69

I can only hope that the FBI is aware that and will give it all do concern.

70

But didn’t Clinton as Sec State have the ability to decide that the email system needed attention and direct her staff to fix the system? Surely she had some control over spending priorities within her own department. Also, wouldn’t Congress need to find out about the problem through Clinton? Tying to dump it on Congress doesn’t make a lot of sense unless Clinton requested the email system be upgraded and Congress nixed the idea. Got any cites that Clinton tried to get the system upgrade or even cared about it at all?

As far as I can tell, Clinton didn’t give a shit about the email system because she never had any plans on using it. The reports are that Clinton never had her official state.gov email address activated.

sez NPR.

Slee

71

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server

[QUOTE=MSNBC]
In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”
[/QUOTE]

72

Come on. It clearly was an attempt to avoid FOIA disclosures. The only way it would get searched is if she turned it over herself. She didn’t until this whole issue blew up. I think it’s pretty telling when clearly non-partisan companies like AP say they weren’t getting FOIA requests filled.

You are seriously saying you think she was using a private server because she wanted to avoid using government resources? You think possibly if she was so altruistic that she wouldn’t have had her staff working side shit for her foundation?

I’m not going to sit here and roast her for every little possible wrong thing she has ever done or make up bullshit conspiracy theories about the Clinton’s, but give me a break, she’s obviously not some saint either. If she wanted to avoid using government resources, the easiest way would be to not be engaged in the foundation while she’s being paid by the government to hold one of the five most important positions in the country. If she’s elected, do you think it would be too much to ask that she devote all of her attention and efforts to her job as President instead of running a separate foundation?

73

Why are we all surprised that a bunch of old people don’t know how to use email properly?

74

Because BENGHAZI TALKING POINT COVERUP!!!

75

I’ll assume this is a whosh.

76

What you may not be aware of is that classified material is never supposed to exist on any computer that is connected to the civilian internet. The government maintains specials classified networks which never cross with unclassified systems (think of it as a completely separate internet). There are actually many of these networks each separate form each other for the very purpose of ensuring that classified information cannot be stored in insecure servers.
There is no way for classified information to get onto the civilian internet (where Hillary’s emails were) without steps being taken to physically copying the data from one network to the other. (think thumbdrive which are banned from such networks or making a cd copy or manually hand jamming). Yet Clinton has a large number of emails which contained information at the highest possible classification level not to mention the fact that many emails she sent were classified by virtue of the fact that she was writing them (for example The secretary of state states an opinion about a foreign leader to the president).
Keep in mind she refused to have any official email address (classified or unclassified) which also made it near impossible for FOIA requests to be performed.

77

I don’t care what the humor-impaired think, that was funny. :D:D:D

78
  1. She exhibited poor judgment in her approach to using her own private server. She did it for personal ease, without consideration to national security.
  2. Whether or not there were items classified as Top Secret or otherwise received or sent from that server is one issue, but she was the freaking Secretary of State, she should have realized that items that came across her inbox or outbox may ultimately become classified as Top Secret.
  3. Since it has come to light, she can’t very well admit to using poor judgment, because what does that say about a candidate for POTUS? So she’s stuck with defending poorly thought out actions with legal nuances…sounds like her husband…depends on what the definition of is is.
  4. Regardless of what she says, this is a significant issue, as it goes to judgment.
79

And the hits just keep on coming.

*Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators

(photo caption)
There are at least three ongoing investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Here’s an explanation of who is investigating, and why. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

*Hillary Clinton foundation rep: We received subpoena
By Laura Koran and Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 6:37 PM ET, Thu February 11, 2016

A representative for the charitable foundation set up by Bill and Hillary Clinton confirmed they received a subpoena from the State Department’s Inspector General, but said they are not the focus of the government watchdog’s investigation.

The Washington Post first reported on the subpoena Thursday, saying it was sent to The Clinton Foundation last fall, and sought “documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state,” as well as records on Clinton aide Huma Abedin.*

Hillary For Prison - 2016?

80

I decided to read through this out of curiosity, having become bored with the sophmoric attacks being hurled at me in the other thread. As expected, it quickly devolved into more wild, mostly irrelevant speculation. I would however, like to emphasize a few “facts” that were mentioned and go through Mr. Chihuahua’s self-ascribed expert posting, just for the record.

Thank You.

And again, Thank You both for avoiding the political trappings. As for the overview:

Entire first half of the post totally un-related, irrelevant tripe.

That would be false. One of the precious few things we actually DO know is that Hillary’s offsite email system does in fact contain very highly classified data.

A sweeping, misleading over-genralization that is for all practical purposes also false. I refer you to Ravenman’s statement, above. People working classified programs certainly are INTIMATELY familiar with classification issues, trained on them, and whole subsections of organizations are established to deal with them. People who have difficulty determining classification matters are quickly removed on a regular basis. If only we could say that about politicians. :smack:

Absolutely false. The difficult thing to discern is exactly who did what, when and their intentions. Don’t even get me started on damage control.

But we’re working on it!