right, but Im on the side of innocent until proven guilty. Whereas there are a lot of voices on this thread screaming like Redd Foxx that (finally) "THIS IS THE BIG ONE".
Those who like HRC, think this is a witch hunt. Those who don't like her, think she is hiding something. You'll never change minds on this subject.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
right, but Im on the side of innocent until proven guilty. Whereas there are a lot of voices on this thread screaming like Redd Foxx that (finally) "THIS IS THE BIG ONE".
Or it could be one of the thousand cuts (no criminality but highly questionable ethics) that eventually prove fatal.
I don't care what's been proven or is provable, I don't care who has Â
done what in the past, or what kind of excuses or justifications anyone can come up with. If you don't know in your gut that the Clinton's are dishonest at their cores then something is amiss is the cosmos. Not to say that most politicians don't fit the same mold, the Clinton's have just had more time and ability to perfect the art.
she didn't "request" to use this server. She was told by her employer at the time (President Obama) that she should use a .gov address, but chose to use her own private server anyway. Just as she was asked to keep Blumenthal out of her administration, yet chose to continuously consult him anyway.
what they have done is justified further investigation on the grounds of both sets of regulations (secrecy visa vis the enemy and transparency visa vis the people)
The elephant in the room being that they know the Clintons wont is to push the envelope and that something over and above those two will rear its head, assuming they can find any missing emails.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
yes but not every USC employee is married to an ex President
The Secret Service set up the server for Bill Clinton and any reasonable person would assume that it would be extremely secure. Do you think She would have turned down SOS job if USC IT department said no to this request?
They said Ok so she did it .. If there is someone at fault it is the IT and Security Departments of Federal Government not Clinton
In addition I would assume most SOS sensitive business is NOT handled by email which is the most vulnerable modern communication
Quote:
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Yes the optics reek so the Republicans will correctly keep on pushing this
because that is all they have BENAGAZI!!!!!!!!!!!
Im generally a Hillary supporter but I dont think this specifically is a witch hunt (who are the witch hunters? Obama's State and Intel IGs? Not exactly the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy).
You'd said (and have essentially said before):
Quote:
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
Im not an expert, but this appears wrong. If the issue were that cut and dry, there couldnt even be a debate. And if you (or more relevantly, HRC who may not be subject to the same rules as all gov't employees) cant use private email for any goverment work -- period -- then why does 36 CFR 1236.22(b) provide a requirement that agencies preserve Federal Records sent or received "using a system not operated by the agency":
Quote:
(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail 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 recordkeeping system.
There wouldnt be a regulation for private email backup if private email wasnt allowed. Indeed, the linked WSJ article (hardly HRC fanboys), if correct, expressly contradicts what you were told:
Quote:
Federal laws and regulations on preserving government records only recently have begun to catch up with how U.S. officials communicate, a fact highlighted by the public stir over Hillary Clinton’s private email use as secretary of state.
The Federal Records Act requires government agencies to preserve records documenting the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions” of an agency’s business. But it was only last year that Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law with a series of modern-day changes to improve recordkeeping and preservation.
The 2014 overhaul, which postdates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, placed explicit limits on agency officials using private email accounts for official business. The new law said agency officials can’t create or send a government record on a private account unless they also copy or forward the email to their official government email address.
The National Archives and Records Administration in September 2013 issued guidance to federal agencies that said federal employees generally shouldn’t use personal email accounts to conduct official business, except in limited situations, such as during emergencies when an official may not be able to access an official account.
That 2013 guidance, which also postdated Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, replaced a 2008 memo on federal recordkeeping that didn’t specifically address email records.
The investigatio is going to look partisian and vindictive. THey may find some trangressions according to the letter of the law, for which the average person would consider any punishment unjust. She will gain sympathy and support.
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
So NY Times has changed title of the article and walked back their allegation
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state - ( New Window )
why the investigation might be a good thing for HRC. You get the Justice Department investigating her, and assuming they don't lynch their own, she's given a clean bill of health and can say there was nothing to see here.
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
If I could, I would send you the online training course we were mandated to take every year on cybersecurity.
I dont doubt you were told in training that you cant use private email. But as clearly demonstrated in the sources I excerpted, that's simply not the law as it applied while HRC was SoS. Right?
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
She should've had an independent 3rd party determine what was valid. And (as the NYT reported) she did delete records pertinent to her position as SoS.
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
So if the IG of a John Kerry DOS refers a matter to Loretta Lynch's DOJ any significant finding would be a function of the bias of the investigators?
So is it Hillary or Saint Hillary?
RE: RE: RE: Whether there is an indictment is not important Â
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
RE: Can't see how HRC will be negatively affected. Â
The investigatio is going to look partisian and vindictive. THey may find some trangressions according to the letter of the law, for which the average person would consider any punishment unjust. She will gain sympathy and support.
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
SO, why don't you take this "anything goes" approach with every politician?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Whether there is an indictment is not important Â
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
Not sure I disagree, but we have talked about nuances in other threads. I'm not sure "you don't look fat in that dress" is the same thing as "give me all your money and as prince of Nigeria I will give it to you back ten-fold". I suppose reasonable people can disagree.
However, more often than not, I am like you and have fewer gray areas. As I have said many times on this site, I think Javert gets a raw deal. He is completely in the right.
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
it's more of a you just cannot make the statement that she only deleted what was about Bill and sent over what wasn't. I honestly don't think you would accept that if it was..not even a Republican..a non-political case.
I hear you and I understand what you are saying about the links to the article posted above.
All I can you is this: I had "Secret" clearance. We were not allowed to use personal e-mail for work business even with unclassified material. The reason? The security of the networks.
The problem for HRC is that much of her non-classified e-mail probably was so sensitive that it could or should have been classified. It's simply the nature of the position of Secretary of State. Almost every conversation she had about a foreign country was probably sensitive. (i.e., if she had an online conversation about Putin and the Ukraine or China's island creation in the South China Sea, etc.). It would be impossible for her to do her job without being able to have these types of online conversations.
The USG networks - as we have seen - are vulnerable too. But the private-sector ones are extremely vulnerable.
********
Again, as I said above. If you like HRC, this is a witch hunt. If you don't like her, the e-mail/server issue isn't really THE issue (though it's the one that I'm making a big deal out of). The issue for those who don't like her is they assume she erased the e-mails/server to cover up something. Either side isn't going to convince the other. But that's the dynamic at play here.
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
Er, I hope you know that every email you send or receive is stored on a server, not your PC. Even if you delete them, they still exist. That is why Clinton wanted her own server. She decided to combine her personal and work emails, so she has to turn all of them over.
And I am not allowed to use personal email for work purposes. And I don't have classified emails.
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
The OIG Memos - ( New Window )
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
Im not sure I understand the question. But my point actually comes from a different angle. Im a commercial litigator. Email preservation, review, and production is at the heart of what I do for a living. It's the best evidence ever. My point is this -- if you need to shred a one-off document you have, you can shred it and it's gone.
Need to secret an email you were on? Good. Fucking. Luck. Oh, I'll wipe my server, problem solved. But really wipe, since data recovery techniques are fairly effective. Oh, and devices -- gotta wipe your laptop, phone, tablet etc. And again, probably better to go Lindsey Graham on them because of data recovery. Problem solved? Nooooo. Everyone always forgets about backups. Gotta wipe the backups too (Im trying to purge some emails from my backup right now, and Im in week 5 of the ordeal). Ok, finally, my emails are deleted! Now I just have to find the person who sent me the email and destroy their server, phone, laptop, tablet, and backup tapes. I just hope they let me, and that there server/backups arent US government property and already sent to the archives. Email is like the herpes of evidence -- that shit is basically forever.
Buford: So because you cant use private email at your job...? Because HRC was decidedly allowed to do it at her job.
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
are cynical about Hillary and her emails is ass backwards. I understand being uncomfortable with her using her own server and personal email account for government business - I think even her supporters aren't willing to defend her on the decision to do that.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
You dont have to believe me. I linked the memos.
I don't think I have never not believed you. Not sure why you would say that. Don't agree with, don't understand, can't fathom your pov..yeah...but if you say it, I don't disbelieve it.
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
are cynical about Hillary and her emails is ass backwards. I understand being uncomfortable with her using her own server and personal email account for government business - I think even her supporters aren't willing to defend her on the decision to do that.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
She retained a lot of these e-mails on her server long after she left government. Now, you can say she just would have deleted them while she was in office. On the other hand, they might have been archived somewhere else in the DOS's system.
are cynical about Hillary and her emails is ass backwards. I understand being uncomfortable with her using her own server and personal email account for government business - I think even her supporters aren't willing to defend her on the decision to do that.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
We don't know what we don't know which is why having on ly one person in possession impedes everything. One thing we do know, which she may have wanted to keep hidden, is that her boss specifically instructed her to keep Blumenthal far away from gov't affairs and she failed to do so. She may have wanted top keep that hidden, not from public or Congress, but from her boss.
RE: RE: I just think that the logic of those who Â
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
Well I dont know what any agency/investigator has concluded that HRC's email conduct was totally legal. Just that these memos have nothing to do with an investigation like that.
I dont really understand the problem with the initial possession angle. As I posted above, using a personal email account was at the time completely legal. It was stupid and the law has changed, but legal at the time. So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
Maybe she mishandled emails. I dont know. But I havent seen any evidence of it. Just a bunch of people expressing best practices that were not the applicable law at the time. Oh, the horror.
Those who like HRC, think this is a witch hunt. Those who don't like her, think she is hiding something. You'll never change minds on this subject.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
What are the grounds? People flapping their arms in ignorance does not create grounds for a criminal investigation.
I think that considering 100% of her correspondence Â
was on a private account, it would not be out of line to investigate if there was classified material on it, since it's acknowledged that there is material that was classified after it was vetted when she released it. You say that they are not comparable but the investigation precedent is Petraeus.
The lines are, at a minimum: SoS receives and issues tons of classified correspondence. SoS uses private email for 100% of electronic correspondence. Former SoS self-selects what material to turn over to State (doing it under duress as well). Once material was actually collected and examined by State, a large amount was classified as being classified.
It's really some great conspiracy to want someone to look to see if there were other materials that were classified at the time?
So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
But the deletions occurred predominantly during or after 2014. At a minimum I'd like a little clarity as to what the rules were (law was) at the time of the deletions.
Does it prove HRC is unfit for office? Does it convince her supporters (I am not one) to switch to another candidate?
When in situations like this its not what you have but what you do with it. GOP consistently tries to smear their opponents without promoting a clear alternative. Smearing a woman, particularly HRC, backfires. Its about winning, and I would not consider this a winnng strategy
Yes. What you're suggesting is to launch an investigation on a whim. Evidence of lawful conduct should not beget an investigation into whether unlawful conduct, maybe, just maybe, happened. What you're calling for is called a "fishing expedition". And probably an expensive one at that.
Moreover, I'd bet betting that government employees arent emailing around classified documents (pretty sure I've read that). Especially to outside email addresses. Classified and unclassified docs are just treated very separately. If that's right there would be no reason at all to believe that she was, just maybe, being emailed classified documents.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Or it could be one of the thousand cuts (no criminality but highly questionable ethics) that eventually prove fatal.
The elephant in the room being that they know the Clintons wont is to push the envelope and that something over and above those two will rear its head, assuming they can find any missing emails.
yes but not every USC employee is married to an ex President
The Secret Service set up the server for Bill Clinton and any reasonable person would assume that it would be extremely secure. Do you think She would have turned down SOS job if USC IT department said no to this request?
They said Ok so she did it .. If there is someone at fault it is the IT and Security Departments of Federal Government not Clinton
In addition I would assume most SOS sensitive business is NOT handled by email which is the most vulnerable modern communication
Yes the optics reek so the Republicans will correctly keep on pushing this
because that is all they have BENAGAZI!!!!!!!!!!!
You'd said (and have essentially said before):
Im not an expert, but this appears wrong. If the issue were that cut and dry, there couldnt even be a debate. And if you (or more relevantly, HRC who may not be subject to the same rules as all gov't employees) cant use private email for any goverment work -- period -- then why does 36 CFR 1236.22(b) provide a requirement that agencies preserve Federal Records sent or received "using a system not operated by the agency":
There wouldnt be a regulation for private email backup if private email wasnt allowed. Indeed, the linked WSJ article (hardly HRC fanboys), if correct, expressly contradicts what you were told:
The Federal Records Act requires government agencies to preserve records documenting the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions” of an agency’s business. But it was only last year that Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law with a series of modern-day changes to improve recordkeeping and preservation.
The 2014 overhaul, which postdates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, placed explicit limits on agency officials using private email accounts for official business. The new law said agency officials can’t create or send a government record on a private account unless they also copy or forward the email to their official government email address.
The National Archives and Records Administration in September 2013 issued guidance to federal agencies that said federal employees generally shouldn’t use personal email accounts to conduct official business, except in limited situations, such as during emergencies when an official may not be able to access an official account.
That 2013 guidance, which also postdated Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, replaced a 2008 memo on federal recordkeeping that didn’t specifically address email records.
Link - ( New Window )
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state - ( New Window )
The NY Times is right wing?
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
I dont doubt you were told in training that you cant use private email. But as clearly demonstrated in the sources I excerpted, that's simply not the law as it applied while HRC was SoS. Right?
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
She should've had an independent 3rd party determine what was valid. And (as the NYT reported) she did delete records pertinent to her position as SoS.
Quote:
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
So if the IG of a John Kerry DOS refers a matter to Loretta Lynch's DOJ any significant finding would be a function of the bias of the investigators?
So is it Hillary or Saint Hillary?
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
SO, why don't you take this "anything goes" approach with every politician?
Quote:
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
Not sure I disagree, but we have talked about nuances in other threads. I'm not sure "you don't look fat in that dress" is the same thing as "give me all your money and as prince of Nigeria I will give it to you back ten-fold". I suppose reasonable people can disagree.
However, more often than not, I am like you and have fewer gray areas. As I have said many times on this site, I think Javert gets a raw deal. He is completely in the right.
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Quote:
In comment 12383803 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
All I can you is this: I had "Secret" clearance. We were not allowed to use personal e-mail for work business even with unclassified material. The reason? The security of the networks.
The problem for HRC is that much of her non-classified e-mail probably was so sensitive that it could or should have been classified. It's simply the nature of the position of Secretary of State. Almost every conversation she had about a foreign country was probably sensitive. (i.e., if she had an online conversation about Putin and the Ukraine or China's island creation in the South China Sea, etc.). It would be impossible for her to do her job without being able to have these types of online conversations.
The USG networks - as we have seen - are vulnerable too. But the private-sector ones are extremely vulnerable.
********
Again, as I said above. If you like HRC, this is a witch hunt. If you don't like her, the e-mail/server issue isn't really THE issue (though it's the one that I'm making a big deal out of). The issue for those who don't like her is they assume she erased the e-mails/server to cover up something. Either side isn't going to convince the other. But that's the dynamic at play here.
Quote:
In comment 12383894 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12383803 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
Er, I hope you know that every email you send or receive is stored on a server, not your PC. Even if you delete them, they still exist. That is why Clinton wanted her own server. She decided to combine her personal and work emails, so she has to turn all of them over.
And I am not allowed to use personal email for work purposes. And I don't have classified emails.
Quote:
In comment 12383894 Deej said:
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
The OIG Memos - ( New Window )
Quote:
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
The OIG Memos - ( New Window )
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Quote:
In comment 12383934 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12383894 Deej said:
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
Im not sure I understand the question. But my point actually comes from a different angle. Im a commercial litigator. Email preservation, review, and production is at the heart of what I do for a living. It's the best evidence ever. My point is this -- if you need to shred a one-off document you have, you can shred it and it's gone.
Need to secret an email you were on? Good. Fucking. Luck. Oh, I'll wipe my server, problem solved. But really wipe, since data recovery techniques are fairly effective. Oh, and devices -- gotta wipe your laptop, phone, tablet etc. And again, probably better to go Lindsey Graham on them because of data recovery. Problem solved? Nooooo. Everyone always forgets about backups. Gotta wipe the backups too (Im trying to purge some emails from my backup right now, and Im in week 5 of the ordeal). Ok, finally, my emails are deleted! Now I just have to find the person who sent me the email and destroy their server, phone, laptop, tablet, and backup tapes. I just hope they let me, and that there server/backups arent US government property and already sent to the archives. Email is like the herpes of evidence -- that shit is basically forever.
Buford: So because you cant use private email at your job...? Because HRC was decidedly allowed to do it at her job.
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
You dont have to believe me. I linked the memos.
But damage done, right? She did "it"!
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
Quote:
move along.....
But damage done, right? She did "it"!
"I feel your pain." - Chris Christie
Quote:
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
You dont have to believe me. I linked the memos.
I don't think I have never not believed you. Not sure why you would say that. Don't agree with, don't understand, can't fathom your pov..yeah...but if you say it, I don't disbelieve it.
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
She retained a lot of these e-mails on her server long after she left government. Now, you can say she just would have deleted them while she was in office. On the other hand, they might have been archived somewhere else in the DOS's system.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
We don't know what we don't know which is why having on ly one person in possession impedes everything. One thing we do know, which she may have wanted to keep hidden, is that her boss specifically instructed her to keep Blumenthal far away from gov't affairs and she failed to do so. She may have wanted top keep that hidden, not from public or Congress, but from her boss.
I'd say with respect to the Sid Blumenthal e-mails the possibility was roughly 100%.
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
Well I dont know what any agency/investigator has concluded that HRC's email conduct was totally legal. Just that these memos have nothing to do with an investigation like that.
I dont really understand the problem with the initial possession angle. As I posted above, using a personal email account was at the time completely legal. It was stupid and the law has changed, but legal at the time. So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
Maybe she mishandled emails. I dont know. But I havent seen any evidence of it. Just a bunch of people expressing best practices that were not the applicable law at the time. Oh, the horror.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
What are the grounds? People flapping their arms in ignorance does not create grounds for a criminal investigation.
The lines are, at a minimum: SoS receives and issues tons of classified correspondence. SoS uses private email for 100% of electronic correspondence. Former SoS self-selects what material to turn over to State (doing it under duress as well). Once material was actually collected and examined by State, a large amount was classified as being classified.
It's really some great conspiracy to want someone to look to see if there were other materials that were classified at the time?
But the deletions occurred predominantly during or after 2014. At a minimum I'd like a little clarity as to what the rules were (law was) at the time of the deletions.
Does it prove HRC is unfit for office? Does it convince her supporters (I am not one) to switch to another candidate?
When in situations like this its not what you have but what you do with it. GOP consistently tries to smear their opponents without promoting a clear alternative. Smearing a woman, particularly HRC, backfires. Its about winning, and I would not consider this a winnng strategy
Moreover, I'd bet betting that government employees arent emailing around classified documents (pretty sure I've read that). Especially to outside email addresses. Classified and unclassified docs are just treated very separately. If that's right there would be no reason at all to believe that she was, just maybe, being emailed classified documents.