These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
If we wanted to receive classified (Confidential or Secret), we had to go to a secure room within the building on a SIPRNet system (see link below).
You were not allowed to even take your phones, electronic devices, and thumb drives into that room.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12449859 EricJ said:
Quote:
she says that the e-mails in question were not "marked" classified at that time.
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a seperate system
even if we get away from parsing English, according to that link, at least 6 emails that she sent from that account were redacted completely because the information, if got it, would be substantially harmful to national security. Can you honestly, deep down honest, say that she was acting responsibly and putting a priority on the country's interest?
What did the emails say?
Deej, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about here. I am not making up the rules and regulations. Even the legal analysts have pointed out she is simply parsing her words with that. She is responsible for protecting all classified material whether marked or unmarked. Period. And again, almost every e-mail correspondence she would have had with a foreign government and many internal ones would have automatically been considered classified. That's why so much stuff that even her staff sorted through has already had to be redacted.
You don't have to believe me.
Again, it doesn't matter if the info was marked classified or not (and the IG ones still has classified sub-markings).
Interestingly what came out this week is the British knew her system was compromised.
Eric as noted in a post above I tried to explain this yesterday. The unclassified server which permits emails includes sensitive but unclassified (SBU). This is for the most part the reason why emails are redacted and NOW are marked confidential. It is also why State indicated info was not classified at the time.
so i dont know what is in the email. not sure how I can respond. And a google news search for [substantially harmful to national security] turns up nothing. do you have a link?
Quote:
.
so i dont know what is in the email. not sure how I can respond. And a google news search for [substantially harmful to national security] turns up nothing. do you have a link?
That is not consistent with what I've read.
It's the fact that the State Department allowed it. Hillary was the Secretary of State, but unless everyone was afraid to death of her, some people have put their careers on the line here.
The Office of Security at State simply should have put the kibosh on all this from the start. It's incredible that this was even allowed to happen.
I don't think everyone fully understand the magnitude of the secrets (Russia, China, Iran, etc) that have been exposed. People's lives may have been put at risk.
So that says "Large portions of those e-mails were redacted before their release, on the argument that their publication could harm national security." That is so open ended I dont know what to make of it. If she called Angela Merkl "unfuckable" in an email, that could harm national security.
Quote:
its in Dune's link above. And I did misspeak. It was redacted completely, it was "large portions were redacted". Mea culpa there.
So that says "Large portions of those e-mails were redacted before their release, on the argument that their publication could harm national security." That is so open ended I dont know what to make of it. If she called Angela Merkl "unfuckable" in an email, that could harm national security.
State made the categorization...it could be launch codes as much as Merkel commentary. I should think that the content or whether it's meh harmful or serious harmful is not up to you or I. But we differ in that I think releasing "harmful" is sufficient to say it was an irresponsible and...harmful? Action.
(1) She is responsible for classified material whether marked or unmarked. Period. There is no question. Think of it logically...just because something is secret but unmarked, it does not mean it must not be protected.
(2) Hillary had Original Classification Authority (OCA). Not many USG employees have this authority. It means she had the power to self-classify documents, including up to TOP SECRET. She was given this authority because she needed it to do her job. Most USG employees with security clearance only have Derivative Classification Authority (use what other people have already classified).
(3) Again, most of her correspondence would have been considered classified simply by its very nature. If the German Foreign Secretary sent her an e-mail about Russian sanctions over the Ukraine, that would have been considered classified. Everyone knows that. She knows that. That's why the stuff you are seeing has been redacted.
If you question was, criminality aside, isnt it irresponsible to have stuff on a private email server that COULD be deemed confidential on re-review, I'd say yeah it's a problem. I dont know if steps were taken to ameliorate any security concerns that would make it more responsible. It seems so odd to me that you'd do private server emails that I feel like Im missing part of the story. But a lot of people just jump to conclusions and fill in blanks on this story without knowledge. So as I've said, I'll waith until an actual investigation is complete to draw conclusions. I dont know why that is such a repugnant position.
Again mentioned in my post of yesterday. When controversy first came up, about the 2 "top secret emails" state disputed. But since there was a disagreement and not all emails had been reviewed, FBI was asked to check out server to make sure it had appropriate security. Wanted to assess damage if any.
Biden or Warren or someone else has to jump in at this point. This is out of her hands now as long as there isn't White House pressure to stop the investigation (I'm not sure Obama would risk that for HRC at this point).
I don't think this is all doom and gloom for the Democrats. The Trump campaign really has screwed the Republicans.
This is going to be a really weird election.
(1) She is responsible for classified material whether marked or unmarked. Period. There is no question. Think of it logically...just because something is secret but unmarked, it does not mean it must not be protected.
That logic doesnt make sense to me. IF you get a document and dont know that it has classified material, and isnt marked classified, the DOJ can come by 5 years later and say it should have been classified and you therefore mishandled classified material? Go to jail now? How can you possibly know if you're complying with the law?
Essentially what you're saying is that every document must be handled as if it was classified, because, well you never know. So why is there any email at State? if everything is maybe classified?
2) Michael Bloomberg (if being Jewish isn't a deal-breaker).
If something is TOP SECRET or SECRET, it is obvious. It's not hard.
A confidential document could be more difficult. I've used this example before but that would be along the lines of "U.S. Ambassador to Japan Kennedy had a dinner conversation with Prime Minister Abe about the Japanese domestic political situation." But even that would be obviously considered sensitive to to an experienced USG employee. (And again, as I mentioned above, it's been pointed out that the IG documents that had their TOP SECRET markings removed at the top still had the clear sub-markings on them).
But to get back to my point. A TOP SECRET document would have things like, "Iranian political opposition report from the CIA". It doesn't matter if her staff or State wiped the markings from it...it's clearly classified and highly classified.
Beyond all the "official" cables, reports, etc., she knew her personal correspondence with foreign ministers and the NSA and other high-ranking officials (including the President) would be considered classified.
so i put [security expert hillary] into google news. First hit, from CBS:
...
Clinton's critics have focused on the unusual, home-brew email server Clinton used while in office and suggested that she should have known that secrets were improperly coursing through an unsecure system, leaving them easily hackable for foreign intelligence agencies. But to prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information - not that she should have known.
A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced. And among the thousands of documents made public, nothing appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret material Petraeus and Deutch mishandled.
Link - ( New Window )
In any event, Im off to bed so I'll continue this in the AM.
It's the fact that the State Department allowed it. Hillary was the Secretary of State, but unless everyone was afraid to death of her, some people have put their careers on the line here.
The IG already found two TP documents.
But even if they didn't, as it states in the article, "A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced."
Unless she actually didn't do her job, there is no way this is true. She could not have done her job without receiving information electronically and she and her staff used an unsecure server, unsecure blackberries, and unsecure e-mail. Again, that's why so much has been redacted.
I feel like you aren't think about this logically. Do you honestly think she deleted 30,000 personal e-mails and then had the servers wiped and blackberries destroyed for no reason? She has changed her story every few weeks on this as soon as she has been caught in a fib.
I've made my case on this with you. We'll see what the FBI does. But she's broken the law. I listed the few links above you asked me where she has. (We haven't even talked about that she did not have the legal authority to wipe the server - it wasn't her property as soon as she was doing USG business on it. She also wasn't allowed to destroy it because there was a Congressional investigation...she could be charged with obstruction of justice).
In my job, if I get caught with a security violation, my Office of Security would not give a rats ass if knew the rules or not. That's why every year we took mandatory IT Security and regular Security training courses and had to sign that we accepted the responsibility to protect the information. In other words, their attitude was YOU DO KNOW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BECAUSE YOU WERE TAUGHT. Ignorance/forgetfulness of the rules would not have been any defense.
2) Michael Bloomberg (if being Jewish isn't a deal-breaker).
Warren isn't running. Posted this earlier from an MSNBC articule.
"Warren has repeatedly said she’s not running for president in 2016 and in August, disavowed Ready for Warren via her lawyer. “This letter serves as a formal disavowal of the organization and its activity,” Warren’s attorney wrote to the Federal Election Commission. “The Senator has not, and does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization’s activities"
Also Bloomberg as said he would run if he thought he had a chance to win as an Independent. But impossible as an Independent so will not run.
When I left the USG, all my Secret documents had to be accounted for. I had to sign a separation agreement that I turned everything over and would not reveal anything. They inspected my safe. I had to undergo a mandatory debriefing.
What I can't still figure out too is how she was allowed to maintain the classified info on her system once she separated from the USG. It didn't belong to her. She was required by law to turn it in, but the State Department didn't insist that she did so.
Like I've said, a whole lot of people should be in trouble here. It's not just her.
You can argue about semantics all you want. She is unfit to be President and was likely unfit to be SoS.
In my job, if I get caught with a security violation, my Office of Security would not give a rats ass if knew the rules or not. That's why every year we took mandatory IT Security and regular Security training courses and had to sign that we accepted the responsibility to protect the information. In other words, their attitude was YOU DO KNOW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BECAUSE YOU WERE TAUGHT. Ignorance/forgetfulness of the rules would not have been any defense.
Your Security Office wouldn't care whether you "knew" it was classified and would likely have you fired, but I don't believe there would be enough to proceed with a criminal case against you. Plenty have been fired/reprimanded for mishandling classified material that *should* have been marked, but far fewer have been imprisoned for it.
I believe that's where you and Deej are talking past each other.
You are confused. She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act. The DOJ investigation (still not clear whether it is criminal) is something else entirely. The only thing we know about that is that she did turn over the server recently.
Quote:
she surrendered. It really is unacceptable for her to be the decider re: which EMails were personal and which were not. I have never heard of a criminal investigation in which the suspect can selectively turn over evidence. A neutral 3rd party should have made those decisions.
You are confused. She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act. The DOJ investigation (still not clear whether it is criminal) is something else entirely. The only thing we know about that is that she did turn over the server recently.
Once again, here's the conundrum based on yesterday's WaPo article. She WROTE and SENT e-mails from her private server that were later classified as Top Secret. There was no opportunity nor process to vet those communications before transmission. You seem to be saying there's carte blanche to end run the system if you complete the transmission before the safeguards have a chance to kick in.
Quote:
she surrendered. It really is unacceptable for her to be the decider re: which EMails were personal and which were not. I have never heard of a criminal investigation in which the suspect can selectively turn over evidence. A neutral 3rd party should have made those decisions.
You are confused. She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act. The DOJ investigation (still not clear whether it is criminal) is something else entirely. The only thing we know about that is that she did turn over the server recently.
My understanding is that she DID NOT turn over approximately 30,000 e-mails that she and her representative, not any independent reviewer, deemed personal.
It's an issue because of what she did in the first place. The single account, the melding of business, personal, and personal business, the private-unsecure-stored-in-a-bathroom server were conscious decisions. It's the actions, not so much the story which is the problem. Although I do agree that her susbequent fabrications about her actions hurt her hugely as well
It will be interesting to see what the next poll shows, but its also worth noting that the ~15% Biden is pulling in almost entirely goes to Clinton when he's excluded, as well.
Quote:
and only to a degree her actions.
I suppose. The true answer to that will only likely come when (if) we find out how many of our national secrets China now possesses.
Don't you mean China, Russia, North Korea, Israel and probably France, Germany and the UK thrown in for good measure?
Who are you going to vote for, Eric? :)
Who are you going to vote for, Eric? :)
Nothing cones of this. That's a rather gigantic leap of faith.