Slashdot Mirror


Justice Dept. Grants Immunity To Staffer Who Set Up Clinton Email Server (washingtonpost.com)

schwit1 writes with this news from the Washington Post: The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email server, a sign the FBI investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is progressing. A senior U.S. law enforcement official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009. As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said. The inquiry comes against a sensitive political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

62 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. FFS, just indict her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have emails from her telling people to take classification markings off. They have found CIA human intelligence on her private server. They have Special Access Program data which everyone with an IQ above 80 outside of the federal government knows is presumed classified. What she did makes Bradley Manning look like a prankster, since she was a cabinet level appointee responsible for overseeing the protection of classified data.

    1. Re:FFS, just indict her by sideslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you follow the link, the Breitbart piece quotes from and summarizes a linked Yahoo News piece by Michael Isikoff. The Isikoff article in turn quotes Congressman Trey Gowdy talked about specific published emails from Hillary's illegal server. Seems adequately substantiated to me. And I disagree with your dismissal of Breitbart, I suspect that claim originates from those who simply don't like their conservative focus. The Brietbart editors certainly make mistakes, but probably no more than some of the larger news gateways and punditry outlets.

  2. Let that be a lesson to any technology worker: by Etcetera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No matter who you are, you're probably not the fish they want to fry.

    Don't incriminate yourself. Then, wait for a deal which allows you to unload on specifically what was asked of you, when, how, and why, and what you said, and what your concerns were.

    You're far more important as a neutral observer than as someone who configured a server.

  3. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by twotacocombo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Him" being Pagliano? If he's being granted immunity, it means he's probably going to talk. If she still gets in, she'll have him disappeared.

  4. Seems legit by Voyager529 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy who pushed the buttons was clearly just following orders, which was "set up a mail server", a relatively common task. Moreover, her statement of "it was above board when I did it" was correct, in that it was contingent upon those e-mails being turned over upon her exit from the position, so the initial setup wouldn't have had reasons to raise suspicions of wrongdoing at that time.

    I see no reason not to grant immunity in this context.

    1. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not at all.

      Anyone with more than half a brain cell doesn't talk until they get such a grant of immunity. It doesn't matter if you've done nothing wrong (or think you have - not a single person on this planet knows every single law that applies to every situation and thus you don't actually know there isn't some obscure sentence somewhere on the books that the prosecutor can twist).

      This is a fundamental part of "don't talk to the police". If they want testimony/information from you they need to give you something in exchange, especially when you haven't actually done anything.

  5. I'm actually OK with this by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as it's a fair investigation, go for it. As crimes go, though, setting up a private server (not explicitly forbidden by the rules) and receiving (not sending) some emails that are retroactively classified, seems to be a fairly minor crime.

    Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?

    1. Re:I'm actually OK with this by ERJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've got to disagree a bit with you. I'm fine with her using her own server for personal email. However, any government business, whether classified or not, should be done through government email servers. That's why we have open record laws is so that we have a level of transparency and, to me, she was blatantly trying to skirt those laws by setting up her own server.

      My 2c. Take it for what it's worth.

    2. Re:I'm actually OK with this by OhPlz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignore the classification issue entirely. The private mail server was a way of dodging accountability by hiding any potential evidence from where investigators would be able to access it. The whole thing was an attack on government transparency and accountability.

    3. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?

      Do you not understand the shit storm that happens in the private sector if someone accidentally sends you classified information? If you don't respond to it instantly in the correct way, you're going to jail.

      I've posted about seeing this happen before. Someone accidentally marked some stuff classified and then uploaded it. The fallout for merely mismarking information as classified and storing it on an unclassified network was instantly killing the network, checking which machines had accessed the server after the information was uploaded (thankfully it wasn't many), and then wiping the server and the machines that had accessed it. Because it was merely mismarked, we were allowed to then restore from backup and disks were just wiped and not physically destroyed.

      That's what happens when you merely misidentify something as classified.

      I've thankfully never seen what happens if there's an actual information contamination.

      Clinton received classified emails on an unclassified system and did nothing. If I did that, I'd be in jail right now. It's utterly indefensible, and in the end, she should - and almost certain will - be in jail.

    4. Re:I'm actually OK with this by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      towed the party line

      "Toed." The idiom does not refer to pulling on a rope; it refers to people standing next to each other with their toes along a line marked on the ground.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:I'm actually OK with this by OhPlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If she thought there'd be leaks, she should have called for an investigation into the security of the government mail servers. You're suggesting she had reason to fear a leak and responded to that by protecting her own email and leaving everything else on the government servers vulnerable.

    6. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just part of the "Most transparent administration in history"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:I'm actually OK with this by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Informative

      She had information that was born classified not retroactively classified. Research before posting.

    8. Re:I'm actually OK with this by Straif · · Score: 4, Informative

      We know Powell used a private email service (not sure which one) because email rules weren't well developed when he was SoS. He claims (and no one has yet to prove otherwise) that all his work related emails included a cc to a state department address which was considered adequate at the time.

      Rice, apparently, rarely used emails and had a .gov email address.

      The State department reviewed both Powell's and Rice's emails (which wasn't requested by anyone) while simultaneously claiming in federal court to not have time to review Hilary's (which they have a standing judicial order to do) and found a few classified documents but they were all State dept documents which the SoS has authority to classify or declassify at will, as opposed to Hilary's which contained all levels of classified documents from several outside agencies.

      Also telling, they had access to Powell and Rice's emails while, until this whole fiasco broke, they had no access to Hilary's.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    9. Re: I'm actually OK with this by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Informative

      Leaking the name of Valerie Plame a CIA agent led to a long investigation with Scooter Libby going to prison.

      Worth noting: Scooter Libby was NOT the leaker. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, confessed almost immediately and was never charged. After Armitage confessed, Libby was caught with an inconsequential lie that the prosecutors ran with. Also worth noting: Libby did NOT go to prison. President Bush commuted his sentence. (Bush removed the jail time but left the fines intact.)

  6. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone seems to forget that it was SOP during the Bush years for everyone to use an email server run by the RNC. That means as soon as anyone except Bernie pulls out the email thing against Clinton, the entire Republican Party will be under withering fire for the same issue. It could easily tilt the balance of the election totally against the republicans and end up as a sweep for the democrats.

    If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US. It could easily turn into a nationwide war on police.

    So everyone needs to tread very carefully and make sure everything gets whitewashed regardless of what the truth really is.

    Captcha:imperial

    Are we sure slashdot's captcha software isn't some sore of psychic AI?

  7. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US.

    You have that exactly backwards. Letting her walk when it's so obvious that she's committed many more counts of the same crime that Patreus was convicted for would demonstrate that some people can avoid consequences for blatant felonies.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  8. A sprat to catch a mackerel by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server, gets immunity in exchange for all he knows, or can be persuaded to "remember".
    Although I'm far from being a Clinton fan, (either of them), there's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity" (often in exchange for unspecified "co-operation") rather than just being confident enough in itself to say "hey, you've done nothing wrong, but we would like to call you as a witness where your civic duty is to tell the truth".

    1. Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, giving people immunity is a tactic that the government uses to compel testimony from a reluctant person - if you've been granted immunity, you can no longer assert the 4th amendment right to remain silent, since you can no longer incriminate yourself. If he refuses to talk after getting immunity, he's going to the jug for contempt of court.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  9. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, they used an RNC server FOR POLITICAL PARTY PURPOSES. It's actually against the law to use Government servers for political party purposes - they are to be used for official Government business only. Now, are you asserting that actual Government work took place on that private server?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  10. Re:Or it's a sign... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are on a fishing expedition driven by political motives.

    Because Obama, who as chief executive controls the FBI, hates fellow-Democrat Clinton and wants her to lose?

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  11. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Obvious" and "proven in a court of law" are very different things.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  12. Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr by slashping · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Making a dress disappear was a bit too much too ask, though.

  13. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, if you're a DNC shill, you think she has done nothing wrong, in spite of the ongoing revelations of secret, classified, and beyond classified documents found on an unsecured server. I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging, and not saying "nothing to see here, move along"

    Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party, and not the crimes.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  14. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified. Removing markings, headers, footers etc. doesn't change the classified nature of it. If you measure what was done with her server (leaving it in her hands to sift through at her leisure, turning over only that which she felt like doing and then wiping the rest) with what happens to ANYONE else when they are even suspected of breaking clearance rules ...

    Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.

    I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  15. Re:This is backwards. by sycodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work in aerospace. EVERY email we send has to be marked as Classified, Company Secret, or Unclassified. Even if you are asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  16. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the Phrase "Marked Classified" is a red herring, and completely irrelevant. Not only that, there is evidence that the markings were REMOVED by her staff (and orders to do so shown), which is ALSO a felony. FURTHER the law doesn't indicate it has to be marked at all. But keep spewing the DNC talking points, as it shows you care more about (D) party than actual security of our people serving overseas (exposed)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  17. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

    House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[edit]
    The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[20]

    At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.
    The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
    Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.
    There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.
    The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

  18. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Think this through with me, please, think.

    Is there anything more dangerous than to indict a popular (within their own political movement) and likely nominee for the office President of the United States?

    Well, yes, electing an unindicted felon, one accused of federal crimes that would disqualify them for civil service.

    But, if indicted and even convicted, could they be elected anyways? This is an interesting potential constitutional issue.

    - Do elections overrule the law, and so require that a President-elect be permitted access to information they have already been found guilty of mishandling in the past?

    - If indicted before nomination, and thence nominated, would any states declare the nominee disqualified? If so, how do they replace the nominee? Wait, which states decide the nominee? Don't most states merely oversee primary elections, and parties hold conventions where those delegates chosen decide the nominee?

    - If indicted after nomination, would a judge be persuaded to void this indictment as being an improper interference in the election?

    I'm proposing that any indictment must occur before nomination, and indeed before the primary process goes far enough to ensure the candidate will be the nominee.

    So it is interesting that today two events are noted in the spew:

    It is claimed that Bryan Pagliano has been granted immunity by the Justice Department to offer testimony regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home.

    And a former U.S. Attorney, Joseph diGenova, claims he is 'confident' that a grand jury has been convened to investigate the issues regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton;s email servers, the handling of classified material at the State Department during her tenure there, and the possible violation of law.

    If this is true, three salient points come to mind:

    0. The timing is probably crisis driven. This can't be rushed, but should/must be completed before Hillary is the presumptive nominee. That may happen pretty soon.

    1. If true, the empaneling of a grand jury indicates the pressure is irresistible from the various government constituencies to 'do something' about this. If so, I doubt that a grand jury can merely whitewash the affair, for if the public reports are even marginally accurate, she is plainly guilty of several felonies, and the primary question is whether these infractions were intentional. Many groups will probably not care about that, as the results of such errors are the same whether intentional or not- lost lives and lasting harm to our nation and others.

    2. And if this is indeed true, then Justice has either been compelled to move on prosecution, or given permission to do so, by the White House.

    I'm not hopeful that this is true because I wish to see Hillary discredited and abandon her campaign. I'm hopeful because she needs to be held to account for her actions. She had the misfortune to be the first credible and likely woman to be a nominee for President, only to be up against the first credible black nominee. Now she should experience the self-inflicted misfortune of being forced to abandon her aspirations to the office due to criminal indictment and conviction.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  19. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's over a thousand items that were classified after the fact, but dozens were top secret or above at the time.

  20. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There were keyhole satellite spy photos which should not have been shared regardless of content (good way for the enemy to determine our capabilities), as well as a few documents apparently manually transcribed from classified sources by one or more interns. And that's just what has been disclosed. It's a wonder she's still free.

  21. Re:This is backwards. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    She might be knowledgeable about the law, which would only require something like "correspondence must be handled in a secure manner". Not being a sysadmin, she would not reasonably be expected to know (without further consultation) that her server was not secure.

    So what? Even if she was ignorant about security, she damn well knew that non-State Department-controlled servers were categorically disallowed because they could be used to circumvent FOIA requests.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  22. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by sexconker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction.
    She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.

  23. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not correct. There were document that were classified from the beginning that were on her server. Not documents retroactively classified. This IS a big deal.

  24. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you understood how items get classified you would understand that wether or not someone said it was classified before or after, the information was still classified upon its creation. And if she didn't have a personal server this wouldn't even be an issue... She chose to have the server she chooses to take all responsibility. Even though she's really just trying to say it's a GOP witch hunt... Ironic she said the same thing before her husband was impeached. Turns out it was all legitimate then and it's all legitimate now.

  25. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Straif · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only people who made that claim were Hillary reps and State department officials who have been trying to slow the entire review process down and cover her and their own asses.

    Of the now thousands of emails found to be classified or above most were classified at the time. Many are what are generally called 'born classified' meaning they contain information that by it's very nature, is always considered classified.

    While the State Department can classify/declassify their own internal documents (which has happened) they have been trying, and failing miserably, at getting the various intelligence organizations to agree to retroactively declassify their materials so that they can make the claim that no classified materials exist in her emails.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  26. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Tharkkun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Those are BORN Classified.

    On an unsecured server? Doubtful.

    Congratulations! You have just outed yourself as a fucking Hillary Kool Aid drinker and cult member.

    As moderate conservative, I'm voting for Hillary. If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, the neocons will vote for Hillary.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

    The laws forbidding using a 3rd party server for communication were put in place AFTER Hilary's email server was shutdown.

  27. Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have emails from her telling people to take classification markings off.

    Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release, such as removing the classified parts and rephrasing. She said the office worker she sent it to knew what she really (fully) meant because he had done it many times before.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201...

    If all my internal emails were interpreted by the public/press verbatim, I'd probably be on trial also.

    Think about your own internal work emails being read and interpreted by bloggers, pundits, and trolls.

    I don't know if her claim is true yet, but until that's determined from the investigation, it should be "innocent until proven guilty".

    Further, note that if she had used the "regular" office server instead of her home server, the classified/problematic emails would probably still end up on a server NOT designed for classified materials. The risk/breach would still exist. (There was a separate transmission system for classified stuff, but it wasn't email as we know it.)

    The regular office server was no more special or vetted than her home server. Pundits keep implying it is.

    I'm not defending her actions, only saying many are jumping to conclusions prematurely. Using a home server is probably not illegal (although the laws are subject to interpretation*), just poor judgement, which she admitted to. Members of the other party made similar errors of judgement.

    * Wealthy people are more likely to afford top lawyers who can successfully argue their side of such vague laws, and in that sense, her "privilege" may indeed just get her out of it. But that's life in an unequal society. OJ would probably lose if he were poor.

  28. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Some of the classified materials on Clinton’s server originated in intelligence agencies outside the State Department and came into the department on a secure, classified network. They were marked as such. They could only be transferred to Clinton’s unsecured network by hand. Each occurrence was a felony. Since the server has now been recovered, the FBI and intelligence agencies know who sent those messages and who received them at the State Department." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

  29. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by sideslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified.

    Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.

    I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.

    And the Special Access Program (SAP) information? The emails that everybody involved, including the recipient Clinton, certainly knew was always and permanently classified? Clinton committed a crime in multiple ways in the handling of that info. Here's an example -- simply leaving the received email on her server in any format that could be read by her own IT staff was a crime. Deleting it and knowing that the bytes might still be on the HDD would also be a crime. Ignoring the situation was a crime.

    Of course, somebody went to great lengths to somehow hop the airgap between the SAP network and the public internet. But even as the recipient, Clinton committed a crime in allowing that email to continue to exist on her server.

    Stop trying to paint her as anything other than a willing lawbreaker on this. Lesser analysts of the State Dept or the TLA intelligence agencies would go to jail right away. It's only the Democratic party's M.O. of corruption while they hold the reins of power that keeps Obama's DOJ from arresting her.

  30. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Straif · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Patreus handed some classified materials to his biographer who also happened to have classified clearance, just not the right ones for some of the materials she apparently was given.

    Some of the emails released, though heavily redacted (up to 100%), from Hillary's emails cache were code-word classified meaning they were generally only to be seen by a very short list of people and only in a secure viewing room. Some of it was so highly classified that the IGs doing the initial investigation weren't even permitted to read them and had to go to the source organizations to have them reviewed.

    The fact that these were on her unsecured server, shared with several underlings without codeword clearance as well as then handed to her lawyer (who also did not have all the required clearances) who stored them in his office without the proper level of security for the types of documents that existed on the storage drive shows a complete disregard for the proper and legally required handling of classified materials.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  31. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Straif · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hillary also deleted her emails originally, then destroyed the servers, then handed over printed copies of the emails she deemed worthy of review. It was only after initial investigations had begun that it was found that she had given a copy to her lawyer and that drive was taken into custody.

    She's cooperated much in the same way an inmate on death row 'cooperates' during his execution; never by choice, only because she was forced into having no alternatives.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  32. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Clinton have far too many suicides of partners in their history. If the FBI doesn't protect the witness, that one will surely die as well.

  33. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trying do some research Potsy:

    "But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

    The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not. "

  34. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction.

    Not entirely true, but your point is irrelevant anyway, because...

    I used to work in the fun little world of TS and above clearances (specifically in a technical role with what eventually became the F-117A Nighthawk). Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified, it never leaves Tonopah Test Range.

    And yes, we had email back then - and so did the academic world. If I had so much as thought of doing what she did, *even if I generated/controlled the data in question*, I'd still be sitting in Fort Leavenworth, a quarter-century-plus later. And, no partisan hacks would be on the blogs or the Sunday TV shows trying to defend the act, either.

    Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  35. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.

    No, the mere fact that the server was used at all is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  36. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Alypius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Storing classified material on an unsecure server (which, to be clear, her server was the definition of unsecure) is in fact a serious crime.

  37. Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are laws against hiding things from FOIA that predate the law you're referring to. Also, the laws around Secret, Top Secret, and more classified material have been around for a long time.

    If this was anyone except the presumptive Democrat nominee, they'd be in handcuffs already.

  38. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Alypius · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, yeah, I have a lot of trust in Director Comey's integrity. He was the guy who threatened to resign rather than renew the warrantless wiretapping program while AG Ashcroft was in the hospital.

  39. Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works by Straif · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Markings are irrelevant. Classified materials are classified regardless of markings and are generally easily identifiable as such (by subject matter or sources) and it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the receiver to identify possibly classified materials and contact the required authorities if (s)he receives them on an unsecured service.

    That's besides the fact that in at least a few of the pieces of correspondence that have been reported on Hillary herself instructed underlings to remove the classification to make it easier to get the info she wanted sent to her.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  40. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if it were true that the markings had been removed before emailing, THAT in itself warrants a major investigation. And we know there is at least one email where someone was instructed to do just that.

    There seems to be almost zero chance that this information wasn't compromised to foreign governments. As if Russia and China didn't know about this and have it breached...

  41. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work in the fun little world of TS and above clearances (specifically in a technical role with what eventually became the F-117A Nighthawk). Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified, it never leaves Tonopah Test Range.

    Not me. I only had a Secret clearance. And that was while I was in the Army. And that was back in the 80's. So we had Soviets and a divided Germany.

    And our instructions were to NEVER talk about ANYTHING work related to ANYONE who did not have a need to know AND a clearance.

    It might not seem like important information to YOU but that is because YOU do not know what OTHER information the enemy has.

    Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?

    Or, to quote Hillary Clinton:

    "Why is there one standard for me and not for everybody else?"

    If we had done things similar, we WOULD be rotting in Leavenworth.

    FUCK! We even had to answer the TELEPHONE with the statement "this line is not secure".

  42. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here you go. Pretty cut-and-dried illegal action there, requesting that the classified mark be removed and send it non-securely. For anyone else, that's not just a firing offense, but one that will get you prosecuted and probably spending time in prison.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  43. GOP showing true mastery of shooting themselves by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (in the foot, of course)

    If the GOP were to manage to somehow knock Hillary out of the race for president, things actually get much worse - not better - for their cause. As much as they hate Hillary, they are overlooking the fact that Sanders beats every GOP candidate in national polling by even larger margins than does Hillary. Knocking her out would only guarantee their defeat.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  44. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    As Secretary of State she had the authority to declare when something is classified or not.

    Only regarding classified information that originated from the state department.

  45. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this is an excellent view. We should collectively try to rise above petty politics and have an objective look at what she did. She needs to go through the due process just like everyone else, no exceptions.

    One could of course argue that there are other immoral or illegal actions closely tied to certain politicians (torture to death for example), but the glass shield needs to be broken somewhere. Once you punch through, the whole illusion of privilege tied to high positions in the political system will come down.

    --
    -SR
  46. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last I heard, there was various HUMINT (some HCS-O) on the server, which is classified from the moment it starts existing, without any classification authority needing to be involved. But, hey, maybe someone else improperly declassified it before putting it on Hillary's server, so there's still a chance that she isn't the one to blame, right?

    This is a fucking embarassment to anyone that holds a security clearance.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  47. Uh, it's the Obama administration by mveloso · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure if you noticed, but Obama is the President and the FBI is running the investigation.

  48. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by larkost · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you read to the bottom, they do clarify that there are two pretty major unknowns in this argument:
    1. Was the contents of the talking points that they were (unsuccessfully) trying to send through the secure fax machine actually secret (at the time), or were they just trying to use it as a convenience?
    2. Did the talking points in question ever get sent over insecure email?

    Both of these have to be "yes" in order for something illegal to have happened. And, as usual in this debate: we have answers to neither question. You can argue that if #1 is true then there was definitely some inappropriate instructions, but #2 has to also be true for actual transgression to have happened.

  49. Warnings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. It only works if you have the proof they need in their case against a "bigger fish"

    2. It only works if the political class chooses to not use YOU as a scapegoat (i.e. blame it all on you, jail you, and tell the public that the case is over)

    3. It only works if the prosecutors have a good case against their "bigger fish"... if not and if YOU have broken the law then you may be the only one going down.

    4. None of this "works" in four favor, if you are the little guy without a good lawyer and the prosecutor is taking an approach to his or her case that does not require your evidence. If you and your evidence are not very helpful to the prosecution, then you are a co-conspirator and may be doing time at the same time as the "big fish" but in worse facilities and with nobody posting bail and no legal team working on your appeals.

    The moral of this story, boys and girls, is that you are always better off doing the right thing and no matter how expedient it may seem to do somebody else's dirty work. You just never know when some cops and lawyers may show up and tell you they are prosecuting somebody for something that happened several years ago and which you might have participated in. Clean hands and a clean conscience are always best.

  50. Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Informative

    And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction. She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.

    You have evidence for this claim? Perhaps a link?

    An image of the email in question, from Hillary. The text says: "If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Technically, that's a federal crime punished by 10 years in prison.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot