First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony.
It only looks like that if you don't know much about how classified information works. Read up on it from a source that isn't referring to Hillary Clinton, and then match that up to what she did.
Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about.
Where is the evidence that she created security holes which were exploited? An unreliable source is quoted as saying she did? Personally, I wouldn't trust a government server to keep my emails safe from prying eyes.
The last sentence is pretty key to this. We know the State Department email system was breached at least twice while she was Secretary of State.
Which is why the information could not be electronically transferred and required that a human being look at it on the screen of the secure system and then transcribe it by hand to the insecure system. Which is what Clinton had here aids do.
There is no proof she ever had her aids do that.
There is no doubt that she should be prosecuted just for attempting to avoid the FOIA, which is the reason the server existed to begin with.
I'm sorry, I'm going to need a citation for the claim that "there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi)". As far as I'm aware, the only confirmed "missing" emails are 15 from Blumenthal. Everything else has turned up.
I was pretty stunned when they granted him immunity. All he has to do is mimic Col. North and say, paraphrasing Col. North, "Everything I was told to do was legal and proper, everything that was a crime I take full responsibility for".
As soon as that happened, the case disappeared unless he decides to testify against her. Even then, it's not a strong case, unless they have written proof.
She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails.
Such a system did not exist until after Sect. Kerry became the Secretary of State. Until that time email retention was supposed to be done by printing a copy and ensuring that it was available for archiving. That's exactly what Ms. Clinton did; she printed copies of the emails that were related to her duties as Secretary of State and turned them over.
In case the analogy wasn't clear: when a court orders you to turn stuff over, you don't get to pick and choose what to turn over.
Ah, but see, that's not what happened. She was ordered to turn over her work related emails, which she did do.
Oh by the way, she (or people working under her direction, same diff) printed the emails on paper, and handed over the paper. This senseless destruction of trees was just to make things harder for the people trying to sift through her emails, but of course all it did was waste some time; the feds have document scanners and OCR, and turned the paper back into searchable data. It was just sort of a little "fuck you" from Hillary to the people filing FOIA against her.
Actually no, it was the requirement. An electronic copy was not sufficient to meet the archiving requirements.
It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.
Do you have proof that was her intention? If not, stop making such claims.
And then direct your underlings to strip classification markings from secure data and "send it insecure".
Nope, she didn't do that. She told them, and this is the direct quote "If they can't [send it via secure fax], turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Turn it into "nonpaper w no identifying header" doesn't mean copy and pasting it into a different system. It's rewriting the content in a way that is not classified and removing the State Department headers so it is not quotable as an official source. It has nothing to do with removing classification markers. To do that would be illegal.
The really interesting part of this is that the content probably wasn't classified anyway. Talking points rarely are, since the purpose it to give the information to the press.
Oh, and BTW, the information was sent by secure fax.
So when you wrote...
Oh yeah, there are emails from Hillary!'s server where she tells an aide to to just that.
and
Hillary! told her aides to remove the markings!
You are misstating the facts. I'm going to assume you didn't know better, so I won't accuse you of lying. But if you say the same thing again, you will be lying.
I'm not claiming that we don't have inspectors saying the email contained classified material; that'd be stupid. What I'm asking about are your claims of the actual content in those emails, like your repeated claims of satellite imagery.
Can you share those sources for people that have actually reviewed the classified material that there were, as you claim, classified satellite imagery of North Korea in the email? All I've seen is conjecture and anonymous sources.
There were no policies against having a private email server, and your claim of personal gain is unfounded, as is your claim that she cut out basic security procedures.
You've misquoted the data. The.78 is washing one hand only with water. The baseline, not washing, is 1.00.
Washing without soap decreases the spread of that particular illness by a third. That's quite effective. As I said, any soap will make it better, in the study I linked to using soap decreased it another third beyond washing without soap.
Nobody is suggesting that washing your hands after going to the bathroom sterilizes your hands. Nobody needs that, though. Washing your hands for 20 second gets rid of the majority of germs on your hands. There's experimental proof to show that.
I do it all the time. As the CDC suggests, I sing the tune "Happy Birthday" in my mind, usually twice, while doing it. I've taught my daughter to do the same.
I don't really care if people think I'm weird for washing my hands well. I rarely get sick, and it's because I wash my hands. That said, I've been doing it for years, and nobody, at least not so I've noticed, has looked at me funny.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that you can remove all pathogens. The comment you responded to said, "most pathogens". That's true. Hand washing for 20 seconds does remove most pathogens.
You do know lying doesn't help make your case, right? Ms. Lerner did not erase her hard drive; it had a physical failure. She did not destroy any of her emails. The tapes they were archived on were re-used because the IRS had insufficient funding (despite asking for years) to put in place a long term email archiving program. Ms. Lerner resigned when she was informed that she was about to be fired.
Exactly! People point out all these statutes, over and over again. It appears they are merely trying to overwhelm everybody, hoping people will believe she must have done something wrong just because there are so many statutes. Ask for proof of what, exactly, rose to the level of breaking which specific statute, and you get nothing but crickets. Based on the currently available evidence, we cannot say whether she has or has not broken the law.
You make a claim that I find interesting. You wrote, "Hillary Clinton skipped all those steps" - do you have proof that Ms. Clinton skipped proper procedure to declassify material? I certainly haven't seen such. We know the request for taking points doesn't apply, since they were sent via secure fax, not email.
There is a standing order that all classified emails must be sent using SIPRNet. She did use it, but evidently rarely, as it's challenging to use. She predominantly used paper for classified material.
Simply using a private server is not evidence of intent to do wrong or negligence.
No, sorry, you're making things up, but due to your writing, it's hard to know exactly how to respond. I'll try, though.
The State Department's email system is also non-classified, and available on mobile devices. Those devices, though, must only be used for government work. So, if what you are claiming is that she wanted to use a single device for both her personal and work email, and the State Department said no, you are correct. That makes sense.
She never asked her aides to send her classified material. She did ask, in one case, to have talking points that were stored in a classified system, rewritten so they could be sent to her via a non-secure system. That's a common practice and is in no way illegal. It doesn't matter, though, because her aides were able to send the material via a secure system.
I have no idea what you are claiming she lied about. She never lied about having a private server or having an archive of her emails.
Her attorney has top secret clearance and he handled the email appropriately. When material was reclassified to be above his clearance, he turned over all copies of her email to the FBI.
I don't know what you are claiming when you said she "lied about what the emails contained". She did say that none of the emails she sent or received were marked classified. So far we have no proof that was not the case.
She turned over the email the way that it's stipulated it be done, via paper copies.
We have no idea what the material in the email is; it hasn't been released publicly, and only leaked statements on the content have been released. Those leaks have been politically motivated, and must be treated as tainted information.
You are correct we don't know if the email was hacked while on her system. We do know that during the time she was Sect. of State that the State Department's email system was hacked at least twice.
We do know the lawyer's copies were not accessible to anyone. He followed correct security procedures, including putting the material in a safe.
Great comment, although I think we're still seeing the impact of the radical right in the House. This next election should sweep most them away, though.
Ms. Clinton is a solid conservative, in the proper use of the term. She's also a centrist. The only reason she's in a position to run is because the GOP has gone so far to the right that they pulled the Democratic Party to the center. If that hadn't happened, the Democratic Party nominee would have to be center left.
If Trump is the GOP nominee, it not only guarantees the Democratic Party continues to hold the White House, but also the Senate. The House is interesting; I doubt it will swing all the way to the Democrats, but with a Trump nomination, it's definitely possible.
There's a lot of what you wrote that's conjecture (for example, we have no proof that her emails contained any of the material you claim; all we have are politically motivated allegations). That's fine, it's fun to use conjecture in discussions, and hey, they could be true. But I do have to point out a couple of things you wrote that are false.
Ms. Clinton gave her attorney the thumb drive container her email before it was released to the government, not afterwards. Therefore your claim that she gave them to her attorney after being told there was classified information in her email is false.
Her attorney does have a security clearance and followed correct protocol in handling the thumb drive. When the review of the emails led some to be classified beyond his clearance, he turned over the drive to the FBI.
Again, as has been written by many others, there is no comparison between this and what Mr. Patraeus did. Pretending there is just weakens your points.
Please tell me how you know what information Ms. Clinton sent that would have resulted in you being terminated; after all, it hasn't been released to the public.
There's a reason this matters - it appears to me that you are making a judgement call based on politically motivated allegations. You can, of course, believe those allegations are true, but I think it makes more sense to wait for the investigation to finish then to depend on information from tainted sources. The tainted sources could be right; they could also, as we saw in the Benghazi committee "leaks", be false because only the most inflammatory information was release. Once the full record was released, it was very different then the politically motivated allegations.
To conclude, you could be absolutely right, but it depends on information we don't have yet, so your certainty is unwarranted.
Sorry, that's incorrect. If the material isn't marked as classified, unless the information is such that you should know it's classified, it is not a crime.
It's pretty obvious why that's the way it is when you think about how things would be if the law were otherwise. For example, law enforcement could easily entrap people. Another reason is everyone would treat all communications as classified just to prevent any risk.
The should barrier is actually rather high. The classified material in her emails hasn't been release, so we can't know if that barrier has been met. It's unlikely to meet the requirement, though, because it's pretty easy to make the case that everyone knew that email address was not secure, so she would assume anything sent to her would be not be classified. That leaves only the material that originated with her.
Slashdot Mirror
First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony.
It only looks like that if you don't know much about how classified information works. Read up on it from a source that isn't referring to Hillary Clinton, and then match that up to what she did.
Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about.
Where is the evidence that she created security holes which were exploited? An unreliable source is quoted as saying she did? Personally, I wouldn't trust a government server to keep my emails safe from prying eyes.
The last sentence is pretty key to this. We know the State Department email system was breached at least twice while she was Secretary of State.
Which is why the information could not be electronically transferred and required that a human being look at it on the screen of the secure system and then transcribe it by hand to the insecure system. Which is what Clinton had here aids do.
There is no proof she ever had her aids do that.
There is no doubt that she should be prosecuted just for attempting to avoid the FOIA, which is the reason the server existed to begin with.
Pure speculation.
It would still technically be illegal....
Nope, using a private server was not illegal.
I'm sorry, I'm going to need a citation for the claim that "there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi)". As far as I'm aware, the only confirmed "missing" emails are 15 from Blumenthal. Everything else has turned up.
I was pretty stunned when they granted him immunity. All he has to do is mimic Col. North and say, paraphrasing Col. North, "Everything I was told to do was legal and proper, everything that was a crime I take full responsibility for".
As soon as that happened, the case disappeared unless he decides to testify against her. Even then, it's not a strong case, unless they have written proof.
She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails.
Such a system did not exist until after Sect. Kerry became the Secretary of State. Until that time email retention was supposed to be done by printing a copy and ensuring that it was available for archiving. That's exactly what Ms. Clinton did; she printed copies of the emails that were related to her duties as Secretary of State and turned them over.
In case the analogy wasn't clear: when a court orders you to turn stuff over, you don't get to pick and choose what to turn over.
Ah, but see, that's not what happened. She was ordered to turn over her work related emails, which she did do.
Oh by the way, she (or people working under her direction, same diff) printed the emails on paper, and handed over the paper. This senseless destruction of trees was just to make things harder for the people trying to sift through her emails, but of course all it did was waste some time; the feds have document scanners and OCR, and turned the paper back into searchable data. It was just sort of a little "fuck you" from Hillary to the people filing FOIA against her.
Actually no, it was the requirement. An electronic copy was not sufficient to meet the archiving requirements.
It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.
Do you have proof that was her intention? If not, stop making such claims.
And then direct your underlings to strip classification markings from secure data and "send it insecure".
Nope, she didn't do that. She told them, and this is the direct quote "If they can't [send it via secure fax], turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Turn it into "nonpaper w no identifying header" doesn't mean copy and pasting it into a different system. It's rewriting the content in a way that is not classified and removing the State Department headers so it is not quotable as an official source. It has nothing to do with removing classification markers. To do that would be illegal.
The really interesting part of this is that the content probably wasn't classified anyway. Talking points rarely are, since the purpose it to give the information to the press.
Oh, and BTW, the information was sent by secure fax.
So when you wrote...
Oh yeah, there are emails from Hillary!'s server where she tells an aide to to just that.
and
Hillary! told her aides to remove the markings!
You are misstating the facts. I'm going to assume you didn't know better, so I won't accuse you of lying. But if you say the same thing again, you will be lying.
I'm not claiming that we don't have inspectors saying the email contained classified material; that'd be stupid. What I'm asking about are your claims of the actual content in those emails, like your repeated claims of satellite imagery.
Can you share those sources for people that have actually reviewed the classified material that there were, as you claim, classified satellite imagery of North Korea in the email? All I've seen is conjecture and anonymous sources.
There were no policies against having a private email server, and your claim of personal gain is unfounded, as is your claim that she cut out basic security procedures.
You've misquoted the data. The .78 is washing one hand only with water. The baseline, not washing, is 1.00.
Washing without soap decreases the spread of that particular illness by a third. That's quite effective. As I said, any soap will make it better, in the study I linked to using soap decreased it another third beyond washing without soap.
Nobody is suggesting that washing your hands after going to the bathroom sterilizes your hands. Nobody needs that, though. Washing your hands for 20 second gets rid of the majority of germs on your hands. There's experimental proof to show that.
I do it all the time. As the CDC suggests, I sing the tune "Happy Birthday" in my mind, usually twice, while doing it. I've taught my daughter to do the same.
I don't really care if people think I'm weird for washing my hands well. I rarely get sick, and it's because I wash my hands. That said, I've been doing it for years, and nobody, at least not so I've noticed, has looked at me funny.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that you can remove all pathogens. The comment you responded to said, "most pathogens". That's true. Hand washing for 20 seconds does remove most pathogens.
Do you really think the point of washing your hands after going to the bathroom is to make them sterile enough to operate with?
The CDC recommends 20 seconds of scrubbing for those of us not going into the operating room.
You've got a bit overboard. Washing your hands properly with or without soap does decrease the likelihood of spreading germs that make people sick, see The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study
Washing your hands without soap at all is quite effective, assuming you do a reasonable job at it. See The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study. Any soap will make the hand washing more effective. Anti-bacterial soap is no better than standard soap.
You do know lying doesn't help make your case, right? Ms. Lerner did not erase her hard drive; it had a physical failure. She did not destroy any of her emails. The tapes they were archived on were re-used because the IRS had insufficient funding (despite asking for years) to put in place a long term email archiving program. Ms. Lerner resigned when she was informed that she was about to be fired.
Exactly! People point out all these statutes, over and over again. It appears they are merely trying to overwhelm everybody, hoping people will believe she must have done something wrong just because there are so many statutes. Ask for proof of what, exactly, rose to the level of breaking which specific statute, and you get nothing but crickets. Based on the currently available evidence, we cannot say whether she has or has not broken the law.
You make a claim that I find interesting. You wrote, "Hillary Clinton skipped all those steps" - do you have proof that Ms. Clinton skipped proper procedure to declassify material? I certainly haven't seen such. We know the request for taking points doesn't apply, since they were sent via secure fax, not email.
There is a standing order that all classified emails must be sent using SIPRNet. She did use it, but evidently rarely, as it's challenging to use. She predominantly used paper for classified material.
Simply using a private server is not evidence of intent to do wrong or negligence.
No, sorry, you're making things up, but due to your writing, it's hard to know exactly how to respond. I'll try, though.
The State Department's email system is also non-classified, and available on mobile devices. Those devices, though, must only be used for government work. So, if what you are claiming is that she wanted to use a single device for both her personal and work email, and the State Department said no, you are correct. That makes sense.
She never asked her aides to send her classified material. She did ask, in one case, to have talking points that were stored in a classified system, rewritten so they could be sent to her via a non-secure system. That's a common practice and is in no way illegal. It doesn't matter, though, because her aides were able to send the material via a secure system.
I have no idea what you are claiming she lied about. She never lied about having a private server or having an archive of her emails.
Her attorney has top secret clearance and he handled the email appropriately. When material was reclassified to be above his clearance, he turned over all copies of her email to the FBI.
I don't know what you are claiming when you said she "lied about what the emails contained". She did say that none of the emails she sent or received were marked classified. So far we have no proof that was not the case.
She turned over the email the way that it's stipulated it be done, via paper copies.
We have no idea what the material in the email is; it hasn't been released publicly, and only leaked statements on the content have been released. Those leaks have been politically motivated, and must be treated as tainted information.
You are correct we don't know if the email was hacked while on her system. We do know that during the time she was Sect. of State that the State Department's email system was hacked at least twice.
We do know the lawyer's copies were not accessible to anyone. He followed correct security procedures, including putting the material in a safe.
Thanks. It's astounding how much information is made up in discussions like this and passed off as factual.
Great comment, although I think we're still seeing the impact of the radical right in the House. This next election should sweep most them away, though.
Ms. Clinton is a solid conservative, in the proper use of the term. She's also a centrist. The only reason she's in a position to run is because the GOP has gone so far to the right that they pulled the Democratic Party to the center. If that hadn't happened, the Democratic Party nominee would have to be center left.
If Trump is the GOP nominee, it not only guarantees the Democratic Party continues to hold the White House, but also the Senate. The House is interesting; I doubt it will swing all the way to the Democrats, but with a Trump nomination, it's definitely possible.
There's a lot of what you wrote that's conjecture (for example, we have no proof that her emails contained any of the material you claim; all we have are politically motivated allegations). That's fine, it's fun to use conjecture in discussions, and hey, they could be true. But I do have to point out a couple of things you wrote that are false.
Ms. Clinton gave her attorney the thumb drive container her email before it was released to the government, not afterwards. Therefore your claim that she gave them to her attorney after being told there was classified information in her email is false.
Her attorney does have a security clearance and followed correct protocol in handling the thumb drive. When the review of the emails led some to be classified beyond his clearance, he turned over the drive to the FBI.
Again, as has been written by many others, there is no comparison between this and what Mr. Patraeus did. Pretending there is just weakens your points.
Interesting claim.
Please tell me how you know what information Ms. Clinton sent that would have resulted in you being terminated; after all, it hasn't been released to the public.
There's a reason this matters - it appears to me that you are making a judgement call based on politically motivated allegations. You can, of course, believe those allegations are true, but I think it makes more sense to wait for the investigation to finish then to depend on information from tainted sources. The tainted sources could be right; they could also, as we saw in the Benghazi committee "leaks", be false because only the most inflammatory information was release. Once the full record was released, it was very different then the politically motivated allegations.
To conclude, you could be absolutely right, but it depends on information we don't have yet, so your certainty is unwarranted.
Sorry, that's incorrect. If the material isn't marked as classified, unless the information is such that you should know it's classified, it is not a crime.
It's pretty obvious why that's the way it is when you think about how things would be if the law were otherwise. For example, law enforcement could easily entrap people. Another reason is everyone would treat all communications as classified just to prevent any risk.
The should barrier is actually rather high. The classified material in her emails hasn't been release, so we can't know if that barrier has been met. It's unlikely to meet the requirement, though, because it's pretty easy to make the case that everyone knew that email address was not secure, so she would assume anything sent to her would be not be classified. That leaves only the material that originated with her.