If only I could believe that it was truly hardened, following at least PCI policies:)
I'm surprised you keep trying to defend her grossly negligent actions by pretending that it was equivalent in safety or security to the option she was obligated to abide by, and obligated others to abide by.
How about that - if Clinton's secret homebrew server was so much better than the SD, why didn't she make it official policy for others to do the same?
It seems like Powell should be charged with conspiring to destroy federal records, and Clinton should be charged with the same for taking his advice. The fact that Secretaries of State would so blithely talk about avoiding federal records laws is shameful, don't you think?
"In the new set of about 1,700 messages, an additional 23 emails were classified at the middle tier, “secret,” bringing the total number of “secret” messages to 65, according to a State Department tally. In the latest, final batch, 238 messages were deemed “confidential,” lifting that total to 2,028, an official said."
You are contradicting yourself; you said her home server was "secret".
There's no contradiction. She kept her homebrew, insecure server secret from the public, and refused to use SD approved devices offered to her. It's literally in the FBI report.
If I hire a professional to customize my car, it's NOT a home-brew job. It's only home-brew if I do it myself.
If you hire a company, maybe. If you hire a private contractor, that's home-brew. Home brew means not setup by a corporate IT team, following established corporate IT guidelines.
And, being set up without "oversight" does NOT by itself make it "secret".
Being setup without oversight is definitely gross negligence.
Hillary is not expected to be an IT expert.
But she decided to micromanage her communications devices instead of following State department procedures.
If an outside service is so "grossly" bad, why was Colin allowed it?
Colin did not communicate classified materials.
You've offered no clear evidence about the configuration of either servers DURING her time at SD.
See the FBI report. It literally was running without secure transport for months. It literally had RDP open access to the world. If you don't understand these things, I can explain network topologies further to you.
Gov't employees are not known for carefulness.
Sure, but avoiding proper oversight and policy compliance, especially when you insist others comply, is simply gross negligence.
For one, there's no evidence so far she actually received training
Arguing incompetence again?:)
Second, like I already carefully explained, it's unrealistic for her to check every fact in every email: that's time-consuming grunt work.
Wrong. It is entirely realistic for her to understand the difference between classified and unclassified information, in every utterance she makes. Any time she saw classified information on her unclassified email, she should have reported it. This is *literally* the obligation of having a clearance level.
As for your paycheck, I would have loved to have given a court the opportunity to adjudicate our bet:)
Let's review again the levels of security we're talking about here.
# protected by state department IT - internal classified network - internal unclassified network
# protected by clinton foundation cronies - external secret homebrew on an insecure network running RDP in the open with no encrypted transport for at least several months
The fact that some ninja breaks into the internal unclassified network of the state department (quite possibly by leveraging exploits coming from the secret homebrew server), doesn't mean that the secret homebrew server was "more secure".
It's like you're asserting that running around in freeway traffic is safer than taking a bath because someone survived running around in freeway traffic, and someone else drowned in their bathtub. Regardless of the outcome of chance, the probabilities were distinctly different, and it is based on the reasonable consideration of probability that we define gross negligence.
You are making phrase-rules up. And, where is this "insisting" documented?
She was given several opportunities to get a state department issued blackberry, and she refused. The FBI report lays it out.
You lie: it was neither secret nor home brew.
You misunderstand - she kept it a secret from the public, and it was a custom setup built at her home without the oversight of the department.
Even if she used the regular office email server (not meant for classified stuff), those who put the classified info on it would STILL be in violation.
Then we agree - both Clinton, and those who put classified material into networks inappropriate, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I'm tired of arguing that with you, I find you dense and repetitive.
Is it because you don't understand the difference in security between network locations protected by a VPN and an official state department IT staff? I repeat myself because you continue to fail to understand some real basics here about network security.
Only Colin can? It wasn't "gross negligence" when he used AOL?
If you can find any classified material in Colin's email, then he should be prosecuted too.
The difference here is that Clinton sent classified material, thousands of times, and to this day insists that it was legit because there were no massive TOP SECRET headers - when by attesting to her training, she knows that material can be classified even if unmarked.
If she manages to lose classified information by flushing it down the toilet, yes:)
Dept. policy by itself is not federal law
But failure to abide by department policy, that you insist others follow, is by definition gross negligence. You've just told your kid not to play in the street. Then you go and play in the street. Your prior warning shows you *know* this to be a reckless act, and your choice to engage in this reckless act shows callous and wanton disregard for risk - the definition of gross negligence.
Before we delve into that, why does it matter for such a court case?
Because if Clinton exclusively used her secret, insecure homebrew server for department correspondence, it shows gross negligence. If you can prove she actively used secured classified email, and segregated her work, you could possibly argue that her lapses were simply minor bad judgement. If you can't, and she used her personal email for everything, by definition, that's gross negligence.
Second, she may not have known about specific policies or their implementation details.
She attested that she did, and in fact warned others to abide by specific policies. It seems you're arguing perhaps temporary incompetence?
The CEO is not expected to micromanage many of such details, and have expert assistants to guide them.
Exactly. There never should have been a micromanaged, secret, private homebrew email server. She should have simply deferred to the expert assistants at State to get her secure communications and secure devices. Instead, in a grossly negligent manner, she actually micromanaged when she should have delegated. She had no business demanding a private insecure server, much less conducting official business on it.
Hell, she could have had expert assistants deal with the devices, and simply read them out loud to her - anything, except micromanage the detail of work communications in such a way that opened up the door to violations of law in handling of classified materials.
2) I asked you if you consider incompetence equivalent to negligence
3) you have blithely asserted it "doesn't matter"
If you wanted to continue with your incompetence defense, you should have answered in #3 "no, incompetence is distinctly different than negligence, and you cannot use Clinton's incompetence as an example of gross negligence". At that point, it would be very clear what our root cause of disagreement is. Instead, in a casebook example of cognitive dissonance, you seem to be unwilling to admit you're making an incompetence defense, while at the same time making it over and over again. It's like you want to let Clinton off the hook, but you don't want to assert she's incompetent.
Honestly, even if I didn't agree that incompetence was a valid defense, I'd still respect that line of argument as at least possibly viable.
I know, it's cliche, but either she was incompetent or she lied - neither is admirable, to be sure, but at least you could limit her legal exposure by insisting on incompetence.
If S.D. failed to give her proper training and subordinates failed to screen material, the failure is a GROUP EFFORT, and the blame may be spread out, diluted in a sense
That sounds like another sign of gross negligence - failing to give proper training is a specific responsibility of the leader, and the entire group's failed effort is the responsibility of that leader.
This sounds like you're arguing that incompetence is not negligence.
Technically she may be obligated to "own" every word, but failure to screen every word doesn't qualify as level 3 because it's highly unrealistic for someone in her position to practically do so
Forget technically, *legally* she's obligated. She attested to this fact.
Home-ness of the server means shit; the reguar office email server was also NCES.
Network location matters. The State Department servers were in a better security position than any homebrew secret server.
And she probably did use the secure system (which is not "email").
Pics or it didn't happen.
. A trial would probably have to take SPECIFIC messages (with sensitive parts substituted or blackened) and explain to the judge/jury how and why she "should have known", and if it qualifies for level 3.
No, you're truly missing the forest for the trees. The specific messages aren't the gross negligence, the abject disregard of policy, policy she herself insisted her subordinates follow, is the gross negligence. The specific messages (of which, the FBI has found tens of thousands classified at the time), even if argued down to "no, this really wasn't classified", doesn't obviate the responsibility to uphold the principles of security which she attested she was trained in.
I agree it's negligent that she wasn't more curious about it and verify if it's required, but that's only level #1 or #2 negligence.
And I disagree. It would've been great if a court had been able to actually make the final determination:)
Perhaps, but whether it's the Level #3 of "negligence" depends on the specifics and details, which you never provide.
I've been specific.
1) it is grossly negligent to be the head of the State Department and not know how to handle classified material.
Is your contention that the FBI interview notes are inaccurate in their recording of Clinton's statements?
2) it is grossly negligent to run all work related business for the Secretary of State through a private email unsuitable for classified information, knowing that the job of Secretary of State requires the discussion of classified material.
Is your contention that the thousands of actual classified emails found by the FBI aren't specific enough examples of that?
;; ANSWER SECTION: state.gov. 66 IN A 72.166.186.151;; AUTHORITY SECTION: state.gov. 2482 IN NS tpsns11.terrenap.net. state.gov. 2482 IN NS authns1.centurylink.net. state.gov. 2482 IN NS authns2.centurylink.net. state.gov. 2482 IN NS tpsns12.terrenap.net.;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: authns1.centurylink.net. 105147 IN A 63.150.72.4 authns1.centurylink.net. 29708 IN AAAA 2001:428::5 authns2.centurylink.net. 105147 IN A 208.44.130.120 authns2.centurylink.net. 29708 IN AAAA 2001:428::6
After all, the entire ACA was by definition, unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS actually rewrote it de novo to make it work. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393 - in particular, see the dissents)
And despite the executive overreach for Obama's action (or lack of) on illegal immigrants, the executive branch was slapped on the wrist with "ethics classes" (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-orders-ethics-classes-for-deceptive-justice-dept.-attorneys/article/2591815)
The policy was announced in November 2014 and would have allowed an estimated 5 million undocumented immigrants to apply for a work permit and a reprieve from deportation. It also expanded a 2012 initiative known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
“The Government knowingly acted contrary to its representations to this Court on over 100,000 occasions,” Hanen wrote. “This Court finds that the misrepresentations detailed above: (1) were false; (2) were made in bad faith; and (3) misled both the Court and the Plaintiff States.”
One would imagine prison time as a more appropriate remedy for violations of truth and trust committed.
Part of being held accountable means being punished when doing wrong:)
You don't believe it matters because there is no difference? Or you don't believe it matters because you don't think you're making an incompetence argument?
It doesn't say "training". It was something more like a briefing.
Wouldn't it be grossly negligent if the Secretary of State didn't get training on the proper handling of classified information?
One cannot judge without seeing the details of the circumstances: who sent it, why should she/they have known it was classified, etc.
The circumstance is simple - the State Department has systems for sending unclassified and classified email, and Clinton never used either of those systems properly. You cannot expect to be the Secretary of State, and run all of your work emails on your own secret, private homebrew server, and not have classified data come across it. It is grossly negligent to believe that.
I am surprised there is not more investigation on the rest of the SD staff.
Totally agreed. The guys who told the State Department IT guys not to question Hillary's private server should be tried for violations as well.
it's not shown that she would be able to make a technical determination of which is "safer".
She specifically instructed her staff that business should not be done on personal email. She made that instruction because using State department communication tools was obviously "safer".
If it's so dangerous, why was Powell allowed to do it earlier?
Powell didn't run 100% of his business related email through a private email account, much less a private, secret, homebrew server. Apples and oranges, my friend.
"Gross" negligence would require very clear and precise knowledge, not your seemification crap.
So your defense against gross negligence is gross incompetence? So long as the party in question does not have clear and precise knowledge, they can behave in a grossly negligent way with no consequence?
The law says NOTHING about home versus office servers.
But any reasonable person in their position would know that a private, homebrew, secret server was less secure than an office server. You may defend with "any reasonable person is also uninformed and uneducated, and therefore gets a pass because it's all so technical", but that is belied by the fact that Clinton attested to understanding the proper handling of classified material. If you look at the FBI notes, she attests that she didn't understand the proper handling of classified material.
EXACTLY AND SPECIFICALLY *how* should she have known?
She was trained in the handling of classified materials, and attested to it. She should have recognized classification markings (such as ( c )), but claimed that she couldn't understand those markings. When observing those markings, instead of "trusting State Department Professionals", she should have taken them to task for violating the proper handling of classified materials.
I'll turn it around - how could she *not* have known that the Secretary of State, as a course of normal business, would communicate classified information with other State Department employees? She did 100% of her correspondence on her private secret email, how did she possibly expect that 0% of that would be classified?
This, dear friend, is clearly gross negligence or gross incompetence.
The classified system is typically NOT called "email". You are correct that classified material should have gone through this unnamed system, but that's a different issue than general (unclassified) office email versus a home server.
Which is even more evidence of gross negligence.
Instead, you should be talking about systems designed for classified communication versus systems NOT designed for classified communication.
I think we're on the same page here - Clinton, and much of the State department that communicated classified info on non-classified systems, should be prosecuted for gross negligence.
Hey, let me ask you this as well - do you think that "grossly incompetent" and "grossly negligent" are the same thing?
Put another way, do you believe that someone can behave in a "grossly negligent" way, but because it is driven by gross incompetence sans "intent", it doesn't count as negligence?
I believe this was the defense made for Lois Lerner.
The top one - she specifically avoided using proper, State Department devices for business communications, and was grossly negligent in doing so. Any reasonable person in her position would've known that using private email for potentially classified material, was a violation of the laws they were trained on in classification.
The next one - she handed the job of combing through her emails to delete "personal" ones, which she should've known could have or did contain classified information, to un-vetted lawyers who did not have the clearance necessary for such work.
Your pick - which one would you like to expound on?
Describe EXACTLY what she did to CLEARLY indicate "hiding"
She used a secret, personal, insecure server to conduct State department business. She kept this fact hidden from the public, she did not go through the proper security channels for getting permission for it, and, to top it all off, the massive wipe of her emails happened *after* its exposure by the NYT report on it.
There are generally 3 levels of "negligence" in the law, and the 3rd requires VERY STRONG actions.
Agreed. And the actions she took were of the most extreme gross negligence.
If she had a problem with doing secure email herself, she should've had an aide handle all the electronics, through standard channels, and handed printouts or their own secure devices for her to peruse.
The "regular" office server she should have used for ordinary office correspondence was NOT designed for classified materials either.
The State Department runs an email system that handles classified material. What gives you the impression that it is not certified for that?
Further 2, having am outside service was NOT against policy, for Powell had it.
It was against policy after Powell's tenure. Stop trying to blame the black man.
said she didn't get proper authorization from inside, but not getting it is not "gross" negligence, merely negligence.
That should've been decided by a court of law, not a political appointee.
Please elaborate, and why it matters from a legal perspective.
Shame is an indicator of intent. If you are hiding something, you *know* that there's something sketchy about you doing it.
That server was NOT INTENDED for classified info either
It was her only email. She obviously intended to do work on it (which was grossly negligent). Her own words, as Secretary of State, could be classified upon her utterance - using an insecure server for work related material was grossly negligent.
Historical cases where people were prosecuted for similar alleged crimes almost always had "intent" in them, long before the Obama administration.
As per my other comment, the fact that people have historically been prosecuted under (d) and (e) paragraphs doesn't mean that (f) paragraph shouldn't be prosecuted. The burden of proof here is a list of cases where (f) was considered, but the charges were not referred for prosecution.
If you want to argue the laws are not strong enough, that's fine
On the contrary, I think the argument made on the other side is that the law is too strong, and since historically nobody was prosecuted under (f), nobody should. That's a perfectly fine argument if you can back it up with examples where people were considered for investigation under (f), but the case was dropped. Do you have a cite? I searched, but couldn't find any information on that.
Now, I get it, and so does the author, that the prosecution was under (d) and (e) - but you'll note they *explicitly* stated that even if those thresholds had not been met:
“Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.”
The fact that historically this kind of thing hasn't been prosecuted would have to be shown by a list of cases where charges were considered under (f), and then rejected, rather than saying "we've never prosecuted under (f)". Obviously, when a law is first written, it's never been used to prosecute anyone, so simply asserting that it hasn't been used isn't much of a defense.
I'd love to see any reference that shows the list of historical cases considered under (f) that were dropped in the same manner Clinton's case was dropped.
Now, you can argue that the list didn't include paragraph (f) in the indictment for the various defendants, but I have yet to find any list of cases where para (f) was considered by investigators.
Here's the money quote you might find interesting:
The problem, of course, is whether the solution might be worse than the dis- ease. Thus, as Professors Hal Edgar and Benno Schmidt lamented more than four decades ago, “the longer we looked [at the Espionage Act], the less we saw.”55 Instead, they concluded, “we have lived since World War I in a state of benign indeterminacy about the rules of law governing defense secrets.”56 If anything, such indeterminacy has only become more pronounced in the 41 years since— and, if recent events are any indication, increasingly less benign.
Now, your opinion may differ than mine, but I'm more sympathetic to whistleblowers with intent, than grossly negligent actors hiding private insecure servers.
My point is that you're mentioning a trivial block he worked around, and that during his reign he has unconstitutionally expanded the powers of the presidency, and abused those powers, without any consequence from either the legislature, judiciary, or the press.
Checks and balances are important, as you pointed out - otherwise, we'll eventually all be serfs.
Slashdot Mirror
If only I could believe that it was truly hardened, following at least PCI policies :)
I'm surprised you keep trying to defend her grossly negligent actions by pretending that it was equivalent in safety or security to the option she was obligated to abide by, and obligated others to abide by.
How about that - if Clinton's secret homebrew server was so much better than the SD, why didn't she make it official policy for others to do the same?
Interesting new source material: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/...
It seems like Powell should be charged with conspiring to destroy federal records, and Clinton should be charged with the same for taking his advice. The fact that Secretaries of State would so blithely talk about avoiding federal records laws is shameful, don't you think?
http://www.politico.com/story/...
"In the new set of about 1,700 messages, an additional 23 emails were classified at the middle tier, “secret,” bringing the total number of “secret” messages to 65, according to a State Department tally. In the latest, final batch, 238 messages were deemed “confidential,” lifting that total to 2,028, an official said."
There's no contradiction. She kept her homebrew, insecure server secret from the public, and refused to use SD approved devices offered to her. It's literally in the FBI report.
If you hire a company, maybe. If you hire a private contractor, that's home-brew. Home brew means not setup by a corporate IT team, following established corporate IT guidelines.
Being setup without oversight is definitely gross negligence.
But she decided to micromanage her communications devices instead of following State department procedures.
Colin did not communicate classified materials.
See the FBI report. It literally was running without secure transport for months. It literally had RDP open access to the world. If you don't understand these things, I can explain network topologies further to you.
Sure, but avoiding proper oversight and policy compliance, especially when you insist others comply, is simply gross negligence.
Arguing incompetence again? :)
Wrong. It is entirely realistic for her to understand the difference between classified and unclassified information, in every utterance she makes. Any time she saw classified information on her unclassified email, she should have reported it. This is *literally* the obligation of having a clearance level.
As for your paycheck, I would have loved to have given a court the opportunity to adjudicate our bet :)
Let's review again the levels of security we're talking about here.
# protected by state department IT
- internal classified network
- internal unclassified network
# protected by clinton foundation cronies
- external secret homebrew on an insecure network running RDP in the open with no encrypted transport for at least several months
The fact that some ninja breaks into the internal unclassified network of the state department (quite possibly by leveraging exploits coming from the secret homebrew server), doesn't mean that the secret homebrew server was "more secure".
It's like you're asserting that running around in freeway traffic is safer than taking a bath because someone survived running around in freeway traffic, and someone else drowned in their bathtub. Regardless of the outcome of chance, the probabilities were distinctly different, and it is based on the reasonable consideration of probability that we define gross negligence.
She was given several opportunities to get a state department issued blackberry, and she refused. The FBI report lays it out.
You misunderstand - she kept it a secret from the public, and it was a custom setup built at her home without the oversight of the department.
Then we agree - both Clinton, and those who put classified material into networks inappropriate, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Is it because you don't understand the difference in security between network locations protected by a VPN and an official state department IT staff? I repeat myself because you continue to fail to understand some real basics here about network security.
If you can find any classified material in Colin's email, then he should be prosecuted too.
The difference here is that Clinton sent classified material, thousands of times, and to this day insists that it was legit because there were no massive TOP SECRET headers - when by attesting to her training, she knows that material can be classified even if unmarked.
This smells like another incompetence defense...
Are you really asserting that the State Department email system was open to the internet, running RDP, during Clinton's tenure?
You've got a lot of speculation there, maybe more specific details would help :)
If she manages to lose classified information by flushing it down the toilet, yes :)
But failure to abide by department policy, that you insist others follow, is by definition gross negligence. You've just told your kid not to play in the street. Then you go and play in the street. Your prior warning shows you *know* this to be a reckless act, and your choice to engage in this reckless act shows callous and wanton disregard for risk - the definition of gross negligence.
Because if Clinton exclusively used her secret, insecure homebrew server for department correspondence, it shows gross negligence. If you can prove she actively used secured classified email, and segregated her work, you could possibly argue that her lapses were simply minor bad judgement. If you can't, and she used her personal email for everything, by definition, that's gross negligence.
She attested that she did, and in fact warned others to abide by specific policies. It seems you're arguing perhaps temporary incompetence?
Exactly. There never should have been a micromanaged, secret, private homebrew email server. She should have simply deferred to the expert assistants at State to get her secure communications and secure devices. Instead, in a grossly negligent manner, she actually micromanaged when she should have delegated. She had no business demanding a private insecure server, much less conducting official business on it.
Hell, she could have had expert assistants deal with the devices, and simply read them out loud to her - anything, except micromanage the detail of work communications in such a way that opened up the door to violations of law in handling of classified materials.
Let me break it down for you:
1) you have used the incompetence defense
2) I asked you if you consider incompetence equivalent to negligence
3) you have blithely asserted it "doesn't matter"
If you wanted to continue with your incompetence defense, you should have answered in #3 "no, incompetence is distinctly different than negligence, and you cannot use Clinton's incompetence as an example of gross negligence". At that point, it would be very clear what our root cause of disagreement is. Instead, in a casebook example of cognitive dissonance, you seem to be unwilling to admit you're making an incompetence defense, while at the same time making it over and over again. It's like you want to let Clinton off the hook, but you don't want to assert she's incompetent.
Honestly, even if I didn't agree that incompetence was a valid defense, I'd still respect that line of argument as at least possibly viable.
I know, it's cliche, but either she was incompetent or she lied - neither is admirable, to be sure, but at least you could limit her legal exposure by insisting on incompetence.
That sounds like another sign of gross negligence - failing to give proper training is a specific responsibility of the leader, and the entire group's failed effort is the responsibility of that leader.
This sounds like you're arguing that incompetence is not negligence.
Forget technically, *legally* she's obligated. She attested to this fact.
Network location matters. The State Department servers were in a better security position than any homebrew secret server.
Pics or it didn't happen.
No, you're truly missing the forest for the trees. The specific messages aren't the gross negligence, the abject disregard of policy, policy she herself insisted her subordinates follow, is the gross negligence. The specific messages (of which, the FBI has found tens of thousands classified at the time), even if argued down to "no, this really wasn't classified", doesn't obviate the responsibility to uphold the principles of security which she attested she was trained in.
And I disagree. It would've been great if a court had been able to actually make the final determination :)
I've been specific.
1) it is grossly negligent to be the head of the State Department and not know how to handle classified material.
Is your contention that the FBI interview notes are inaccurate in their recording of Clinton's statements?
2) it is grossly negligent to run all work related business for the Secretary of State through a private email unsuitable for classified information, knowing that the job of Secretary of State requires the discussion of classified material.
Is your contention that the thousands of actual classified emails found by the FBI aren't specific enough examples of that?
So, you're disowning your incompetence defence. Noted.
Please, feel free to get past their DMZ :)
Well, I suppose that's glass half full :)
After all, the entire ACA was by definition, unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS actually rewrote it de novo to make it work. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393 - in particular, see the dissents)
And despite the executive overreach for Obama's action (or lack of) on illegal immigrants, the executive branch was slapped on the wrist with "ethics classes" (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-orders-ethics-classes-for-deceptive-justice-dept.-attorneys/article/2591815)
One would imagine prison time as a more appropriate remedy for violations of truth and trust committed.
Part of being held accountable means being punished when doing wrong :)
You don't believe it matters because there is no difference? Or you don't believe it matters because you don't think you're making an incompetence argument?
Wouldn't it be grossly negligent if the Secretary of State didn't get training on the proper handling of classified information?
The circumstance is simple - the State Department has systems for sending unclassified and classified email, and Clinton never used either of those systems properly. You cannot expect to be the Secretary of State, and run all of your work emails on your own secret, private homebrew server, and not have classified data come across it. It is grossly negligent to believe that.
Totally agreed. The guys who told the State Department IT guys not to question Hillary's private server should be tried for violations as well.
You still haven't answered the question.
What do you think the legal difference is between "gross incompetence" and "gross negligence"?
She specifically instructed her staff that business should not be done on personal email. She made that instruction because using State department communication tools was obviously "safer".
Powell didn't run 100% of his business related email through a private email account, much less a private, secret, homebrew server. Apples and oranges, my friend.
So your defense against gross negligence is gross incompetence? So long as the party in question does not have clear and precise knowledge, they can behave in a grossly negligent way with no consequence?
But any reasonable person in their position would know that a private, homebrew, secret server was less secure than an office server. You may defend with "any reasonable person is also uninformed and uneducated, and therefore gets a pass because it's all so technical", but that is belied by the fact that Clinton attested to understanding the proper handling of classified material. If you look at the FBI notes, she attests that she didn't understand the proper handling of classified material.
She was trained in the handling of classified materials, and attested to it. She should have recognized classification markings (such as ( c )), but claimed that she couldn't understand those markings. When observing those markings, instead of "trusting State Department Professionals", she should have taken them to task for violating the proper handling of classified materials.
I'll turn it around - how could she *not* have known that the Secretary of State, as a course of normal business, would communicate classified information with other State Department employees? She did 100% of her correspondence on her private secret email, how did she possibly expect that 0% of that would be classified?
This, dear friend, is clearly gross negligence or gross incompetence.
I would agree, except for the signed affidavit that she executed after her security training. She actively disregarded her training.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
Which is even more evidence of gross negligence.
I think we're on the same page here - Clinton, and much of the State department that communicated classified info on non-classified systems, should be prosecuted for gross negligence.
Hey, let me ask you this as well - do you think that "grossly incompetent" and "grossly negligent" are the same thing?
Put another way, do you believe that someone can behave in a "grossly negligent" way, but because it is driven by gross incompetence sans "intent", it doesn't count as negligence?
I believe this was the defense made for Lois Lerner.
The top one - she specifically avoided using proper, State Department devices for business communications, and was grossly negligent in doing so. Any reasonable person in her position would've known that using private email for potentially classified material, was a violation of the laws they were trained on in classification.
The next one - she handed the job of combing through her emails to delete "personal" ones, which she should've known could have or did contain classified information, to un-vetted lawyers who did not have the clearance necessary for such work.
Your pick - which one would you like to expound on?
She used a secret, personal, insecure server to conduct State department business. She kept this fact hidden from the public, she did not go through the proper security channels for getting permission for it, and, to top it all off, the massive wipe of her emails happened *after* its exposure by the NYT report on it.
Agreed. And the actions she took were of the most extreme gross negligence.
If she had a problem with doing secure email herself, she should've had an aide handle all the electronics, through standard channels, and handed printouts or their own secure devices for her to peruse.
The State Department runs an email system that handles classified material. What gives you the impression that it is not certified for that?
It was against policy after Powell's tenure. Stop trying to blame the black man.
That should've been decided by a court of law, not a political appointee.
Shame is an indicator of intent. If you are hiding something, you *know* that there's something sketchy about you doing it.
It was her only email. She obviously intended to do work on it (which was grossly negligent). Her own words, as Secretary of State, could be classified upon her utterance - using an insecure server for work related material was grossly negligent.
As per my other comment, the fact that people have historically been prosecuted under (d) and (e) paragraphs doesn't mean that (f) paragraph shouldn't be prosecuted. The burden of proof here is a list of cases where (f) was considered, but the charges were not referred for prosecution.
On the contrary, I think the argument made on the other side is that the law is too strong, and since historically nobody was prosecuted under (f), nobody should. That's a perfectly fine argument if you can back it up with examples where people were considered for investigation under (f), but the case was dropped. Do you have a cite? I searched, but couldn't find any information on that.
Oh, another cite: http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Now, I get it, and so does the author, that the prosecution was under (d) and (e) - but you'll note they *explicitly* stated that even if those thresholds had not been met:
The fact that historically this kind of thing hasn't been prosecuted would have to be shown by a list of cases where charges were considered under (f), and then rejected, rather than saying "we've never prosecuted under (f)". Obviously, when a law is first written, it's never been used to prosecute anyone, so simply asserting that it hasn't been used isn't much of a defense.
I'd love to see any reference that shows the list of historical cases considered under (f) that were dropped in the same manner Clinton's case was dropped.
https://www.justsecurity.org/w...
Now, you can argue that the list didn't include paragraph (f) in the indictment for the various defendants, but I have yet to find any list of cases where para (f) was considered by investigators.
Here's the money quote you might find interesting:
Now, your opinion may differ than mine, but I'm more sympathetic to whistleblowers with intent, than grossly negligent actors hiding private insecure servers.
My point is that you're mentioning a trivial block he worked around, and that during his reign he has unconstitutionally expanded the powers of the presidency, and abused those powers, without any consequence from either the legislature, judiciary, or the press.
Checks and balances are important, as you pointed out - otherwise, we'll eventually all be serfs.