Apart from where the non official server lived, how is this hugely different?
The laws governing the use of the servers and the material that passed through them would seem to be one big difference. Most governors don't have classified emails showing up to their private email servers, and I'm sure the same can be said for congressmen & senators as well.
Did you know that when you send an email to your lawyer, you don't actually have to put "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVLEGE" in the subject or body? The privilege exists regardless of markings on the communication.
Just because a document which was not treated as classified by someone does not mean that it is in fact no longer classified or be treated as such. Flags help identify such things, but it is ultimately up to the sender & receiver to use their judgement as to how to handle it.
The fact of the matter is Hillary repeatedly exhibited poor judgement with regards to her private email server, and in a just world will see her with a criminal conviction. Alas we do not live in that world.
I'm not sure what the DoJ thinks they're going to find on an Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind wiped server, though.Those drives are cleaner by now than the day they were manufactured.
Depends on their mood and other supporting evidence... such an action could be seen as anticipatory obstruction of justice.
You will please note that I said "does not excuse" not "cannot be used as an excuse"... nothing stops someone from claiming their mother didn't hug them enough as a way to escape blame for a charge.
"I had no idea that the suitcase I was bringing into the country was full of fake dollars... I thought they were real!" isn't going to get you very far, what can is prosecutorial discretion... something Hillary is praying for right now.
Also at play is signs of a guilty mind can help show not only intent, but intent knowing that the activities were illegal... something we also have ample signs of in this case.
So your/her excuse is "no one told me they were classified"? Yeah, that will go over well.
Driving over the speed limit, no matter when the limits were changed makes you a speeder, doubly so if you happen to have taken affirmative steps to limit your view of the speed signs.
You seem to behind on the news, while some emails were retroactively classified, others have been nothing as being classified at the time they were sent/received.
There are not enough cab drivers to cause a revolution on their own, and the people aren't with them.
First they came for the bank teller, I wasn't a bank teller so I said nothing.
Then they came for the cab drivers, I wasn't a cab driver so I said nothing.
Then they came for the long haul truck driver, I wasn't a truck driver so I said nothing.
Then they came for my neighbors doctor job, I wasn't a doctor so I said nothing.
Then they came for my son's pizza deliver job, it wasn't my job so I said nothing.
Then they came for my job, and no one was left to defend me.
Alas you are thinking far too simply my friend. We are approaching a point where automation will potentially render a sizable portion of the population unemployable because a machine can do their job just as well, if not better and for a lesser cost in a world where Humans Need Not Apply
Unless you happy to be one of those roboenablers who are seeking to bring about the robotic apocalypse... in which case I say: "Well played sir!"
Because your average user isn't a/. Reader or l33t hax0r... The idea of having settings and data synced across multiple PCs appeals to enough people to warrant it being in the box.
You keep saying that, yet you cannot cite a specific thing I have said that is demonstrably wrong. Again, CITE SOMETHING SPECIFIC I have said and then CITE SOMETHING SPECIFIC from reported media that contradicts it. I dare you. I double dare you. Or must we really take this to the physical challenge?
Yes, it was, and, as far as we know, she did.
I am not aware of that, nor am I aware that she signed the usually required separation paperwork to certify that she did. In fact as mentioned above, it appears she did NOT sign the normally customary separation paperwork.
There has been no proof to the contrary, just claims like yours.
Aside from the fact that you appear to keep assuming that this is not a strict liability sort of laws, you keep forgetting how the system works. It's rare you have a smoking gun in hand when the police arrive which is coupled with a confession there and later at the station, instead law enforcement tends to build a case based on other evidence over time.
There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information... which hopefully will be investigated and with any luck a prosecutor will bring charges for it (though the current DoJ is not so honest).
Furthermore, as time goes on and the Hillary documents complete being scrubbed by state, if they cannot locate even one of the 15 missing Blumenthal, that in of itself doesn't prove that she didn't hand them over, but does set the state for a another potential criminal trial where it is again up to her to prove that she did in fact turn over everything.
In a 'she said' vs 'they said'... based on what else is known... who is more credible?
Alas the current AG is demonstrating herself to be nearly as corrupt as the previous... so such charges are not likely to come... something you will no doubt see as further proof of a lack of proof of criminal wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.
Repeating the same falsehood over and over again doesn't actually make it true you know.
The State Department cannot locate them. That does not mean Ms. Clinton did not turn them over.
Remember the old days when we mailed a check to a bank to pay the monthly mortgage or credit card statement? Ever have one 'get lost in the mail' or somehow not get it into their hands before the due date through no fault of your own? Do you recall what happens? Usually late charges as it was your responsibility (not theirs) to make sure that your payment arrived on time. Same actually can be seen in the terms & conditions of many online banks & payment systems today.
What does this have to do with Hillary? It was HER responsibility to turn over all documents, not that of the State Department to make sure they gather it all. It's why usually when on the way out of federal service you sign an OF-109, certifying under penalty of perjury that amongst other things:
1. I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession, and I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof, including any diaries, memorandums of conversation, or other documents of a personal nature that contain classified or administratively controlled information.
2. I have surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department or USIA.
Even without signing the document, the requirements to turn over all official documents still exists, the paperwork is just a reminder with a legal threat attach to drive the point home.
Coupled with the fact that certain documents which are known to have been created and/or received during her time in office which do not appear to be part of what she handed over to State upon her departure, we have really only 4 options:
1. She did not turn over the missing document 2. Somehow the documents became permanently lost during delivery 3. Somehow the documents became permanently lost after delivery 4. Somehow the documents became temporarily lost after delivery and will turn up eventually... say in a different box.
You seem to be pushing for #4 as a possible reason as to why the documents are not currently discoverable, yet as time goes on we will know if that is true or not (once the rest of the emails have been examined)... while certainly possible, given other false statements (only used one device, never sent/received classified information, etc), we have a pattern of dishonesty emerge that while it doesn't prove #1, does start to make it a more likely scenario, doubly so when this isn't the first time documents she was required to turn over mysteriously disappeared (though in the 90's case, reappeared)..
There is a reason federal employees use federal email systems and not personal ones, that way the burden on the employee to archive all documentation is far far less. By opting for her own system she made compliance that much harder, and legally any failure to comply is on her... hence the investigations.
Clearly you have a belief of what happened and are trying to make reality fit that belief. Good luc
This is hilarious, it was quite obvious that you only read the first paragraph article you cited... and now you didn't even read the first paragraph of what I last cited, allow me to demonstrate. You claim:
State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department.
Except that's not what the State Department has said, to quote the last article I cited (and the first paragraph no less):
The State Department said Thursday that it could not locate “all or part” of 15 e-mails provided last week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi by Sidney Blumenthal from his exchanges with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Still not convinced? Why not consult a whole number of articles from various sources which report the same thing?
Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.
So you are calling the professionals at the State Department and national archives incompetent because they cannot adequately locate these documents they may or may not have? Riiight. Occam's Razor would seem to apply.
You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential.
On the contrary, I understand it quite well (as unlike you I've spent some time reading on this subject. Failing to set the 'classified' flag on an email doesn't change whether it is actually classified or not, it simply flags it for filtering & handling... not unlike putting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED" in a subject line of an email. It's the content that matters, not the subject of flags.
It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.
Again... that's not what the IGs (two of them) have said. Though even your use of the term 'proof' is laughable. The intelligence agencies do not deal in proof the way the rest of us do, but in terms of probability. And the IGs have determined it is very probable that classified information that Hillary had access to is not in the control of the government due to her. That's the first step to opening a criminal investigation which will hopefully lead to a trial and proof that even you would accept.
I think you only read the opening paragraph, which like any story about someone accused of a crime involves them pleading their innocence... however the article gets far worse the more it goes on for Hillary:
In a joint statement, the two inspectors general who made the referral said that it was "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes." But, they added, they found that a sample of 40 of Clinton's emails from Clinton's server contained four with classified information that should "never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."
Clinton said in March that "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."
Mishandling of classified information is a rather serious crime... just act David Petraeus.
In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.
The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.
In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.
The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.
In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.
The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.
Oops is "oh no, my coffee spilled on the documents and ruined them... see? I kept them around just so I could show the extent" and by some miracle, that was the only copy.
Oops is not "oh no, my finger pressed the delete key for a few minutes... and no you cannot look at my server"
The best way for the Justice Department to stay off her back is for them to do what they've been doing for a while, ignore cases or investigations they find politically inconvenient.
In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.
The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Correct, but there are other prohibitions against holding such an office depending on the crime. Most people have forgotten about USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
In theory, Hillary has already committed an act which if convicted for would disqualify her for any future public office... now actually prosecuting her for that is a separate and rather unlikely matter.
I would think there are degrees of leak, some might involve the FBI... others like this case would seem to be a case of "things went public earlier than we wanted but are not going to involve law enforcement"
How old are you? 12? 13? You clearly have a rather limited memory of history with comments like:
What could Microsoft's shitty "late to the game" voice recognition add over the existing solutions?
Or should we forget that Android is actually (still) the newcomer to the modern world of smartphones? I seem to recall Blackberry, iOS and Windows Mobile/Phone/Mobile existing well before Android... clearly in your world Android has nothing to offer over the existing solutions!
Whatever ideas from another platform could ever influence ones own platform of choice, purity above all else must be enforced eh?>
Slashdot Mirror
The laws governing the use of the servers and the material that passed through them would seem to be one big difference. Most governors don't have classified emails showing up to their private email servers, and I'm sure the same can be said for congressmen & senators as well.
That's not what the Office of Inspector General spokesperson says: the emails were "were classified when they were sent and are classified now."
Really? What selection of the news am I paying attention to that you aren't (or vice versa)?
CNN (not exactly a right wing outlet) quotes the Office of Inspector General spokesperson who said: the emails were “were classified when they were sent and are classified now.”
Did you know that when you send an email to your lawyer, you don't actually have to put "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVLEGE" in the subject or body? The privilege exists regardless of markings on the communication.
Just because a document which was not treated as classified by someone does not mean that it is in fact no longer classified or be treated as such. Flags help identify such things, but it is ultimately up to the sender & receiver to use their judgement as to how to handle it.
The fact of the matter is Hillary repeatedly exhibited poor judgement with regards to her private email server, and in a just world will see her with a criminal conviction. Alas we do not live in that world.
Depends on their mood and other supporting evidence... such an action could be seen as anticipatory obstruction of justice.
You will please note that I said "does not excuse" not "cannot be used as an excuse"... nothing stops someone from claiming their mother didn't hug them enough as a way to escape blame for a charge.
"I had no idea that the suitcase I was bringing into the country was full of fake dollars... I thought they were real!" isn't going to get you very far, what can is prosecutorial discretion... something Hillary is praying for right now.
Also at play is signs of a guilty mind can help show not only intent, but intent knowing that the activities were illegal... something we also have ample signs of in this case.
So your/her excuse is "no one told me they were classified"? Yeah, that will go over well.
Driving over the speed limit, no matter when the limits were changed makes you a speeder, doubly so if you happen to have taken affirmative steps to limit your view of the speed signs.
Ignorance of the law does not excuse.
You seem to behind on the news, while some emails were retroactively classified, others have been nothing as being classified at the time they were sent/received.
First they came for the bank teller, I wasn't a bank teller so I said nothing.
Then they came for the cab drivers, I wasn't a cab driver so I said nothing.
Then they came for the long haul truck driver, I wasn't a truck driver so I said nothing.
Then they came for my neighbors doctor job, I wasn't a doctor so I said nothing.
Then they came for my son's pizza deliver job, it wasn't my job so I said nothing.
Then they came for my job, and no one was left to defend me.
Alas you are thinking far too simply my friend. We are approaching a point where automation will potentially render a sizable portion of the population unemployable because a machine can do their job just as well, if not better and for a lesser cost in a world where Humans Need Not Apply
Unless you happy to be one of those roboenablers who are seeking to bring about the robotic apocalypse... in which case I say: "Well played sir!"
Innocent isn't the same thing as not guilty.
Because your average user isn't a /. Reader or l33t hax0r... The idea of having settings and data synced across multiple PCs appeals to enough people to warrant it being in the box.
You keep saying that, yet you cannot cite a specific thing I have said that is demonstrably wrong. Again, CITE SOMETHING SPECIFIC I have said and then CITE SOMETHING SPECIFIC from reported media that contradicts it. I dare you. I double dare you. Or must we really take this to the physical challenge?
I am not aware of that, nor am I aware that she signed the usually required separation paperwork to certify that she did. In fact as mentioned above, it appears she did NOT sign the normally customary separation paperwork.
Aside from the fact that you appear to keep assuming that this is not a strict liability sort of laws, you keep forgetting how the system works. It's rare you have a smoking gun in hand when the police arrive which is coupled with a confession there and later at the station, instead law enforcement tends to build a case based on other evidence over time.
There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information... which hopefully will be investigated and with any luck a prosecutor will bring charges for it (though the current DoJ is not so honest).
Furthermore, as time goes on and the Hillary documents complete being scrubbed by state, if they cannot locate even one of the 15 missing Blumenthal, that in of itself doesn't prove that she didn't hand them over, but does set the state for a another potential criminal trial where it is again up to her to prove that she did in fact turn over everything.
In a 'she said' vs 'they said'... based on what else is known... who is more credible?
Alas the current AG is demonstrating herself to be nearly as corrupt as the previous... so such charges are not likely to come... something you will no doubt see as further proof of a lack of proof of criminal wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.
Repeating the same falsehood over and over again doesn't actually make it true you know.
Remember the old days when we mailed a check to a bank to pay the monthly mortgage or credit card statement? Ever have one 'get lost in the mail' or somehow not get it into their hands before the due date through no fault of your own? Do you recall what happens? Usually late charges as it was your responsibility (not theirs) to make sure that your payment arrived on time. Same actually can be seen in the terms & conditions of many online banks & payment systems today.
What does this have to do with Hillary? It was HER responsibility to turn over all documents, not that of the State Department to make sure they gather it all. It's why usually when on the way out of federal service you sign an OF-109, certifying under penalty of perjury that amongst other things:
Such terms would seem to apply to even the SoS right? Oddly enough, (despite it being the norm).
Even without signing the document, the requirements to turn over all official documents still exists, the paperwork is just a reminder with a legal threat attach to drive the point home.
Coupled with the fact that certain documents which are known to have been created and/or received during her time in office which do not appear to be part of what she handed over to State upon her departure, we have really only 4 options:
1. She did not turn over the missing document
2. Somehow the documents became permanently lost during delivery
3. Somehow the documents became permanently lost after delivery
4. Somehow the documents became temporarily lost after delivery and will turn up eventually... say in a different box.
You seem to be pushing for #4 as a possible reason as to why the documents are not currently discoverable, yet as time goes on we will know if that is true or not (once the rest of the emails have been examined)... while certainly possible, given other false statements (only used one device, never sent/received classified information, etc), we have a pattern of dishonesty emerge that while it doesn't prove #1, does start to make it a more likely scenario, doubly so when this isn't the first time documents she was required to turn over mysteriously disappeared (though in the 90's case, reappeared)..
There is a reason federal employees use federal email systems and not personal ones, that way the burden on the employee to archive all documentation is far far less. By opting for her own system she made compliance that much harder, and legally any failure to comply is on her... hence the investigations.
This is hilarious, it was quite obvious that you only read the first paragraph article you cited... and now you didn't even read the first paragraph of what I last cited, allow me to demonstrate. You claim:
Except that's not what the State Department has said, to quote the last article I cited (and the first paragraph no less):
Still not convinced? Why not consult a whole number of articles from various sources which report the same thing?
http://news.yahoo.com/state-de...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/15...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/26...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sta...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...
Noticing a trend yet?
So you are calling the professionals at the State Department and national archives incompetent because they cannot adequately locate these documents they may or may not have? Riiight. Occam's Razor would seem to apply.
On the contrary, I understand it quite well (as unlike you I've spent some time reading on this subject. Failing to set the 'classified' flag on an email doesn't change whether it is actually classified or not, it simply flags it for filtering & handling... not unlike putting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED" in a subject line of an email. It's the content that matters, not the subject of flags.
Again... that's not what the IGs (two of them) have said. Though even your use of the term 'proof' is laughable. The intelligence agencies do not deal in proof the way the rest of us do, but in terms of probability. And the IGs have determined it is very probable that classified information that Hillary had access to is not in the control of the government due to her. That's the first step to opening a criminal investigation which will hopefully lead to a trial and proof that even you would accept.
Say hi to President Sanders for me.
You are forgetting that it wasn't the State Department that turned over the Blumenthal emails... it was Blumenthal.
How do we know this? The State Department said so!
So much for turning over all documents...
I think you only read the opening paragraph, which like any story about someone accused of a crime involves them pleading their innocence... however the article gets far worse the more it goes on for Hillary:
Mishandling of classified information is a rather serious crime... just act David Petraeus.
Um:
Actually no... it means that some emails were retroactively classified, others have been determined to have been classified at the time of sending:
Do try to keep up.
Yes, all hail President Sanders!
Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't. Oops!
Your information is out of date, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...
Why not? The role (or office) of President is simply the head of one of the three co-equal branches.
Oops is "oh no, my coffee spilled on the documents and ruined them... see? I kept them around just so I could show the extent" and by some miracle, that was the only copy.
Oops is not "oh no, my finger pressed the delete key for a few minutes... and no you cannot look at my server"
The best way for the Justice Department to stay off her back is for them to do what they've been doing for a while, ignore cases or investigations they find politically inconvenient.
Your information is out of date: http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...
And in a just world she will be convicted under USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:
Correct, but there are other prohibitions against holding such an office depending on the crime. Most people have forgotten about USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:
In theory, Hillary has already committed an act which if convicted for would disqualify her for any future public office... now actually prosecuting her for that is a separate and rather unlikely matter.
So what steps are you taking from keeping Apple, Google, the NSA or some other large org from knowing every aspect of your life?
I would think there are degrees of leak, some might involve the FBI... others like this case would seem to be a case of "things went public earlier than we wanted but are not going to involve law enforcement"
How old are you? 12? 13? You clearly have a rather limited memory of history with comments like:
Or should we forget that Android is actually (still) the newcomer to the modern world of smartphones? I seem to recall Blackberry, iOS and Windows Mobile/Phone/Mobile existing well before Android... clearly in your world Android has nothing to offer over the existing solutions!
Whatever ideas from another platform could ever influence ones own platform of choice, purity above all else must be enforced eh?>