Hillary Clinton's Use of Personal Email Account (only) for Secretary of State Business

[YmirGF]

Except that former SoS's did the same.

That is not accurate nor is it even particularly comparable. I've been involved with IT since about 1984 so you will have to try much, much better than this drivel. People forget that with the former secretaries, email was nowhere near as prevalent or indispensable as it is today.

Security was almost an after-though, way back when.... particularly on government systems. Ask any hacker who was in fine form in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Underhill]

This is the Washington Post painting a picture of Hillary's imperious disregard for legally required procedures.

Having read the article, I don't see any legal requirement established. The NSA wanted her to stop using her blackberry but there was no legal requirement until the law was changed.

It sounds like the issue of classified materials is the only sticking point, and even then, it doesn't appear to have been classified at the time.

For example, a conversation with a general in the field has not been given a classified 'rating' by anyone. There may be information that would be rated as classified, but it is not a clearly delineated line.

That is not accurate nor is it even particularly comparable. I've been involved with IT since about 1984 so you will have to try much, much better than this drivel. People forget that with the former secretaries, email was nowhere near as prevalent or indispensable as it is today.

Security was almost an after-though, way back when.... particularly on government systems. Ask any hacker who was in fine form in the 80's and 90's.

I understand that. My point was not to say what she did was how things should be done.

The problem is that from the 90's through today we have been in a state of transition. Like it or not these rules were not clear cut and she was winging it. I am no novice when it comes to network security myself. But we are talking about a 60 year old women thrown into a temporary job where she chose to use her phone for email correspondence. Is it brilliant? Probably not, but the majority of 60 year old people I deal with seem to struggle to set up a network printer or update some software.

One part of the story seems a bit odd to me. When her staff asked if she could get a Blackberry similar to what the president uses, they weren't even given the time of day. That makes no sense to me. We aren't talking about the village dog catcher here. Giving her a secure phone seems like a priority, regardless of the cost or difficulty. I would go so far as to say for someone in her position tech like that should be SOP.

 

[Revoltingest]

Having read the article, I don't see any legal requirement established.

I read the article more carefully though.


Oh, snap!
I just had to say something sarcastic.

The NSA wanted her to stop using her blackberry but there was no legal requirement until the law was changed.
It sounds like the issue of classified materials is the only sticking point, and even then, it doesn't appear to have been classified at the time.
For example, a conversation with a general in the field has not been given a classified 'rating' by anyone. There may be information that would be rated as classified, but it is not a clearly delineated line.

As authorities cited in the article said, many things were clearly classified.
Thus, she violated federal law.
But of course, she's too powerful to be prosecuted, so at worst this will be just an embarrassment with little political consequence.

 

[Underhill]

I read the article more carefully though.


Oh, snap!
I just had to say something sarcastic.

As authorities cited in the article said, many things were clearly classified.
Thus, she violated federal law.
But of course, she's too powerful to be prosecuted, so at worst this will be just an embarrassment with little political consequence.

That is the whole question. Some say they were, some say they weren't. So it is all in who you believe.

I doubt power is the issue so much as if they were going to bring charges they would have to be iron-clad. And from what I have seen the situation is not that clear cut.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the whole question. Some say they were, some say they weren't. So it is all in who you believe.

I doubt power is the issue so much as if they were going to bring charges they would have to be iron-clad. And from what I have seen the situation is not that clear cut.

I believe the ones who actually cite the law which was violated.
But it's all moot anyway.
She'll escape prosecution, & it will affect the votes of very few.

 

[YmirGF]

I understand that. My point was not to say what she did was how things should be done.

The problem is that from the 90's through today we have been in a state of transition. Like it or not these rules were not clear cut and she was winging it. I am no novice when it comes to network security myself. But we are talking about a 60 year old women thrown into a temporary job where she chose to use her phone for email correspondence. Is it brilliant? Probably not, but the majority of 60 year old people I deal with seem to struggle to set up a network printer or update some software.

While I can appreciate these sentiments, how many of said ladies would have agreed to having an email server setup and maintained on their property? Seriously? Obviously, she had considerable IT advice on doing this... and failed to change with the times.

One part of the story seems a bit odd to me. When her staff asked if she could get a Blackberry similar to what the president uses, they weren't even given the time of day. That makes no sense to me. We aren't talking about the village dog catcher here. Giving her a secure phone seems like a priority, regardless of the cost or difficulty. I would go so far as to say for someone in her position tech like that should be SOP.

Well, not a lot actually makes much sense where the Hildebeast is concerned.

 

[Underhill]

While I can appreciate these sentiments, how many of said ladies would have agreed to having an email server setup and maintained on their property?

She didn't. The server existed before she took the job and was used by the Clinton Foundation. This is why I find the whole security on the server issue a bit suspect. The server was reasonably secure, it had to be if it's primary use was the management of a multi-billion dollar charity.

Seriously? Obviously, she had considerable IT advice on doing this... and failed to change with the times.

Yes, if there is one thing I can agree with in the whole mess it is that she failed to change with the times. But again, that is true of most people of a certain age. Probably true of most of congress and the senate. We still have supreme court justices that don't use email...

Well, not a lot actually makes much sense where the Hildebeast is concerned.

Yeah, except this quandary had nothing to do with her and everything to do with the NSA's refusal to work with her staff.

 

[Revoltingest]

She didn't. The server existed before she took the job and was used by the Clinton Foundation. This is why I find the whole security on the server issue a bit suspect. The server was reasonably secure, it had to be if it's primary use was the management of a multi-billion dollar charity.



Yes, if there is one thing I can agree with in the whole mess it is that she failed to change with the times. But again, that is true of most people of a certain age. Probably true of most of congress and the senate. We still have supreme court justices that don't use email...



Yeah, except this quandary had nothing to do with her and everything to do with the NSA's refusal to work with her staff.

I'll note that the rest of us, ie, the little people, are regularly prosecuted or otherwise
sanctioned when we don't change with the times regarding info security. The larger
problem is that politicians just aren't held accountable for illegal acts often enuf.
The Hildabeast is just the very ample tip of the iceberg.

 

[esmith]

Well it appears that the FBI investigation is getting close to sending their recommendations to the DOJ
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-investigation-election-2016/

 

[Revoltingest]

Well it appears that the FBI investigation is getting close to sending their recommendations to the DOJ
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-investigation-election-2016/

I'll bet you she won't be indicted.
Loser has to wear a skirt on RF for a day.

 

[esmith]

I'll bet you she won't be indicted.
Loser has to wear a skirt on RF for a day.

I'm not taking that bet. The privileged will always walk 90% of the time. I don't consider a 10% possibility as good odds for a bet.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not taking that bet. The privileged will always walk 90% of the time. I don't consider a 10% possibility as good odds for a bet.

Coward!
I bet you'd look just as fetching as I do in a skirt.

 

[esmith]

Coward!
I bet you'd look just as fetching as I do in a skirt.

Yep......
Nah, I got better looking legs than you do.......they are as white as alabaster and the reddish white hairs don't stand out.

 

[4consideration]

I'll bet you she won't be indicted.
Loser has to wear a skirt on RF for a day.

Well, we see she wasn't indicted, but I don't think that's quite the end it. Probably just more stuff for us to talk about, and nothing being done to hold her accountable.

Judicial Watch has released some pages of State Department emails that were sent to them (date July 26, 2016, after Comey's press conference about why she wasn't being indicted,) that includes emails showing the Chief of Staff for the State Department not only received emails regarding FOI request for information regarding email accounts used by Secretary Clinton, but a high ranking member knew it was an official FOI request and acknowledged receipt of the request, and an email showing the scheduling of a telephone conference on that subject for January 1, 2013.

The original response to the request was a "no records" response.

Here they are: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...icial-Watch-v.-State-CREW-documents-00574.pdf

So much for a transparency:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-show-top-clinton-aide-alerted-email-inquiry/
'The documents were produced under court order in a March 2016, FOIA lawsuit against the State Department for all records “about the processing of a December 2012 FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW]” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:16-cv-00574)). Earlier this year, the State Department Office of Inspector General concluded that the “no records response” sent in response to this request was “inaccurate and incomplete.”'

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, we see she wasn't indicted, but I don't think that's quite the end it. Probably just more stuff for us to talk about, and nothing being done to hold her accountable.

Judicial Watch has released some pages of State Department emails that were sent to them (date July 26, 2016, after Comey's press conference about why she wasn't being indicted,) that includes emails showing the Chief of Staff for the State Department not only received emails regarding FOI request for information regarding email accounts used by Secretary Clinton, but a high ranking member knew it was an official FOI request and acknowledged receipt of the request, and an email showing the scheduling of a telephone conference on that subject for January 1, 2013.

The original response to the request was a "no records" response.

Here they are: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...icial-Watch-v.-State-CREW-documents-00574.pdf

So much for a transparency:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-show-top-clinton-aide-alerted-email-inquiry/
'The documents were produced under court order in a March 2016, FOIA lawsuit against the State Department for all records “about the processing of a December 2012 FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW]” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:16-cv-00574)). Earlier this year, the State Department Office of Inspector General concluded that the “no records response” sent in response to this request was “inaccurate and incomplete.”'

Nothing will come of any of it.
She's too big to jail.
No one in the justice system would want to go after a fellow Democrat, after a presidential
candidate right before the election, or after anyone who is likely to become their boss.
They all know that you don't want to be on her bad side.
(There's a good one?)

 

[4consideration]

Nothing will come of any of it.
She's too big to jail.
No one in the justice system would want to go after a fellow Democrat, after a presidential
candidate right before the election, or after anyone who is likely to become their boss.
They all know that you don't want to be on her bad side.
(There's a good one?)

I think you're right, but that's not going to stop me from arguing against what you said here.

I see some talk U.S. Attorney, Preet Bharara, may be looking at the possibility of investigating the Clinton Foundation. Not producing any links, since I don't see anything official announced.

Probably won't happen, but one can hope someone would.