More Hillary E-mail leaks...

[esmith]

You say that, but what does the law say? She was secretary of state after all. Who does have authority under that bill if the Secretary of State doesn't?

I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on classified information handling. Just be aware that the Sec of State doesn't have the necessary authority to declassify something nor the authority to determine if a location is secure or not.

 

[metis]

But the real question is did it violate a law, and from what I've been reading and hearing, probably not.

 

[esmith]

But the real question is did it violate a law, and from what I've been reading and hearing, probably not.

That is for the DOJ to determine. However, if I had done what she did while I was in the military I would have been court-martialed.

 

[Underhill]

I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on classified information handling. Just be aware that the Sec of State doesn't have the necessary authority to declassify something nor the authority to determine if a location is secure or not.

That isn't what your quote is talking about. Your quote talked about the authority to take classified material home and I would think if anyone had that authority, it would be the secretary of state.

As I pointed out, there was no law, prior to 2014 that said she couldn't use personal email. You call it a stupid thing to do, and maybe it is. But that does not mean she broke the law.

 

[Underhill]

That is for the DOJ to determine. However, if I had done what she did while I was in the military I would have been court-martialed.

The difference is that in the military there are very clear lines of demarcation for everything. In a position like hers, where she is the only one, and reports primarily to the president, those lines are not as clear.

 

[esmith]

The difference is that in the military there are very clear lines of demarcation for everything. In a position like hers, where she is the only one, and reports primarily to the president, those lines are not as clear.

It now seems clear that your understanding of procedures for handling classified material is limited. Therefor there is now way possible to even attempt to continue discussing your denial. Have a nice day.

Ok on consideration suggest you read the following:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...e-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server

 

[Underhill]

It now seems clear that your understanding of procedures for handling classified material is limited. Therefor there is now way possible to even attempt to continue discussing your denial. Have a nice day.

If, as you say, things were very clear and the lines are obvious for all to see who "understand the procedures for handling classified material" then feel free to explain why they needed the 2014 bill which was hailed as a clarification on those procedures by both sides of the aisle when they were passing it...

 

[esmith]

If, as you say, things were very clear and the lines are obvious for all to see who "understand the procedures for handling classified material" then feel free to explain why they needed the 2014 bill which was hailed as a clarification on those procedures by both sides of the aisle when they were passing it...

HR1233 has noting to do with the "handling" of classified material. It deals ONLY with Presidential Records. From the bill (now law)

To amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as
the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the
consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against
disclosure of Presidential records, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Nov.
26, 2014 - [H.R. 1233]>>

Below amended from my post 66

Ok on consideration suggest you read the following:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...e-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server

 

[Underhill]

HR1233 has noting to do with the "handling" of classified material. It deals ONLY with Presidential Records. From the bill (now law)


Below amended from my post 66

Ok on consideration suggest you read the following:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...e-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server

Clearly the author of that story has a serious axe to grind. I would just point out that he list two previous cases where someone was found guilty of the same thing she supposedly did. Okay, but he glosses over the fact that the most grievous of these simply lost his job and the other example, they chose not to prosecute at all.

He alludes to some low level people being prosecuted, but never explains the details or the outcome of those cases.

HR1233 talks about exactly when someone can take archived material out of the federal system and when they can't. Definitely relevant in this case.

.

 

[metis]

That is for the DOJ to determine. However, if I had done what she did while I was in the military I would have been court-martialed.

But the military has its own code of conduct. Also, note that I have not prejudged Hillary on this, but some here have.

 

[columbus]

That is for the DOJ to determine. However, if I had done what she did while I was in the military I would have been court-martialed.

Here's the thing esmith.
She was Secretary of state for four years. Multiple agencies were responsible for security, from SS to the CIA. They all knew what was what. If her server presented a cyber security issue that should have been, and I'm sure would have been, addressed at the time. But it wasn't.
Because it is not one. It is a manufactured scandal being used for political purposes, by partisan political hacks with agendas. Rather like the birther nonsense and the Swift Boat.
Tom

 

[esmith]

But the military has its own code of conduct. Also, note that I have not prejudged Hillary on this, but some here have.

I think you are a little confused or misusing words. The Code of Conduct in the military has nothing to do with handling of classified material or even law. Basically the Code of Conduct prescribes ones conduct if taken as a prisoner of war. The UCMJ deals with the laws of the military and is not explicit as far as far as a charge of mishandling classified information. If I had, as a member of the military, mishandled classified information I would be charged under Article 24 of the UCMJ which is a general article and would be referenced to the "18 U.S Code,I would also be in violation of Navy Regulations.. Each branch of the service has their own "Regulations". There are Navy Regulations (USMC falls under these), Army Regulations, and Air Force Regulations.

Therefore your idea that the military has different views on handling of classified information is wrong. It doesn't matter if you are a civilian or military member you still answer to Title 18 of the U.S.C

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charges_in_United_States_v._Manning for reference to military members and mishandling classified information.

 

[metis]

I think you are a little confused or misusing words. The Code of Conduct in the military has nothing to do with handling of classified material or even law. Basically the Code of Conduct prescribes ones conduct if taken as a prisoner of war. The UCMJ deals with the laws of the military and is not explicit as far as far as a charge of mishandling classified information. If I had, as a member of the military, mishandled classified information I would be charged under Article 24 of the UCMJ which is a general article and would be referenced to the "18 U.S Code,I would also be in violation of Navy Regulations.. Each branch of the service has their own "Regulations". There are Navy Regulations (USMC falls under these), Army Regulations, and Air Force Regulations.

Therefore your idea that the military has different views on handling of classified information is wrong. It doesn't matter if you are a civilian or military member you still answer to Title 18 of the U.S.C

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charges_in_United_States_v._Manning for reference to military members and mishandling classified information.

I may not have use the correct words, but what I was trying to say is that the military has it's own way of handling things. At this point, there is no evidence that has been brought forth to indicate she broke the law. Did she make a mistake, imo? Yes. But a mistake may not necessarily have violated any law.

However, we will see in time.

 

[esmith]

Here's the thing esmith.
She was Secretary of state for four years. Multiple agencies were responsible for security, from SS to the CIA. They all knew what was what. If her server presented a cyber security issue that should have been, and I'm sure would have been, addressed at the time. But it wasn't.
Because it is not one. It is a manufactured scandal being used for political purposes, by partisan political hacks with agendas. Rather like the birther nonsense and the Swift Boat.
Tom

Sorry Tom your supposition is wrong. The Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III is an Obama appointee and I seriously doubt that he is politically motivated. Is it that you can't see the truth because you are blinded by your own prejudices? Appears that way to me.
Oh by the way, here is a link to the letter. Note: it is a downloadable PDF file.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-.icig.response.letter.pdf

 

[columbus]

Sorry Tom your supposition is wrong.

Which supposition?
That Clinton was Secretary of state? That the CIA, et al., knew about her email system?
That you are a partisan hack?
Tom

 

[esmith]

Which supposition?
That Clinton was Secretary of state? That the CIA, et al., knew about her email system?
That you are a partisan hack?
Tom

No, that in your words " It is a manufactured scandal being used for political purposes, by partisan political hacks with agendas"

 

[columbus]

No, that in your words " It is a manufactured scandal being used for political purposes, by partisan political hacks with agendas"

I still think that. Because it was not an issue in 2009, but now it is.
Back then, there may have been a security threat. Nobody seems to have thought so. Now it is a big deal, only because Clinton is running for office. So, this is not an issue, it is a manufactured scandal, like the many before it.
Where do my prejudices come in?
Tom

 

[esmith]

I still think that. Because it was not an issue in 2009, but now it is.
Back then, there may have been a security threat. Nobody seems to have thought so. Now it is a big deal, only because Clinton is running for office. So, this is not an issue, it is a manufactured scandal, like the many before it.
Where do my prejudices come in?
Tom

Well, it appears that you do have political prejudice's. Hillary is not a Republican and you seem to lean toward the liberal/progressive ideology of the new Democrat's ideology. So, I'm basing my statement on your political prejudices

 

[columbus]

So, I'm basing my statement on your political prejudices

As opposed to the facts about what happened.
Here is one prejudice I do have. I'm seriously prejudiced in favor of government transparency, while also realizing that some secrets need to be kept. So I have a nuanced view about state secrets.
Did Assange and Snowden and such leakers get their information off of private servers like Clinton's? Or did they get them from government sources, such as you are advocating?
I'm not sure myself.
Tom

 

[esmith]

As opposed to the facts about what happened.
Here is one prejudice I do have. I'm seriously prejudiced in favor of government transparency, while also realizing that some secrets need to be kept. So I have a nuanced view about state secrets.
Did Assange and Snowden and such leakers get their information off of private servers like Clinton's? Or did they get them from government sources, such as you are advocating?
I'm not sure myself.
Tom

Snowden got his information off NSA’s servers by the use of a thumb drive and a gaping hole in the NSA security system. He physically (through a USB port) downloaded the information off the main computer system in Ft. Meade while he was in Honolulu (I believe) by the use of Administrator Access privileges.
see below for further information.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/how-snowden-did-it-f8C11003160

The Hillary problem and Snowden problem are not related. The NSA computer was a "secure system" (although it had serious security holes) Hillary's server was not a "secure server" Big difference as far as where classified information can be stored. Her server was not a "secure site". I can have all kinds of security protocols on my home computer but it is illegal for me to have classified information on it. Hillary's server was not designated as a "secure site" thus she could not legally have classified information on it.
I am not a Hillary supporter and even if I was I would have to say that what she did was illegal because of my personal experience with the rules governing the handling of classified information. Do you understand that? Maybe not if you have never been subjected to the laws governing handling of classified material.