Is the way that Hillary handled her email at State still not a big deal?

[Aloha Hoosier]

Just conducting DOS business on her personal email account (and server) was and is a big deal because it demonstrates uncommon arrogance and incredibly poor judgment, but a couple of Inspector Generals think she might have been using it inappropriately for sensitive and classified information and has asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation to find out. It is indisputably illegal to use unclassified email systems for classified information and sensitive information has to be encrypted on unclassified systems (doesn't matter if it's encrypted or not for classified - that's flat out illegal on unclassified systems) - and it doesn't matter if you're Secretary of State or your name is Hillary Clinton. Will the Obama Justice Department have the guts to open that investigation? Personally, I doubt it.

This is a big deal.

 

[hootch1]

Are you going to update your post on the most recent information?

 

[meridian]

Just conducting DOS business on her personal email account (and server) was and is a big deal because it demonstrates uncommon arrogance and incredibly poor judgment, but a couple of Inspector Generals think she might have been using it inappropriately for sensitive and classified information and has asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation to find out. It is indisputably illegal to use unclassified email systems for classified information and sensitive information has to be encrypted on unclassified systems (doesn't matter if it's encrypted or not for classified - that's flat out illegal on unclassified systems) - and it doesn't matter if you're Secretary of State or your name is Hillary Clinton. Will the Obama Justice Department have the guts to open that investigation? Personally, I doubt it.

This is a big deal.

That depends.

If you like her, it is no big deal. After all, most of us, if not all, use the same email account and/or server for both private and public matters. I try to separate them with great care but still find myself doing it, often to save 5 minutes of my time. Having said that, if I ever intend to run for a public office, I would be much more careful.

If you hate/dislike her, then it is a big deal. To them, Clinton coughing wouldl be a big deal after all.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That depends.

If you like her, it is no big deal. After all, most of us, if not all, use the same email account and/or server for both private and public matters. I try to separate them with great care but still find myself doing it, often to save 5 minutes of my time. Having said that, if I ever intend to run for a public office, I would be much more careful.

If you hate/dislike her, then it is a big deal. To them, Clinton coughing wouldl be a big deal after all.

Being right on the issues

Covers a multitude of sins for the typical leftist. The question is what would have to be discovered about HRC where her sycophants will say being right on the issues won't help now.

 

[Rockfish1]

The Times has walked its exclusive back quite a bit: The requested investigation isn't criminal, and it doesn't target Hillary Clinton. Also:

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is rebutting reports that the State Department has formally requested a federal criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.

"I spoke personally to the State Department inspector general on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage,” Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Friday in a statement.

Instead, State Inspector General Steve A. Linick, “told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the [Freedom of Information Act] review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified."
​

Maybe we shouldn't rush to judgment on the latest Clinton scandal boomlet. Again.

 

[Rockfish1]

The question is what would have to be discovered about HRC where her sycophants will say being right on the issues won't help now.

Benghazi!

 

[davegolf]

Public / private no problem SECRET a problem.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That depends.

If you like her, it is no big deal. After all, most of us, if not all, use the same email account and/or server for both private and public matters. I try to separate them with great care but still find myself doing it, often to save 5 minutes of my time. Having said that, if I ever intend to run for a public office, I would be much more careful.

If you hate/dislike her, then it is a big deal. To them, Clinton coughing wouldl be a big deal after all.

Actually, you cannot do official business on private email in most, if not all, federal government agencies. When she did it it was against State Department policy, but not yet illegal. If an underling violated State policy they could be fired immediately, but Hillary felt she was above policy and displayed classic "do as I say, not as I do" leadership as head of her Department.

If she mishandled sensitive or classified information by sending it via her private email, she will have doubled down on her irresponsibility and violated the law as well.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Are you going to update your post on the most recent information?

I see now that Justice said it wasn't a criminal referral. That the NYTs made a mistake is actually irrelevant to the fact that the intelligence community IG said they found classified information in the emails they've reviewed so far, and they've only reviewed a fraction of them. It is illegal to transmit classified information via anything other than the SIPRNET. You can't do it via official NIPRNET email or private email. It doesn't matter if the information was marked as classified or not in the email. In fact you'd really have to be an idiot, rather than just irresponsible and negligent, to include the classification.

The facts as known now are bad for Hillary. That she admits that she screened all her emails and deleted all she seemed unofficial is very bad. Her trustworthy ratings are in the toilet and they're going to go lower. Rightly so.

 

[Sope Creek]

I see now that Justice said it wasn't a criminal referral. That the NYTs made a mistake is actually irrelevant to the fact that the intelligence community IG said they found classified information in the emails they've reviewed so far, and they've only reviewed a fraction of them. It is illegal to transmit classified information via anything other than the SIPRNET. You can't do it via official NIPRNET email or private email. It doesn't matter if the information was marked as classified or not in the email. In fact you'd really have to be an idiot, rather than just irresponsible and negligent, to include the classification.

The facts as known now are bad for Hillary. That she admits that she screened all her emails and deleted all she seemed unofficial is very bad. Her trustworthy ratings are in the toilet and they're going to go lower. Rightly so.

The interest level on this issue will rise or fall with the degree of success that she has in her political aspirations. Personally, I think it's going to go away quietly over the long run because I don't think her political future is waxing . . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I see now that Justice said it wasn't a criminal referral. That the NYTs made a mistake is actually irrelevant to the fact that the intelligence community IG said they found classified information in the emails they've reviewed so far, and they've only reviewed a fraction of them. It is illegal to transmit classified information via anything other than the SIPRNET. You can't do it via official NIPRNET email or private email. It doesn't matter if the information was marked as classified or not in the email. In fact you'd really have to be an idiot, rather than just irresponsible and negligent, to include the classification.

The facts as known now are bad for Hillary. That she admits that she screened all her emails and deleted all she seemed unofficial is very bad. Her trustworthy ratings are in the toilet and they're going to go lower. Rightly so.

At this point, what difference does it make?

HRC's political strength does not come from the voters who give a crap about this. As O'Malley found out, saying "all lives matter" is a worse sin than violating technical e-mail protocol.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Overall this would have more traction if it were not the 500th investigation of the Clinton's that so far has discovered Bill could not keep it in his pants. They have been investigated for drug dealing, murdering a White House Aid, about a dozen Benghazi probes, and who knows how many more.

If she screwed up and sent classified email, she should face the same sanctions anyone else would. At the same point, congress ordering a billion dollar hearing every time a Clinton crosses outside the crosswalk is getting old. Let's wait until the real facts are known and not what someone with an agenda leaked.

Again, if guilty, it is a big deal. But it is crazy to buy into this at this stage. If we did, she would have been in prison for murdering Vince Foster long ago.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Lies and legal violations only matter if a Republican did it.

My question - what did she let get hacked?
Sounds like when it comes to computers, she can't tell a lead point from an eraser.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I see now that Justice said it wasn't a criminal referral. That the NYTs made a mistake is actually irrelevant to the fact that the intelligence community IG said they found classified information in the emails they've reviewed so far, and they've only reviewed a fraction of them. It is illegal to transmit classified information via anything other than the SIPRNET. You can't do it via official NIPRNET email or private email. It doesn't matter if the information was marked as classified or not in the email. In fact you'd really have to be an idiot, rather than just irresponsible and negligent, to include the classification.

The facts as known now are bad for Hillary. That she admits that she screened all her emails and deleted all she seemed unofficial is very bad. Her trustworthy ratings are in the toilet and they're going to go lower. Rightly so.

As the Politico piece notes . . .

"But much of the substance of the story remains true. The IC IG has made a referral to the Justice Department for an investigation. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal has since reported that an internal government review "found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department."
​

Of course the Clintons will say the NYT piece is false and stop there. Did you catch the rehash of WJC's Lewinsky statement as HRC spins the issue like this?

"I want to say a word about what's in the news today. It's because there have been a lot of inaccuracies," Clinton said. "We all have a responsibility to get this right. I have released 55,000 pages of emails. I have said repeatedly that I will answer questions before the House committee. We are all accountable to get the facts right. I will do my part. But I'm also going to stay focused on the issues, particularly the big issues that really matter to American families."
​

Yep. Her mission to become POTUS is so important that she can't be bothered with her mundane lies, dishonesty and criminal mishandling of the e-mails.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Times has walked its exclusive back quite a bit: The requested investigation isn't criminal, and it doesn't target Hillary Clinton. Also:

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is rebutting reports that the State Department has formally requested a federal criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.

"I spoke personally to the State Department inspector general on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage,” Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Friday in a statement.

Instead, State Inspector General Steve A. Linick, “told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the [Freedom of Information Act] review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified."
​

Maybe we shouldn't rush to judgment on the latest Clinton scandal boomlet. Again.

The Times has walked its exclusive back quite a bit: The requested investigation isn't criminal, and it doesn't target Hillary Clinton. Also:

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is rebutting reports that the State Department has formally requested a federal criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.

"I spoke personally to the State Department inspector general on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage,” Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Friday in a statement.

Instead, State Inspector General Steve A. Linick, “told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the [Freedom of Information Act] review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified."
​

Maybe we shouldn't rush to judgment on the latest Clinton scandal boomlet. Again.

"The requested investigation isn't criminal"

The IG investigated. Then the IG turned the results of his investigation over to the FBI with a request for an FBI investigation. And that isn't a criminal investigation? What planet are you living on? What do you think the FBI does with these kinds of requests?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Overall this would have more traction if it were not the 500th investigation of the Clinton's that so far has discovered Bill could not keep it in his pants. They have been investigated for drug dealing, murdering a White House Aid, about a dozen Benghazi probes, and who knows how many more.

If she screwed up and sent classified email, she should face the same sanctions anyone else would. At the same point, congress ordering a billion dollar hearing every time a Clinton crosses outside the crosswalk is getting old. Let's wait until the real facts are known and not what someone with an agenda leaked.

Again, if guilty, it is a big deal. But it is crazy to buy into this at this stage. If we did, she would have been in prison for murdering Vince Foster long ago.

The Republicans don't run this administration and didn't appoint these IGs. They didn't force Hillary to be irresponsible and grossly negligent in handling her email communications while SecState. This has been, and still is, a very big deal. Democrats might want to start thinking about another candidate.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The Republicans don't run this administration and didn't appoint these IGs. They didn't force Hillary to be irresponsible and grossly negligent in handling her email communications while SecState. This has been, and still is, a very big deal. Democrats might want to start thinking about another candidate.

No, but the Republicans have been crying wolf at the Clintons for years. It's hard not to roll your eyes at this point when you read about something awful one of them did.

 

[Rockfish1]

"The requested investigation isn't criminal"

The IG investigated. Then the IG turned the results of his investigation over to the FBI with a request for an FBI investigation. And that isn't a criminal investigation? What planet are you living on? What do you think the FBI does with these kinds of requests?

You guys are such rubes.

 

[Rockfish1]

The Republicans don't run this administration and didn't appoint these IGs. They didn't force Hillary to be irresponsible and grossly negligent in handling her email communications while SecState. This has been, and still is, a very big deal. Democrats might want to start thinking about another candidate.

LOUD NOISES!

 

[davegolf]

Amazing the power of a former President combined with a former Secretary of State has. First the term "criminal" was used and now it is not.

 

[davegolf]

LOUD NOISES!

Amazing you used the term "loud". Would agree with the Clintons it always noise. The polls indicate the voters are getting worn out with all the noise.

 

[Rockfish1]

Amazing the power of a former President combined with a former Secretary of State has. First the term "criminal" was used and now it is not.

That's because the initial story was wrong, dave.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yes, it still isn't a big deal. But the misreport is blowing up at the Times, which appears to have screwed up badly.

 

[Ladoga]

Yes, it still isn't a big deal. But the misreport is blowing up at the Times, which appears to have screwed up badly.

Should the NYT allow the subject of a story to dictate changes to the story? That would be fine with you if it is a Democrat dictating the changes to their own advantage, eh?

 

[Rockfish1]

Should the NYT allow the subject of a story to dictate changes to the story? That would be fine with you if it is a Democrat dictating the changes to their own advantage, eh?

The Times is making corrections because its original story was wrong. There wasn't a criminal referral and the requested investigation doesn't target Hillary Clinton.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Should the NYT allow the subject of a story to dictate changes to the story? That would be fine with you if it is a Democrat dictating the changes to their own advantage, eh?

Shorter Ladoga: "Damn liberal media!!!"

 

[Ladoga]

"Damned liberal activist lapdog media actively using their media to campaign for Democrats."

IF yer gonna try, try to get it right.

 

[Ladoga]

Actually, you cannot do official business on private email in most, if not all, federal government agencies. When she did it it was against State Department policy, but not yet illegal. If an underling violated State policy they could be fired immediately, but Hillary felt she was above policy and displayed classic "do as I say, not as I do" leadership as head of her Department.

If she mishandled sensitive or classified information by sending it via her private email, she will have doubled down on her irresponsibility and violated the law as well.

"The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems."

Hillary Clinton

 

[hootch1]

Bill and Hillary should have been in prison years ago for all of those murders at the airport in Arkansas years ago. It's just another topic for the Select Committee on Investigating the Clintons Harumph Harumph. They will get to this once the Permanent Committee to Investigate Benghazi for the Sixth Time finishes in November 2016.

 

[hootch1]

"Damned liberal activist lapdog media actively using their media to campaign for Democrats."

IF yer gonna try, try to get it right.

The Times coverage of HRCs campaign has been far from favorable. Petty would be a better term.

 

[Rockfish1]

The Times coverage of HRCs campaign has been far from favorable. Petty would be a better term.

Back in the day the Times led the way on Whitewater too.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, it still isn't a big deal. But the misreport is blowing up at the Times, which appears to have screwed up badly.

LOL! Look over there!

Really, Elijah Cummings and Newsweek? Really?

Newsflash: This isn't about the New York Times. This is about HRC, the IG investigation of the e-mails from HRC's at home server, and the IG asking the FBI to investigate.

If I had a client or a friend whose activities were investigated by competent counsel in the person of the IG and the IG brings in the FBI, I wouldn't be taking comfort in what Elijah Cummings said.

Oh, I forgot, you don't think the FBI does criminal stuff. Shish. Your posts become more frivolous by the day.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

"Damned liberal activist lapdog media actively using their media to campaign for Democrats."

IF yer gonna try, try to get it right.

That's not "shorter". Try again.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So now the spin is that since the NYTs story has been revised, very slightly by the way, that nothing about this matters. That's just incredibly disingenuous and ridiculous to boot. The main point of this is that Clinton’s use of her own private email system rather than official government email for official business, contrary to State and White House policy, probably jeopardized US national security. That there was information passed via her system that was subsequently deemed classified is bad enough, that two IGs have reported that then classified information was passed via this system is far worse - it's flat out illegal. There are conflicting reports about who sent it, but if she passed it and knew it was classified (apparently at the SECRET level) she broke the law. If she received it the person sending it was either breaking the law or incredibly negligent. If Hillary received it and knew it was classified and didn't take action to include reporting it and having the possible consequences investigated she violated regulations and policy. Classified information is never to be passed via unclassified systems, official or private. On top of all this they've only reviewed a fraction of the emails she deemed official. We have to take Hillary at her word that she only deleted 10s of thousands of emails that were entirely private or irrelevant to State Department business and that they contained no classified or sensitive information. No one in government, certainly no one at State (other than obviously Hillary, like Donald, THE BOSS) would be allowed to personally determine which of her own emails were official and relevant. No one. The bottom line is that her use her own private email system was and remains a tremendously arrogant, irresponsible and dangerous thing for her to do. If she hadn't done it we wouldn't even be having this discussion (unless of course she or an underling sent classified information on State's official NIPRNET system rather than the SIPRNET). It also loudly broadcasts that Hillary just doesn't think the rules apply to her and that as a leader she practices the "do as I say, not as I do method." This is a big deal to anyone except a sycophant or blind partisan.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

LOL! Look over there!

Really, Elijah Cummings and Newsweek? Really?

Newsflash: This isn't about the New York Times. This is about HRC, the IG investigation of the e-mails from HRC's at home server, and the IG asking the FBI to investigate.

If I had a client or a friend whose activities were investigated by competent counsel in the person of the IG and the IG brings in the FBI, I wouldn't be taking comfort in what Elijah Cummings said.

Oh, I forgot, you don't think the FBI does criminal stuff. Shish. Your posts become more frivolous by the day.

I watched MSNBC last night for a bit just to see how they're portraying it and it's a mixed bag. I saw Elijah Cummings and he was spinning furiously to make this seem like nothing at all. This stuff about it being unmarked is widely misunderstood. Some actually suggested that it might mean it wasn't even classified. Either they're ignorant or liars. That part is irrelevant to whether it's classified or not. It's only relevant if someone passed it not knowing that it was classified. Even then it must be investigated to determine where the person got the information. Often they got it from classified documents and just repeated it into unclassified communications. That's still a crime. It's even worse since it shows willful negligence at best and deliberate criminality at worst.

I have some experience with this because I've been involved in few (luckily, not many) investigations of breaches of security involving unclassified email during my career. We've found it done inadvertently (i.e. the person passed on information heard in a briefing not knowing that particular piece of information was classified), due to ignorance and even due to convenience. We never found any intent to spy or cause any harm to national security. A determination must be made of whether the breach was contained (i.e. sent from one person to one other person and it ended there), or it might have been broad. Then it must be determined if the release of the information may have harmed US security interests and an evaluation must be made as to how much harm it could have had. Punishment varied from counseling to some relatively serious consequences. Fortunately no one had to go to jail because none were serious enough.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I watched MSNBC last night for a bit just to see how they're portraying it and it's a mixed bag. I saw Elijah Cummings and he was spinning furiously to make this seem like nothing at all. This stuff about it being unmarked is widely misunderstood. Some actually suggested that it might mean it wasn't even classified. Either they're ignorant or liars. That part is irrelevant to whether it's classified or not. It's only relevant if someone passed it not knowing that it was classified. Even then it must be investigated to determine where the person got the information. Often they got it from classified documents and just repeated it into unclassified communications. That's still a crime. It's even worse since it shows willful negligence at best and deliberate criminality at worst.

I have some experience with this because I've been appointed to lead, or I've directed a few (luckily, not many) investigations of breaches of security involving unclassified email during my career. We've found it done inadvertently (i.e. the person passed on information heard in a briefing not knowing that particular piece of information was classified), due to ignorance and even due to convenience. We never found any intent to spy or cause any harm to national security. A determination must be made of whether the breach was contained (i.e. sent from one person to one other person and it ended there), or it might have been broad. Then it must be determined if the release of the information may have harmed US security interests and an evaluation must be made as to how much harm it could have had. Punishment varied from counseling to some relatively serious consequences. Fortunately no one had to go to jail because none were serious enough.

along those lines

I don't know why anyone would believe that once top secret information becomes digitized, that its status could be preserved. In my business, I always instructed my staff that never assume what is said in an e-mail would remain confidential notwithstanding the attorney/client privilege. Slip ups are too easy. When we first switched to gmail from MS outlook, I blundered into sending an interoffice message to another attorney with a copy to the opposing counsel. I was not familiar with how the strings worked in gmail. (still a problem with gmail). I've also seen e-mails from opposing counsel clearly not intended for my eyes.

I think we need to go back to hard copies in brief-cases handcuffed to a currier's wrist.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Changing the subject slightly, why on earth should anything classified be sent via email, even on the secure government system. I have no real knowledge of that system, but I would be stunned to learn the Chinese have not infiltrated it. Somewhere out there are design specifications and those certainly rest on government and contractor servers. Those are hackable. I know the theory behind key exchange. But I have long theorized we have built back doors into keys and OS's for our own use. If the NSA has that information, so do the Chinese.

Of course I just received my 4th "here is free useless credit monitoring because we have been hacked" notice in the past year. I think we need to blow all computing systems up and develop new secure methods.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Changing the subject slightly, why on earth should anything classified be sent via email, even on the secure government system. I have no real knowledge of that system, but I would be stunned to learn the Chinese have not infiltrated it. Somewhere out there are design specifications and those certainly rest on government and contractor servers. Those are hackable. I know the theory behind key exchange. But I have long theorized we have built back doors into keys and OS's for our own use. If the NSA has that information, so do the Chinese.

Of course I just received my 4th "here is free useless credit monitoring because we have been hacked" notice in the past year. I think we need to blow all computing systems up and develop new secure methods.

The SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) is designed for handling classified information. In today's world you have to do it. You can't wait for a courier to get it to you. I had SIPRNET and NIPRNET (Nonsecure Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network) email accounts for a couple of decades. We commonly refer to them as the "high side" and "low side." These days, the watchstanders in Combat Information Centers (CICs) at sea communicate via SIPRNET email with watchstanders in the CICs of other ships, probably more often than our secure radio systems. When I initially cut my teeth at sea, we had no such connectivity. It was all via radio traffic. I must say that our CICs are a lot quieter and I think more efficient because we can communicate this way too. Probably the biggest security precaution is to make sure no one air gaps (i.e. transfers classified information to the low side via a disc) that was a common, usually inadvertent, cause of security breaches in the early days, but isn't so common now. Part of it is awareness, but we've also made is so difficult to do that it would pretty much have to be deliberate. Which of course means we're not very forgiving if it happens now.

 

[davegolf]

That's because the initial story was wrong, dave.

It was not wrong someone at the DOJ changed the facts probably due to political pressure. Come on we all no there is no civil issues here so a referral by the Inspector General had to have some criminal content involving the 4 emails.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

It was not wrong someone at the DOJ changed the facts probably due to political pressure. Come on we all no there is no civil issues here so a referral by the Inspector General had to have some criminal content involving the 4 emails.

I don't know why you waste your time trying to talk about it. If it's a story against the Clinton's, or any democrat, you believe it. If it comes out that the story was wrong or new facts are uncovered, well, they just changed the facts. Why bother?