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

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

As I understand it, agency heads are responsible for deciding how to classify an agency's documents. If so, Secretary of State Clinton was responsible for deciding which State Department documents were classified. (This underscores the problem with AH's "if an employee did it" critique -- unlike the SoS, that employee doesn't have legal authority to decide what is and isn't classified.

Again as I understand it, the ICIG thinks that emails HRC sent that were derived from classified documents should themselves have been classified. State disagreed then and disagrees now. I have no idea who is right about that -- nor does anyone else.

But get meta about this for a moment. Posters here are claiming that HRC violated federal law. What is their authority for this?

What is the applicable law? What are the relevant facts? What should be our level of confidence that we know the answers to those questions? And of course, why don't the wolf-callers understand that they lost all credibility after all the not-wolves?

P.S. Remember when it was no big deal that Dick Cheney outed a CIA operative to settle a grudge with her husband?

Actually, guidelines for deciding what to classify and at what level were spelled out by Obama by Executive Order. And, according to that Order, any summary of classified information is supposed to be classified at the same level as the original information.

But that's really not the issue. The issue is that, even if the information should have been classified (or was classified in fact!), that doesn't mean Clinton broke any laws. Much of the actual process of protecting information was left up to the agency heads. As such, I think Clinton's discretion on how to keep the information safe pretty much precludes someone from charging her with a crime that requires an action be "unauthorized." How can a discretionary action be unauthorized?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Actually, guidelines for deciding what to classify and at what level were spelled out by Obama by Executive Order. And, according to that Order, any summary of classified information is supposed to be classified at the same level as the original information.

But that's really not the issue. The issue is that, even if the information should have been classified (or was classified in fact!), that doesn't mean Clinton broke any laws. Much of the actual process of protecting information was left up to the agency heads. As such, I think Clinton's discretion on how to keep the information safe pretty much precludes someone from charging her with a crime that requires an action be "unauthorized." How can a discretionary action be unauthorized?

Exactly. The classification is as it was originally classified. Heads of agencies cannot change it. We would have a piss poor security system for classified information if that were the case. It isn't.

Also, the protection given classified information is not up to the agency heads. There are stringent requirements that must be followed. Agencies could make them even tighter but they cannot make them more lax. Hillary can't either. Her system was unauthorized for classified information. That is undisputed and cannot be disputed.

 

[HenriPasseur]

Exactly. The classification is as it was originally classified. Heads of agencies cannot change it. We would have a piss poor security system for classified information if that were the case. It isn't.

Also, the protection given classified information is not up to the agency heads. There are stringent requirements that must be followed. Agencies could make them even tighter but they cannot make them more lax. Hillary can't either. Her system was unauthorized for classified information. That is undisputed and cannot be disputed.

If Aloha right, Hillary is guilty. We will know.

 

[stollcpa]

If Aloha right, Hillary is guilty. We will know.

And what makes you think we will know?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Think about this. As you say, one agency can't overcome another agency's classification decision. So if (for example) CIA sends State a classified document, then State can't declassify it. But State personnel will communicate with one another about it. Who decides how to classify those communications among State personnel? Not CIA. State does.

Now, after the fact, State and the Intelligence Community are arguing about how State's communications should be classified because State is about to release them to the public in an ongoing FOIA process. The IC wants to prevent State from doing that.

This is agencies of government disagreeing about how documents should be classified. The IC wants more classification. State wants less. But since we have to deal with you guys, it's all about Hillary.

You act as though this was simply a management issue

Nope. We don't have FBI referrals to settle management issues.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

As I understand it, agency heads are responsible for deciding how to classify an agency's documents. If so, Secretary of State Clinton was responsible for deciding which State Department documents were classified. (This underscores the problem with AH's "if an employee did it" critique -- unlike the SoS, that employee doesn't have legal authority to decide what is and isn't classified.

Again as I understand it, the ICIG thinks that emails HRC sent that were derived from classified documents should themselves have been classified. State disagreed then and disagrees now. I have no idea who is right about that -- nor does anyone else.

But get meta about this for a moment. Posters here are claiming that HRC violated federal law. What is their authority for this?

What is the applicable law? What are the relevant facts? What should be our level of confidence that we know the answers to those questions? And of course, why don't the wolf-callers understand that they lost all credibility after all the not-wolves?

P.S. Remember when it was no big deal that Dick Cheney outed a CIA operative to settle a grudge with her husband?

It wasn't Cheney

You make yourself more irrlevant and frivolous with crap like this.

BTW, Hillary lied about what e-mails she disclosed and didn't disclose, she lied about contributions to the Clinton foundation, she lied about Benghazi, she lied about Rose billing records, and she lied about being shot at by snipers in Bosnia. She is pathetic. People who support her are more pathetic. But, she is "right about the issues" and she needs to go to work for the American people. So who gives a damn?

 

[HenriPasseur]

And what makes you think we will know?

Because Aloha logic is simple. No brainer if Aloha is right.

 

[stollcpa]

Because Aloha logic is simple. No brainer if Aloha is right.

It doesn't matter if Aloha is right. Justice nor the FBI has to do anything.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Because Aloha logic is simple. No brainer if Aloha is right.

Ya know Henri, the American Secretary of State is 4th in the line of Presidential succession.

I'd like to believe they are neither too stupid to keep themselves from violating the law about national security issues, nor willing to violate those laws because they feel superior to the little citizens they govern.

And when the need arises to look into the conduct of public officials, and I see equivocation and rationalization and lack of cooperation, combined with denails of equivocation and rationalization combined with claims of complete cooperation, I start thinking about Nixon and comparing the circumstances to Watergate.

And when I see different standards applied to similar conduct, I start thinking about tyranny.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Also, the protection given classified information is not up to the agency heads. There are stringent requirements that must be followed. Agencies could make them even tighter but they cannot make them more lax. Hillary can't either. Her system was unauthorized for classified information. That is undisputed and cannot be disputed.

Cite some proof for this. I actually breezed through most of the relevant E.O., and did some generic other reading, but I'm no expert. You seem very sure of yourself on these points. I need proof. I think you are mistaken. Prove me wrong.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Cite some proof for this. I actually breezed through most of the relevant E.O., and did some generic other reading, but I'm no expert. You seem very sure of yourself on these points. I need proof. I think you are mistaken. Prove me wrong.

I'm not mistaken. I've dealt with this for nearly 30 years. I'm on my phone, but even if I wasn't, I don't know that I'd bother finding the regulations and laws to link. I know I'm right. I know you are a new lawyer. Look it up.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not mistaken. I've dealt with this for nearly 30 years. I'm on my phone, but even if I wasn't, I don't know that I'd bother finding the regulations and laws to link. I know I'm right. I know you are a new lawyer. Look it up.

I did look it up. I couldn't find anything that would suggest using an unsecured network was per se criminal.

 

[HenriPasseur]

It doesn't matter if Aloha is right. Justice nor the FBI has to do anything.

Can not Congress investigate?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Can not Congress investigate?

LOL!

 

[Rockfish1]

It wasn't Cheney

You make yourself more irrlevant and frivolous with crap like this.

BTW, Hillary lied about what e-mails she disclosed and didn't disclose, she lied about contributions to the Clinton foundation, she lied about Benghazi, she lied about Rose billing records, and she lied about being shot at by snipers in Bosnia. She is pathetic. People who support her are more pathetic. But, she is "right about the issues" and she needs to go to work for the American people. So who gives a damn?

Shorter CO. Hoosier: "[old man shouts at clouds]"

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Shorter CO. Hoosier: "[old man shouts at clouds]"

?????

I didn't call you and old man.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Here ya go

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
​

Notwithstanding the ambiguity about whether HRC was permitted to store official DOS documents in her sole and exclusive possession on a server in her basement, she definitely wasn't allowed to store classified documents in such a manner.

​

I'm not sure I buy that. How do you prove the Secretary of State did this "without authority" at an "unauthorized location." Isn't it pretty much an authorized location by definition? I don't know much about government security procedures, but I do know that the agency heads - including Clinton - are delegated the authority to keep things safe. Unless her private server directly violated Obama's EO on classified info handling, I'd have a hard time believing you could make an argument that it was unauthorized.[/QUOTE]

Wow.

Maybe - if we all put our heads together - we could figure out a way to learn if "the most transparent administration in history" gave its Secretary of State an "authorization" to use a private e-mail server to store SECRET or TOP SECRET or CLINTON EYES ONLY official government communications.

How oh how could a citizen find out something like that?

SHOULD a citizen do it?

Or SHOULD a citizen be permitted to do it?

Maybe the FBI shouldn't look into that either.
Or DOJ.
Or ANYBODY.
None of their damn business now that I think about it.

I would hate to think that high level state-secrety communications between, say, George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice or between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger could be looked into, even if some foreign power like China had already hacked them. No reason to let citizens like us know about that stuff. Especially BEFORE an election. We're much better off if all official communications are secreted away with one of them there "authorizations."

Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Just another anti-Clinton witch hunt.
All's well that ends well.
Good intentions cure all harm.

Man, that Trump fella sure is crazy, huh?

PS - Dear Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman - what a bunch of amateurs you turned out to be. You couldn't even trace leaks or handle moving a little hush money to idiot burglars hired by idiot campaign staff. You should see what a government can get away with nowadays! You folks somehow got the press against you. These days nobody even cares what the press says - they're all lawyered up and picking sides. You fellas thought too small and too inside-the-box.)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Wow.

Maybe - if we all put our heads together - we could figure out a way to learn if "the most transparent administration in history" gave its Secretary of State an "authorization" to use a private e-mail server to store SECRET or TOP SECRET or CLINTON EYES ONLY official government communications.

How oh how could a citizen find out something like that?

SHOULD a citizen do it?

Or SHOULD a citizen be permitted to do it?

Maybe the FBI shouldn't look into that either.
Or DOJ.
Or ANYBODY.
None of their damn business now that I think about it.

I would hate to think that high level state-secrety communications between, say, George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice or between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger could be looked into, even if some foreign power like China had already hacked them. No reason to let citizens like us know about that stuff. Especially BEFORE an election. We're much better off if all official communications are secreted away with one of them there "authorizations."

Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Just another anti-Clinton witch hunt.
All's well that ends well.
Good intentions cure all harm.

Man, that Trump fella sure is crazy, huh?

PS - Dear Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman - what a bunch of amateurs you turned out to be. You couldn't even trace leaks or handle moving a little hush money to idiot burglars hired by idiot campaign staff. You should see what a government can get away with nowadays! You folks somehow got the press against you. These days nobody even cares what the press says - they're all lawyered up and picking sides. You fellas thought too small and too inside-the-box.)

Huh?

Any chance you could simply offer a serious response to something for once? This fake gosh-golly simpleton act is really getting old.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Huh?

Any chance you could simply offer a serious response to something for once? This fake gosh-golly simpleton act is really getting old.

What is getting old is the defense of the leading candidate to become the next President of the United States. The Secretary of State thought it was a ok idea to use a private server to store and reference classified information and you guys seem to be blind. Your argument of defense and Rockfish agrees, is the little boy who cried wolf.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm not sure I buy that. How do you prove the Secretary of State did this "without authority" at an "unauthorized location." Isn't it pretty much an authorized location by definition? I don't know much about government security procedures, but I do know that the agency heads - including Clinton - are delegated the authority to keep things safe. Unless her private server directly violated Obama's EO on classified info handling, I'd have a hard time believing you could make an argument that it was unauthorized.

Wow.

Maybe - if we all put our heads together - we could figure out a way to learn if "the most transparent administration in history" gave its Secretary of State an "authorization" to use a private e-mail server to store SECRET or TOP SECRET or CLINTON EYES ONLY official government communications.

How oh how could a citizen find out something like that?

SHOULD a citizen do it?

Or SHOULD a citizen be permitted to do it?

Maybe the FBI shouldn't look into that either.
Or DOJ.
Or ANYBODY.
None of their damn business now that I think about it.

I would hate to think that high level state-secrety communications between, say, George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice or between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger could be looked into, even if some foreign power like China had already hacked them. No reason to let citizens like us know about that stuff. Especially BEFORE an election. We're much better off if all official communications are secreted away with one of them there "authorizations."

Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Just another anti-Clinton witch hunt.
All's well that ends well.
Good intentions cure all harm.

Man, that Trump fella sure is crazy, huh?

PS - Dear Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman - what a bunch of amateurs you turned out to be. You couldn't even trace leaks or handle moving a little hush money to idiot burglars hired by idiot campaign staff. You should see what a government can get away with nowadays! You folks somehow got the press against you. These days nobody even cares what the press says - they're all lawyered up and picking sides. You fellas thought too small and too inside-the-box.)[/QUOTE]

Time are a changin'

In the old days political operatives had to commit a burglary to obtain the opposition information they needed. The country was outraged. That brought down a president and sent many people to prison.

Nowadays, political operatives simply ask the IRS for opposition information and it the IRS willingly complies. The country yawns, doesn't give a crap, and many even approve because the people the IRS targeted are not "right on the issues".

 

[meridian]

I heard that Clinton coughed yesterday. That is a cardinal crime and unconstitutional. We must investigate her right away! Cost of investigation? No problem; we have surplus available in Social Security and Medicare.

 

[hoosboot]

What is getting old is the defense of the leading candidate to become the next President of the United States. The Secretary of State thought it was a ok idea to use a private server to store and reference classified information and you guys seem to be blind. Your argument of defense and Rockfish agrees, is the little boy who cried wolf.

I haven't seen anybody here exclaiming that what Hillary did with her private email server is okay. Where do you see that? I've seen both Rock and Goat say that Hillary was stupid to do so. I agree and I'm anxious to learn the details of what has occurred.

The push back I see is against people like dave, Lagoda, MTIOF, CoH and Aloha (and you?) who already seem to know exactly everything that has happened here. And (without the humorous self-awareness necessary) they are trumpeting a story from their favorite liberal elitist media villain, The New York Times, as proof...even when the story has already been walked back significantly. The frothing at the mouth on this issue seems a little overblown until more is known about what actually happened here.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Huh?

Any chance you could simply offer a serious response to something for once? This fake gosh-golly simpleton act is really getting old.

Goat - you asked for an explanation of why Clinton did anything wrong.
You were QUOTED the applicable statute.
You're response was "maybe the law doesn't mean what it says? what is "without authority" and what is "unauthorized location". You even seemed to imply it was legal because the SOS said so.

It's not my fault that my snark skewers the ridiculous defense offered by Hillary backers.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goat - you asked for an explanation of why Clinton did anything wrong.
You were QUOTED the applicable statute.
You're response was "maybe the law doesn't mean what it says? what is "without authority" and what is "unauthorized location". You even seemed to imply it was legal because the SOS said so.

It's not my fault that my snark skewers the ridiculous defense offered by Hillary backers.

How can I have a discussion with someone who can't even accurately read my posts? Answer: I can't.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I haven't seen anybody here exclaiming that what Hillary did with her private email server is okay. Where do you see that? I've seen both Rock and Goat say that Hillary was stupid to do so. I agree and I'm anxious to learn the details of what has occurred.

The push back I see is against people like dave, Lagoda, MTIOF, CoH and Aloha (and you?) who already seem to know exactly everything that has happened here. And (without the humorous self-awareness necessary) they are trumpeting a story from their favorite liberal elitist media villain, The New York Times, as proof...even when the story has already been walked back significantly. The frothing at the mouth on this issue seems a little overblown until more is known about what actually happened here.

The walk back isn't all that significant at all. That's just the typical, "they got the part about what kind of investigation wrong, it's not criminal, so the whole thing is really nothing" spin. The facts as we know them are look very bad for Hillary (and they're not being reported solely by the NYTs - that's another BS liberal canard I've seen on the moonbat sites). I linked the IG memos. From them we know that the IGs say that four email contain information that was classified when they were sent. We know the IGs say that there are hundreds of emails that contain classified information. We know that they believe that it's more likely than not that the remaining emails contain TOP SECRET information, not just CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET. We know they took Hillary's emails from an unclassified private system and put them on a classified State system (because they have classified information) to store them (pretty darn ironic there). We know that Hillary explicitly claimed there was no classified information on her system (it wasn't authorized to be there), but now know that was either a lie or she didn't have a clue. We know that unclassified systems are never authorized for transmitting or storing classified information. We know that Hillary determined which of her emails on her private system were official and deleted the rest (or so she says). We know that Hillary's decision to use an unclassified private system to conduct official truly was irresponsible, and stupid, and the worst kind display of leadership by a Cabinet level Department head. Tell me after reading all those facts how this is not a very big deal.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I haven't seen anybody here exclaiming that what Hillary did with her private email server is okay. Where do you see that? I've seen both Rock and Goat say that Hillary was stupid to do so. I agree and I'm anxious to learn the details of what has occurred.

The push back I see is against people like dave, Lagoda, MTIOF, CoH and Aloha (and you?) who already seem to know exactly everything that has happened here. And (without the humorous self-awareness necessary) they are trumpeting a story from their favorite liberal elitist media villain, The New York Times, as proof...even when the story has already been walked back significantly. The frothing at the mouth on this issue seems a little overblown until more is known about what actually happened here.

You are mostly wrong about all of this

The IG found an issue with classified e-mail on the HRC server and referred the matter to the FBI. Those are facts, they are undisputed, and the the FBI referral is not a trifling matter. Meanwhile the HRC sycophants, including you in this post, mumble something about the NYT walk back. The NYT "corrections" mean exactly zilch. There is a problem here. Hillary is not a very good liar. She has shown herself to be well below the competence necessary for almost every job she has had including the job of running for president. Why you defend her and why she has so much traction in the Democratic party is a problem for the country.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The walk back isn't all that significant at all. That's just the typical, "they got the part about what kind of investigation wrong, it's not criminal, so the whole thing is really nothing" spin. The facts as we know them are look very bad for Hillary (and they're not being reported solely by the NYTs - that's another BS liberal canard I've seen on the moonbat sites). I linked the IG memos. From them we know that the IGs say that four email contain information that was classified when they were sent. We know the IGs say that there are hundreds of emails that contain classified information. We know that they believe that it's more likely than not that the remaining emails contain TOP SECRET information, not just CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET. We know they took Hillary's emails from an unclassified private system and put them on a classified State system (because they have classified information) to store them (pretty darn ironic there). We know that Hillary explicitly claimed there was no classified information on her system (it wasn't authorized to be there), but now know that was either a lie or she didn't have a clue. We know that unclassified systems are never authorized for transmitting or storing classified information. We know that Hillary determined which of her emails on her private system were official and deleted the rest (or so she says). We know that Hillary's decision to use an unclassified private system to conduct official truly was irresponsible, and stupid, and the worst kind display of leadership by a Cabinet level Department head. Tell me after reading all those facts how this is not a very big deal.

The parts of this outrage story that we've criticized did in fact all come from the NYT story. The idea that she might be under criminal investigation, that her actions in having a private server violated law, etc. Instead of answering year criticisms, you guys fall back on "stop defending the indefensible!" It's ridiculous. Everyone agrees what Hillary did was a bad idea. It was dumb. It may even have been a security risk. But none of that makes it illegal. None of it makes her a super villain. And when I point out that your inability to criticize Hillary in an objective fashion is the reason no one will take your complaints seriously, that simple observation is itself accused of being Hillary apologia!

Lose the rabies, grow some objectivity, and these could be a great conversation.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You are mostly wrong about all of this

The IG found an issue with classified e-mail on the HRC server and referred the matter to the FBI. Those are facts, they are undisputed, and the the FBI referral is not a trifling matter. Meanwhile the HRC sycophants, including you in this post, mumble something about the NYT walk back. The NYT "corrections" mean exactly zilch. There is a problem here. Hillary is not a very good liar. She has shown herself to be well below the competence necessary for almost every job she has had including the job of running for president. Why you defend her and why she has so much traction in the Democratic party is a problem for the country.

They reported it to administration officials because they are statutorily required to do so when there is a chance that claasifiied info might still be in an unsecured location. We know this is what the referral is, because that's what they said in their Friday memo. They did not specify if it was the FBI.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I haven't seen anybody here exclaiming that what Hillary did with her private email server is okay. Where do you see that? I've seen both Rock and Goat say that Hillary was stupid to do so. I agree and I'm anxious to learn the details of what has occurred.

The push back I see is against people like dave, Lagoda, MTIOF, CoH and Aloha (and you?) who already seem to know exactly everything that has happened here. And (without the humorous self-awareness necessary) they are trumpeting a story from their favorite liberal elitist media villain, The New York Times, as proof...even when the story has already been walked back significantly. The frothing at the mouth on this issue seems a little overblown until more is known about what actually happened here.

Well, I won't speak for dave, Ladoga, CoH or Aloha - but I could not care less what the NYT says about this. They can feint prostrate over the difference between "criminal" and "civil" all they want, and over who is/is not a target. That's a distraction from the main issue.

My beef is with a Secretary of State who first claims she had no e-mails to produce because she sent all hers to the State Department and that's where folks oughta go look. (Is that how YOUR e-mail works? You "send" it and its no longer on your computer? Of course not - that is a stupid statement, designed to buy time. In fact, we all learned from Oliver North that a "deleted" e-mail is still on the hard drive.) Then its, "well, I sent some, but I deleted all the irrelevant ones." Then its "Did I mention I had a private server? Was that wrong?" Then its "I never got any subpoena." Now its "you shouldn't have the right to look on my private server hard drive because there is personal stuff on there - like attorney-client stuff."

Its all BS designed to buy time - no better than Nixon's claim that nobody was entitled to his "private" tapes just because there were Watergate allegations of wrongdoing.

Anybody not named Clinton would have been ordered by a court to produced the hard drive for "imaging" months ago under threat of contempt. Courts do it EVERY day. I can get a hard drive "imaged" by a forensic computer examiner inside of a week.

But some folks want to act like a Secretary of State has an OPTION of whether to be forthcoming about how s/he maintained government records. Bravo Sierra.

It doesn't take 5 minutes to be completely forthcoming.
Its been months and her story is still changing.

And NOW the meme is "just another witch hunt - the FBI and DOJ are NOT conducting a criminal probe and Hillary is not the target."

Fine.
Lets hear the explanation then for why its OK to keep Secret or TOP SECRET records at her home.
If she had authorization - say so.
Show it to us.
Who did you ask for the authorization? When?
If it HAPPENED there is proof.
It doesn't take months and it does not depend on what the meaning of is is.

If she was a Republican, she'd already have been indicted.
That's what passes for justice in this country now.

Might as well appoint a king.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, I won't speak for dave, Ladoga, CoH or Aloha - but I could not care less what the NYT says about this. They can feint prostrate over the difference between "criminal" and "civil" all they want, and over who is/is not a target. That's a distraction from the main issue.

My beef is with a Secretary of State who first claims she had no e-mails to produce because she sent all hers to the State Department and that's where folks oughta go look. (Is that how YOUR e-mail works? You "send" it and its no longer on your computer? Of course not - that is a stupid statement, designed to buy time. In fact, we all learned from Oliver North that a "deleted" e-mail is still on the hard drive.) Then its, "well, I sent some, but I deleted all the irrelevant ones." Then its "Did I mention I had a private server? Was that wrong?" Then its "I never got any subpoena." Now its "you shouldn't have the right to look on my private server hard drive because there is personal stuff on there - like attorney-client stuff."

Its all BS designed to buy time - no better than Nixon's claim that nobody was entitled to his "private" tapes just because there were Watergate allegations of wrongdoing.

Anybody not named Clinton would have been ordered by a court to produced the hard drive for "imaging" months ago under threat of contempt. Courts do it EVERY day. I can get a hard drive "imaged" by a forensic computer examiner inside of a week.

But some folks want to act like a Secretary of State has an OPTION of whether to be forthcoming about how s/he maintained government records. Bravo Sierra.

It doesn't take 5 minutes to be completely forthcoming.
Its been months and her story is still changing.

And NOW the meme is "just another witch hunt - the FBI and DOJ are NOT conducting a criminal probe and Hillary is not the target."

Fine.
Lets hear the explanation then for why its OK to keep Secret or TOP SECRET records at her home.
If she had authorization - say so.
Show it to us.
Who did you ask for the authorization? When?
If it HAPPENED there is proof.
It doesn't take months and it does not depend on what the meaning of is is.

If she was a Republican, she'd already have been indicted.
That's what passes for justice in this country now.

Might as well appoint a king.

The first 3/4 of your post or so is excellent. But you go off the rails at the end, illustrating exactly why "It's not a criminal probe" is the meme.

Show you authorization? That's not how criminal law works, and you should know that. To prove a crime, you have to prove all the elements of the crime. You don't simply get to accuse someone, and then ask them to disprove some elements of the crime. If you say her actions were unauthorized, then you need to come up with some sort of EO or statute that she violated by taking those actions. I've read over EO 13526, which covers this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell (Sec. 4.1(f)), Clinton had discretion within the parameters of the EO to determine how information was safeguarded. Unless her use of a private system was a direction contradiction of an order from Obama himself, I don't see how it can be called "unauthorized."

If she was a Republican, she'd already have been indicted." Utter nonsense, based solely on hatred for Clinton.

If you'd just stick with, "This was irresponsible and politically stupid," everyone here would be on board with you. But most of you have an irrational need to go overboard, which only distracts from the very real criticisms that can be made about this whole situation.

If Clinton has become immune to this stuff, it's not because liberals protect her; it's because conservatives have themselves built an impenetrable wall around her by laying down brick after brick of BS for years.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The parts of this outrage story that we've criticized did in fact all come from the NYT story. The idea that she might be under criminal investigation, that her actions in having a private server violated law, etc. Instead of answering year criticisms, you guys fall back on "stop defending the indefensible!" It's ridiculous. Everyone agrees what Hillary did was a bad idea. It was dumb. It may even have been a security risk. But none of that makes it illegal. None of it makes her a super villain. And when I point out that your inability to criticize Hillary in an objective fashion is the reason no one will take your complaints seriously, that simple observation is itself accused of being Hillary apologia!

Lose the rabies, grow some objectivity, and these could be a great conversation.

It is illegal to transmit or store classified systems. If it's not, we'd have to reverse some past convictions. She's not goin to be prosecuted, but it is illegal. It could have been done inadvertently of corse, but it all goes back to her extremely irresponsible decision to violate State and White House policy and conduct official business on her personal unclassified system. I said that was a big deal when it came to light and nothing has changed except now it's being exposed as to why it's such a big deal. Any objective person would understand this.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The first 3/4 of your post or so is excellent. But you go off the rails at the end, illustrating exactly why "It's not a criminal probe" is the meme.

Show you authorization? That's not how criminal law works, and you should know that. To prove a crime, you have to prove all the elements of the crime. You don't simply get to accuse someone, and then ask them to disprove some elements of the crime. If you say her actions were unauthorized, then you need to come up with some sort of EO or statute that she violated by taking those actions. I've read over EO 13526, which covers this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell (Sec. 4.1(f)), Clinton had discretion within the parameters of the EO to determine how information was safeguarded. Unless her use of a private system was a direction contradiction of an order from Obama himself, I don't see how it can be called "unauthorized."

If she was a Republican, she'd already have been indicted." Utter nonsense, based solely on hatred for Clinton.

If you'd just stick with, "This was irresponsible and politically stupid," everyone here would be on board with you. But most of you have an irrational need to go overboard, which only distracts from the very real criticisms that can be made about this whole situation.

If Clinton has become immune to this stuff, it's not because liberals protect her; it's because conservatives have themselves built an impenetrable wall around her by laying down brick after brick of BS for years.

Goat, I assure you she absolutely does not have the authority to transmit or store classified information on an unclassified system. It astounds me that you appear to believe that's possible. If that were the case we might as well not classify anything. It doesn't work that way. No one in the Clinton camp is floating a defense like that because it's absurd.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The first 3/4 of your post or so is excellent. But you go off the rails at the end, illustrating exactly why "It's not a criminal probe" is the meme.

Show you authorization? That's not how criminal law works, and you should know that. To prove a crime, you have to prove all the elements of the crime. You don't simply get to accuse someone, and then ask them to disprove some elements of the crime. If you say her actions were unauthorized, then you need to come up with some sort of EO or statute that she violated by taking those actions. I've read over EO 13526, which covers this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell (Sec. 4.1(f)), Clinton had discretion within the parameters of the EO to determine how information was safeguarded. Unless her use of a private system was a direction contradiction of an order from Obama himself, I don't see how it can be called "unauthorized."

If she was a Republican, she'd already have been indicted." Utter nonsense, based solely on hatred for Clinton.

If you'd just stick with, "This was irresponsible and politically stupid," everyone here would be on board with you. But most of you have an irrational need to go overboard, which only distracts from the very real criticisms that can be made about this whole situation.

If Clinton has become immune to this stuff, it's not because liberals protect her; it's because conservatives have themselves built an impenetrable wall around her by laying down brick after brick of BS for years.

First, she has said NONE of that in her own defense.

Second - are you OK with a Secretary of State who lawyers up running for President? "Prove it or I run!" Hiding behind the 5th while running for President will be a new one.

I ask again - does her behavior so far disqualify her as a President for YOU?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goat, I assure you she absolutely does not have the authority to transmit or store classified information on an unclassified system. It astounds me that you appear to believe that's possible. If that were the case we might as well not classify anything. It doesn't work that way. No one in the Clinton camp is floating a defense like that because it's absurd.

I am surprised that it's not illegal. And yet, it appears that's the case. Congress has apparently never passed a law making it per se illegal to transfer or store classified documents. Instead, they have made it illegal to do a variety of things with them, such as giving them to unauthorized recipients, like foreign governments or reporters. But actual procedures and authorization for handling classified material is left up to the executive branch. As such, I'm not willing to grant that she's a criminal mastermind without you at least citing one specific regulation or law that she broke, which you have not only failed to do so far, but explicitly refused to do.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

First, she has said NONE of that in her own defense.

Second - are you OK with a Secretary of State who lawyers up running for President? "Prove it or I run!" Hiding behind the 5th while running for President will be a new one.

I ask again - does her behavior so far disqualify her as a President for YOU?

I don't think anything "disqualifies" someone as President, so long as they meet the requirements of the Constitution. I think what you really mean to ask is, does this disqualify her from getting my vote? Well, I'm certainly not voting for her in the primary. In the general, it will depend on whom she's running against.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I said that was a big deal when it came to light and nothing has changed except now it's being exposed as to why it's such a big deal. Any objective person would understand this.

Again, no one here is claiming it wasn't stupid, or perhaps even dangerous to national security. What we are pointing out is that your inability to deal with this objectively, and to instead turn Hillary into some kind of super villain is illustrative of why no one takes this crap seriously anymore. Republicans shot their Clinton wad on nonsense years ago. You could dig up Hoffa's body in Clinton's back yard, and most people would assume it was a Republican plant at this point. And only the Republicans are to blame for that.

I think it's awful that someone can be so popular that they get a pass on things, especially stupid things that might be detrimental to our country. I also hate it when that person is a member of an essentially aristocratic family. I think it would be great if Bush and Clinton would both just go away.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I am surprised that it's not illegal. And yet, it appears that's the case. Congress has apparently never passed a law making it per se illegal to transfer or store classified documents. Instead, they have made it illegal to do a variety of things with them, such as giving them to unauthorized recipients, like foreign governments or reporters. But actually procedures and authorization for handling classified material is left up to the executive branch. As such, I'm not willing to grant that she's a criminal mastermind without you at least citing one specific regulation or law that she broke, which you have not only failed to do so far, but explicitly refused to do.

Goat, people have been prosecuted and convicted for it. I've seen it. Why the heck should I bother to provide any additional support to refute the absurd idea that Clinton could authorize transmitting and storing classified information? I truly am amazed that you would think that plausible. You have to know that if that were the case our classified security system would be essentially worthless. Haven't you noticed no one is making that argument? I suspect the defense/explanation will be that it was inadvertent and she or whomever didn't know the information was classified. I've seen that before and those people weren't prosecuted.

I'm not in the best mood right now. I should be on a plane to DC at the moment but my flight was canceled. Now I have another flight in 3 hours. I doubt it's on time and I doubt I get to my hotel until after midnight and I have a meeting early in the morning.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Again, no one here is claiming it wasn't stupid, or perhaps even dangerous to national security. What we are pointing out is that your inability to deal with this objectively, and to instead turn Hillary into some kind of super villain is illustrative of why no one takes this crap seriously anymore. Republicans shot their Clinton wad on nonsense years ago. You could dig up Hoffa's body in Clinton's back yard, and most people would assume it was a Republican plant at this point. And only the Republicans are to blame for that.

I think it's awful that someone can be so popular that they get a pass on things, especially stupid things that might be detrimental to our country. I also hate it when that person is a member of an essentially aristocratic family. I think it would be great if Bush and Clinton would both just go away.

I'm not turning her into a super-villain. I don't believe she had any intention of giving classified information to our enemies or anything of the sort. I don't believe I said anything like that. I think she was incredibly irresponsible and negligent with her communications as SecState. This is objectively true.

 

[iuwclurker]

Grist for the mill:

Suppose SoS prints a security-classified email and takes it home in a locked briefcase to read that evening. Leaves it in the briefcase overnight and brings it back to work the next day. Is that a security breach?

For all intents and purposes, seems like the same thing--classified document stored at home.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Grist for the mill:

Suppose SoS prints a security-classified email and takes it home in a locked briefcase to read that evening. Leaves it in the briefcase overnight and brings it back to work the next day. Is that a security breach?

For all intents and purposes, seems like the same thing--classified document stored at home.

In the digital age, it's not quite the same thing, in terms of vulnerability, but legally, I don't see the distinction. Does the SoS, who sets procedural security policy for State, have the authority to decide how and where to store her own emails? Seems to me she does.