Clinton relents, gives up possession of private email server
- Thread starter meridian
- Start date
Yea, those feisty FBI people and certainly the DOJ. They are so unfair to Hillary. It's a witch hunt, dang nabbit.
You must be kidding. That is not the end of her problem in any way. You clearly don't understand how very serious her email issue actually is.
Move on?!?! LMAO!!! No, now it will be "didn't do it soon enough" and "had time to delete or somehow change information". Hillary could submit herself to pelvic exam that is sent out live and "up close" to the country and the republicans will say there's no proof that was really her vagina.
Did you even read that article? There's a lot of negative and little to no positive info in it for HRC. She had TS on an unclassified system. People go to prison for that kind of thing.
Look at you. All your top secret clearance and you stoop to try and rip on lil' ol' me. I'm flattered. Your self importance called, it misses you.
I wouldn't say he is ripping on you. I would say it is more laughing at you.
Then he can no longer say I didn't make him laugh. That's really saying something if I made some big manly man with top secret clearance laugh.
You make me laugh at your lame attempts at humor. That one was one of them.
You can call me cynical but I don't trust ANY politician (R or D) to do the right thing.
To me turning over the server is like me having to turn over my computer to someone AFTER I have a year to clean it up.
Relents? That's funny
Not turning it over is called obstruction of justice. Ask Scooter Libby about that, he has first hand knowledge.
But then she is not under a "criminal" investigation, so there is that.
Interesting phrase-
The Hill report states that the Office of Intelligence Inspector General told Congress that Ms. Clinton's server contains emails that have now been classified top secret.
There was discussion earlier that the dispute about classification. This statement reads as if some items may have not been classified initially, but are now.
The Hill report states that the Office of Intelligence Inspector General told Congress that Ms. Clinton's server contains emails that have now been classified top secret.
There was discussion earlier that the dispute about classification. This statement reads as if some items may have not been classified initially, but are now.
Two things to remember:
1. If there becomes an issue with having classified information on an unclassified system, all that matters is whether or not it was classified at the time. If it became classified later, Hillary's fine.
2. We need to distinguish between reclassification and later recognition of classification that already existed. Legally, it's not the content that is classified, but the information contained therein. So, even if Hillary wrote an email from scratch, if she included any information that was already classified, even in her own words, it would automatically be classified at the time she wrote it, whether or not she recognized it as such at the time.
Of course, this all assumes that it was a violation of the law for her to include classified information in any of those emails, which I'm not 100% sold on. I don't think it's an outrageous suggestion, mind you. I just think the law on this topic is extremely sloppy, and a solid argument can be made both ways.
Relents? What relents? I did not say a word about relenting.Relents? That's funny
Not turning it over is called obstruction of justice. Ask Scooter Libby about that, he has first hand knowledge.
But then she is not under a "criminal" investigation, so there is that.
My edit of that sentence: "So, even if Hillary wrote an email from scratch, if she included any information that [came to her marked as] classified, even in her own words, it would automatically be classified at the time she wrote it".
Classified information must be conspicuously marked; otherwise recipients won't know to protect the information. Look carefully at what Hillary Clinton says: she denies that she disclosed anything "marked as classified".
Recall that this is really a dispute between the State Department and the Intelligence Community over what ought to have been (marked as) classified, and under the EO each has independent authority to make its own decisions about that. Since the State Department has been ordered to produce these emails in ongoing FOIA litigation, the government must resolve the interagency conflict over what (at least now) ought to be withheld from that court-ordered production as classified. Who knows what might emerge from this, but right now it's much less than meets the eye.
By the way, those who still have Benghazi! all over them would be wise to slow-play this one, but that would require learning from experience.
I think you're probably right about that. I'm no expert, but the way you described it is how I understand it; I just stated it poorly (I was typing and cooking pizza at the same time).
The only serious issue I see is going to be, under the relevant EO at the time, did Hillary have the authority, as SecState, to set up an email system. My take on the situation is that she probably did. Not because it was intended that way (it likely wasn't) or that it was a good idea (it obviously wasn't), but because the law has always been a lot sloppier and more ambiguous than Aloha would like us to believe on this issue.
Particularly since "the law" consists of whatever EO the President has issued, as it comes to be implemented by each agency head -- all subjects on which disagreements are commonplace.
It is reported that "information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the Inspector General’s report". Having worked with classified military information for several years while overseas I think it would be extremely hard not to recognize information that rose to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” and later claim it was not properly classified.
Who knows, dave. Eventually you guys might actually turn out to be right on something. In the meantime, it's all Benghazi! all the time.
Goat, the answer remains "no." Once again she is not making that argument and she can never make that argument. If it came to her classified she cannot arbitrarily treat it as unclassified. It is as clear and as simple as that. She can argue that she didn't know something was classified, she cannot argue that she deemed something unclassified. She doesn't have that authority.
"SI refers to Special Intelligence, meaning it is information derived from intercepted communications" - it is a known fact (or should have been) that information such as described is classified no matter what the "stamp" or lack thereof might say.
If it's intercepted communications, it's SIGINT which is Signals Intelligence. Sometimes it's shortened to SI. A news reporter is a little off on this one. Guys, my primary duty is as an Intelligence Officer. What Hillary did was very wrong in all sorts of ways. I've been reading the threads about this and Aloha is right about the issue and how serious this is and that Hillary Clinton can't declassify classified information provided from other sources. I don't think this is going away and I don't see how it can because it's that serious. I think this is a disqualifier for Hillary for me. She was my choice in 2008 and I did some volunteer work for her but I can't do it this time. She's toast.
I'm taking a look at Bernie. I'm a big fan of single payer health care and I like his ideas about several other issues too. I think the Republicans will say in every ad they run and it's going to hurt him a lot. He's not a real socialist but is that going to matter? He is old too. Before Hillary really screwed up on email security I wasn't fired up about her this time partly because she's getting old, and Bernie's older. I like O'Malley but it doesn't look like other Democrats do. Maybe he'll start gaining when Hillary starts losing ground. How old is Howard Dean? I really liked him too.
I assume things haven't changed much about the training received when dealing with Top Secret Info. When you arrive at your new post you are briefed in and then debriefed when you leave. This is in addition to extensive training received when obtaining your clearance. You are watched and managed closely to insure you play by the "game" rules. You are not only told how to handle the information and what and can/can't be divulged but instructed on protection of that information during your service and for years thereafter.
What kills me here is that I can call a forensic computer analyst today and have an "image" of a hard drive on any computer by the end of a week.
Last time I did it, the guy "imaged" 5 hard drives that were used all day every day in a business and it took less than 1 afternoon.
It took 2 paralegals less than 2 days to review over 9000 e-mails that had been identified as potentially relevant by a single word search - the same kind of "searches" you do every day using Google.
So ... There is ZERO question that Hillary has already received treatment different than a regular "little people" citizen.
Some folks are more equal than others.
Last time I did it, the guy "imaged" 5 hard drives that were used all day every day in a business and it took less than 1 afternoon.
It took 2 paralegals less than 2 days to review over 9000 e-mails that had been identified as potentially relevant by a single word search - the same kind of "searches" you do every day using Google.
So ... There is ZERO question that Hillary has already received treatment different than a regular "little people" citizen.
Some folks are more equal than others.
Oops. I actually responded to the wrong post. I meant to eespond to an earlier post where you seem to continue to make the argument that HRC has the authority to handle classified information as if it were unclassified. That would require declassification authority which she absolutely does not have with classified information originating from the intelligence community. As for her server, she had the authority to set it up at the time though it violated State and WH policy. Now it would be illegal. At no time did she have authority to transmit or store classified information with her system.
Wait a minute....that is the title of your post.... "Clinton relents, gives up possession of private email server". You must be getting old and forgetful like me
.....just kidding about you but true about me.Are you certain that the rules are the same for the military as for State? That strikes me as the main unanswered question.
Just out of curiosity, MrBing, does each branch have its own Signal Corps? What's your relationship to Signal as an intelligence officer?
On the last thread I mentioned that even in government secure communications I am skeptical we should be sending too much classified email. I saw today that Kerry is quoted as saying that he acts like every email he sends/receives can be read by the Russians or Chinese. That is pretty smart.
In some of the HRC cases, email was later deemed classified. I don't get that concept at all. At least from the standpoint of being actionable. The moment something is treated as unclassified one can never assume it is a kept secret even if 5 seconds later it is classified. It's like someone posting an embarrassing photo of themselves on facebook for 5 seconds. Virtually no way that thing is truly safe after removal. Mind you, this doesn't go to any point about the rest of HRC's issues, just the issue of email changed to classified at a later date. If anyone thinks that information is still secret, I've got swamp in Arizona for them.
I don't know how we are doing offensively in our computer spying, but our computer defense sucks and no one wants to step up and do something about it. There's our stimulus program, just about anyone should get behind modernizing our computer security. Up and down the line, the US government and corporate America are losing this war badly. To be fair, we may be scoring big gains offensively, but information is flowing out of this country at an incredible rate. And I am skeptical that none of it is classified.
In some of the HRC cases, email was later deemed classified. I don't get that concept at all. At least from the standpoint of being actionable. The moment something is treated as unclassified one can never assume it is a kept secret even if 5 seconds later it is classified. It's like someone posting an embarrassing photo of themselves on facebook for 5 seconds. Virtually no way that thing is truly safe after removal. Mind you, this doesn't go to any point about the rest of HRC's issues, just the issue of email changed to classified at a later date. If anyone thinks that information is still secret, I've got swamp in Arizona for them.
I don't know how we are doing offensively in our computer spying, but our computer defense sucks and no one wants to step up and do something about it. There's our stimulus program, just about anyone should get behind modernizing our computer security. Up and down the line, the US government and corporate America are losing this war badly. To be fair, we may be scoring big gains offensively, but information is flowing out of this country at an incredible rate. And I am skeptical that none of it is classified.
The issue does not seem to be that she declassified classified information. Based on a blurb from the IG, the information has recently been classified top secret.
There are cases where the US government has declassified information and released it to the public and then reclassified that information later. It would seem to me that the classification at the time of the event is important. In the case of reclassification or new classification, as this appears to be, anyone holding that information has to return it to the government for safe keeping which is what Ms. Clinton did.
The law isn't sloppy
But it might seem sloppy when applied to a public official who is hell-bent on evading the intent and purposes of the law. It might seem sloppy when Hillary Clinton, whose reputation for ethical conduct and honesty has been tarnished for years, intentionally searches for and exploits loopholes.
This server business, in the first instance, is about FOIA, not about classified vs. unclassified. There likely are no criminal consequences for FOIA violations as there are for security breeches. But that distinction is unimportant in considering what kind of person HRC is and whether she ought to become POTUS. The purpose of FOIA is to allow public access to governmental information. It is also about the law compelling government to make information available for public inspection. When government and the public disagree about whether information exists or should be available, a "FOIA request" is made and a judge resolves the issue. The section of FOIA at play with regard to a particular request is the section that provides the government must have "custody" of the requested info in order for a judge to order the release of it. None of this sloppy; it is very clear.
That is the loophole HRC exploited. Her plan was to conduct ALL SOS of business on a private server so that none of it would ever be considered in the custody of the government. She could then argue that she, as SOS, has no public email subject to FOIA. Maybe you think that is a good faith interpretation of FOIA but I don't. But your argument proves too much. If your argument is that HRC had the "authority" to use any server, government or not, for official business, I think that could never avoid FOIA because if HRC had that authority, then what ever server she uses, would be a "government server". Moreover, I bet the state department paid her for the use of her server. She has successfully stonewalled this whole issue on this flimsy loophole. That is extremely disingenuous and extremely unbecoming of a responsible public official. Her statement that she reviewed the contents of the server, and she determined what was personal and what wasn't, and she turned over what she said was public, and she destroyed the remainder is bullshit on its face. I can't believe any competent attorney could defend that.
A little more. This is not the first time public officials have had public info on private email. Hell, I have that simply as a function of responding to requests when my public email is not handy. No doubt prior secretary of states have had public email on non-public servers. However, I am unaware of a prior official deliberately doing ALL business on a private server just to avoid FOIA. Having public info on a private email, or private info on a public email is not a new issue. There is tons of litigation about this in Colorado under its version of FOIA as well as across the country. In Colorado, private info on a public server is not public. But public info in private media is public. I was personally involved with litigation about notes and schedules of public business kept on a private hand written day-timer. Guess what? The judge said the public info written in that book was public notwithstanding the official said none of it was public. The judge culled the info, but the press screamed that it should have access to the entire book, but the judge said no.
The whole problem here, which you seem to buy into with your notion that anything the SOS did with public info was okay because she was SOS, is that the Clintons (and others) think the routine way of doing things doesn't apply to them. In other words the bigger you are, the more you don't have to comply with the law.
Last edited:
Similar threads
