Yes the rules are the same for State and Military.
Each branch has it's on intel personnel. I do intelligence analysis but I don't do it all the time. More of my time is dealing with managing personnel now.
Clinton relents, gives up possession of private email server
- Thread starter meridian
- Start date
Each branch has it's on intel personnel. I do intelligence analysis but I don't do it all the time. More of my time is dealing with managing personnel now.
I can't "continue" to make that argument, because I never made that argument to begin with. Rather, you continue to mischaracterize my argument. My argument has always been this:
1. The law says that classified info cannot be stored or transferred in unauthorized ways.
2. What is and isn't "authorized" is largely determined by EO.
3. EOs in force at the time seemed to give Hillary a lot of discretion.
That's it. At the time there was no EO and to statute that specifically restricted SecState in this way. And no matter how many times you insist there was, your steadfast refusal to cite the law or EO in question makes it clear to me that you cannot back up your claim.
Most of what they're saying is classified they're saying was classified after it was already transmitted. This is why the way Hillary handled her email with a personal system was stupid, stupid, stupid. Official government systems aren't perfect but they're better than using private email systems. But the IGs say that 4 of the few emails they reviewed contained information that was classified at the time it was transmitted or received into Hillary's email system and that was criminally stupid if she knew it was classified at the time. People have gone to jail for this. I know that I would lose my clearance and my career for doing it. I'd be lucky to avoid Fort Leavenworth. We need to move on from Hillary and find a responsible Democrat to replace her as the nominee. Maybe Bernie is the man to do it. I'm officially done with Hillary now.
1. Correct
2. Partially correct. Minimum requirements apply. What she did doesn't meet them.
3. Not that kind of discretion.
I really shouldn't have to back up my claim because you're the one making a defense literally no one who knows anything about security of classified information would or could make. However, I did throw you a bone in one of the earlier threads and told you where to find all the all the applicable regulations, so if you missed it or didn't bother, go to the ISOO and knock yourself out.
You won't find anything anywhere in the regulations to support your theory. Your defense is a nonstarter. It will bring only loud laughter from anyone that's dealt with classified information.
You think that server is going to have anything from her time as Secretary of State? The hard drive is likely long gone and everything has probably been washed clean. I'm not saying it is like Tom Brady destroying a cell phone before meeting with investigators, but I would think she would not have wanted any government files left on her server that could have been sensitive.
From being fired during Watergate for being dishonest and unethical by her Democratic boss to her latest controversy, she has earned the scrutiny she has received during her professional career. Things like the $1,000 cattle futures investment that turned into $100,000 in only 9 months with a connection from Tyson Foods following favorable decisions. Their partners and the Lt. Governor went to jail in the Whitewater scandal, but Billary escaped. The Rose law firm had subpoenaed records from that case that went missing and was found in the Whitehouse residence by an aide to Hillary. That was before she had her own server.
I just can't believe she is the best the Democrats have to offer. I can't believe there isn't a successful Governor somewhere that would be a better candidate. Given the choice of Hillary and an angry old Socialist, I would vote for the GOP candidate, as long as it isn't Trump.
Yep. Two of them contained information classified TS at the time. Criminally stupid is the best case. If she actually knew it was TS it is flat out criminal. You're right to move on from her - she can't be trusted to protect our nation's secrets.
If this "scandal" results in someone other than Hillary getting the nomination, that will be at least one positive outcome of this nonsense.
I did look at the relevant EO that was in force at the time. I linked it and quoted it here.
She's not making the argument I'm making because she's still claiming that there was no classified information on that server at all to begin with. All I'm saying is, even if there was some classified info there, I don't see how it qualifies as a crime under the relevant law and EOs that were in force at the time.
You're the one accusing her of a crime. By any rational standard of debate, it's on you to prove your case, not on me to disprove it. So until you're willing to take that next step and actually state a case, instead of just saying, "Trust me, or look it up yourself," I think we can stop with this conversation.
Goat, many people are saying its a crime to knowingly transmit or store classified information on an unclassified system (we don't know she did it knowingly), whether she's SecState or not. That's because it is. No one is claiming it isn't. No one will because it's nonsense. Since you're alone on this you should have to prove it (which can't be done, but knock yourself out). Though it should be on you to prove this theory, I once again told you where to go to find all the regulations you need in the post you replied to. You apparently still haven't.
Last edited:
The only thing you pointed me to was the law which makes it a crime to transmit or store classified information on an unclassified system without authorization. You can't keep ignoring that critical two-word phrase. The question is if she was authorized to use a third-party system. The EO in force at the time, as I have already pointed out several times, suggests to me that she may very well have been.
The law is ambiguously written. The statute itself doesn't specify who is and isn't allowed to authorize such things. Perhaps the intention was to leave the President with an appropriate amount of discretion for managing the nation's intelligence apparatus.
It doesn't matter how obvious this is to you. You can't cite your own common sense to define a crime. Prove to me she acted without authorization. Show me the language in the EO, or other relevant regulations, that show that this decision was not within her discretion. But if you're going to continue to refuse to do so, then we're done here, because I'm not doing your homework for you.
I'm definitely not ignoring those two words. Her private unclassified email system isn't authorized for classified information and cannot be. Neither can State's official unclassified email system for that matter. HRC cannot authorize it, just as the heads of the CIA couldn't authorize how they mishandled classified information. I pointed you to the ISOO. It has more than the EOs, though they're there too. It has links to policies and regulations too. I don't have homework. I know the rules. you have homework.
e bigger you are, the more you don't have to comply with the law.[/QUOTE]
You jump from "if" Hillary knew to Hillary must go. I'm not a fan on how this has been handled. I understand though that much of this is politcal. If there is proof that she forwarded properly marked material on an unsecure system, I will agree with you. At this point I have not seen that accusation or any evidence that it happened.
You jump from "if" Hillary knew to Hillary must go. I'm not a fan on how this has been handled. I understand though that much of this is politcal. If there is proof that she forwarded properly marked material on an unsecure system, I will agree with you. At this point I have not seen that accusation or any evidence that it happened.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about the secret and classified stuff
Others are talking about that.
My point is the HRC exclusively used her private server to avoid the disclosure requirements of FOIA. That is disgraceful. Who in the hell does she think she is?
This is the most absurd part of this. Your criticism of Hillary is, I think, actually the most viable one against her. I don't trust any reason she might give for doing what she did. Government officials shouldn't be using private servers. Period.
And yet, the people attacking Hillary barely batted an eye when members of the Bush White House did the same thing.
Maybe you were one of the few calling for an investigation into the 22 million missing Bush emails, I don't remember. But I know the outcry then was nothing like the outcry now.
FWIW, I didn't offer any outcry for either one of them. This isn't a big enough deal to determine whether or not I vote for Hillary, just as it wouldn't have affected whether or not I voted for Bush (had he been running at the time).
I am unaware of 22 million missing Bush emails
Can you provide more information. If that were true I would think he, as POTUS, would have huge issues about security breaches. Or maybe he wanted a downsized presidential library.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not surprised any public official uses nongovernmental servers on occasion, but the isn't what HRC did. She only used her personal server. As far as I know, that is new and different. But if I am mistaken about that, I am sure you will correct me.
No, that is the main difference*. And the Bush emails weren't Bush himself. They were various members of the administration.
The common thread between them is that both in Hillary's case and the Bush White House's case, private servers were used to conduct government business.
For a refresher, here's an article I haven't read, but being from Salon, I'm assuming it will give the most negative explanation possible of the "scandal."
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the...the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/
* BTW, as someone who's been tech savvy since the 1990s, this was the part of the story that immediately struck me as the strangest. I've never owned a Blackberry, but was there ever a time when a phone could only ever access one email account? Makes no sense to me.
All Clinton had to do was establish a non-secure part of a communication network and pas over or store on it classified information. Just having classified - she had Top Secret - information on any non-secure system is a crime. Period.
I'm not talking about the secret and classified stuff
Others are talking about that.
My point is the HRC exclusively used her private server to avoid the disclosure requirements of FOIA. That is disgraceful. Who in the hell does she think she is?[/QUOTE]
I'm confused. The State Department is releasing documents related to SOS business that were on HRC's server. These are being released periodically with all items that are eligible to be released provided by January 2016. If she did this to avoid FOIA, she is not being successful.
I'm confused. The State Department is releasing documents related to SOS business that were on HRC's server. These are being released periodically with all items that are eligible to be released provided by January 2016. If she did this to avoid FOIA, she is not being successful.[/QUOTE]
You're not counting the more than 30K emails she didn't turn over because she deemed them "personal." No one is allowed to do that with their emails on the official system. All of those would be screened by someone other than her to comply with FOIA requests. We already know that some of those she deemed personal weren't. Obviously she set up this system to have more personal control of what gets released and what doesn't. She has no other plausible explanation.
That even applies in companies (at least the one I worked for). They made it clear that emails were their property and they reserved the right to look at any of them.
I'm confused. The State Department is releasing documents related to SOS business that were on HRC's server. These are being released periodically with all items that are eligible to be released provided by January 2016. If she did this to avoid FOIA, she is not being successful.[/QUOTE]
She is very successful
The only emails released are the ones she personally approved for release. This is not how FOIA works. It isn't her call.[/QUOTE]
She is very successful
The only emails released are the ones she personally approved for release. This is not how FOIA works. It isn't her call.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Government officials are not obligated by FOIA to release personal emails. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that she, and her attorneys, are intentionally hiding emails that are subject to FOIA without any evidence provided on your part.
Down another rabbit hole.
No, but all email from or to her official government email would be screened to determine if they were relevant to FOIA or not. If they were strictly personal and didn't touch on the subject of the FOIA request they'd be screened out. That isn't done by the subject of the FOIA request. HRC has done this because she has deemed her personal server personal though she did all her official business on it. She has subverted the entire process. Apparently purposely. The rules just don't apply to her. Incredible arrogance.
Last edited:
Is it "incredible arrogance just because it is HRC? The Bush White House farmed out their server needs to the Republican National Committee. Does that sound secure? (No) Did that violate the Presidential Records Act.? (Yes) When it was discovered that the White House staff had violated the policy and almost no communications were available, this was around the time of the US Attorney firings, did the White House pursue finding the lost communications. (No) Was there a political witch hunt? (No) 22 MM emails were found only after suits by private groups forced the WH to pursue the emails. Are the 22 MM emails all of them? (Who knows).
Collin Powell was the SOS. He found antiquated systems and decided to set up his personal email system and eventually upgraded the department's computer systems. When he left his position, how many documents did he turn over from his private email system? (Zero, Zilch, Nada, Bupkis) How many are still in existence? (Zero, Zilch, Nada, Bupkis) Is Powell incredibly arrogant? I'll have to wait until you and CO pass judgement to find out.
It was initially that she had classified material stored on her serve. Based on the IG comments, it appears that there is classified material, but it was retroactively classified. Maybe they will find something else. In the meantime, the complaints have shifted to skirting of FOIA. Those are complaints without evidence to date. Simply another set of accusations. I suppose they could sue like the groups that forced the WH search. I don't know what evidence they would have outside of vitriol.
Collin Powell was the SOS. He found antiquated systems and decided to set up his personal email system and eventually upgraded the department's computer systems. When he left his position, how many documents did he turn over from his private email system? (Zero, Zilch, Nada, Bupkis) How many are still in existence? (Zero, Zilch, Nada, Bupkis) Is Powell incredibly arrogant? I'll have to wait until you and CO pass judgement to find out.
It was initially that she had classified material stored on her serve. Based on the IG comments, it appears that there is classified material, but it was retroactively classified. Maybe they will find something else. In the meantime, the complaints have shifted to skirting of FOIA. Those are complaints without evidence to date. Simply another set of accusations. I suppose they could sue like the groups that forced the WH search. I don't know what evidence they would have outside of vitriol.
You have your facts wrong. Technology was far better by 2009 than in 2001 and policy was more clear. HRC could have and should have used the state.gov system for her official business, in accordance with State and White House policy. Second, the IGs have said that four emails of the 30 (I believe) that they've been able to review (a fraction of the emails that she turned over) had information that was classified at the time it was sent. Two of those were classified Top Secret. Hundreds of others, apparently, have information classified since they've been sent. The IGs think that it's highly likely that there are many emails among those thousands that were or are now classified and likely at the Top Secret level so they have recommended that State store them on a system cleared for Top Secret while reviewing them (ironic, isn't it, that the "unclassified" emails need to be stored on a system cleared for Top Secret?). FOIA is just one of her issues and she almost certainly wanted to avoid FOIA requests by setting up this private email system. Mishandling classified information is another, and primary, issue. People have gone to jail for what she's done. Her only defense if the IGs are correct about the four emails that were classified at the time is that she didn't know the information was classified, but that's a very poor defense and only once again points to her unbelievably poor judgment in handling her email this way. There is NO evidence at all that Powell ever sent classified information via any means rather than the SIPRNET system which is meant for classified information. Being a four star General fully aware of how classified information works and a man of great integrity, I doubt he ever mishandled classified information. That dog isn't going to hunt. HRC was incredibly arrogant and irresponsible for setting up her private email system rather than using the official system (against WH and her own Department's policy at the time) and was at best criminally negligent with sensitive and classified information by transmitting or receiving and storing it on an unauthorized, unclassified, private email system.
Last edited:
Powell and Clinton were operating under the same laws. The Records Act wasn't changed with regard to email until after Clinton left State. I don't know about the differences between relevant EOs, but I think it's already been settled that when Clinton was in office, the mere fact of using a private server was not in violation of law or regulation.
What your argument essentially boils down to is this: "Being a four star General fully aware of how classified information works and a man of great integrity,..." You trust Powell. You don't trust Clinton. If they both commit the same act, you're going to assume Clinton is doing it for nefarious reasons, but Powell isn't.
You've got that right
I assume Clinton did not use the government server for purposes of concealment. I don't assume that of Powell.
Which you're perfectly justified in doing in terms of drawing a conclusion about the people in question. But it's completely worthless in terms of evidence or argument. If your goal is to convince us that what she did was wrong, "C'mon, it's Hillary!" is a shitty argument. As I've said multiple times, I not a fan of what she did, but these threads ultimately don't amount to anything more than Hillary-bashing by people who are predisposed to hate her. No one has been able to even come close to making a genuine objective argument that what she did deserves to be considered scandalous in any way. The quickness with which her detractors dismiss the Bush and Powell email stories is pretty solid proof that no one is looking at this objectively.
That is wrong, wrong, wrong. DOS and WH policy was clear by 2009 that official business was to be conducted via official systems. It was, and remains, clear that transmitting and storing any classified information in unclassified systems is forbidden. It is illegal. Her decision to use a private email system in violation of policy was irresponsible and arrogant. That she used this system to transmit and store sensitive and classified information (classified then and since) is criminally negligent at best.
If Powell or anyone else transmitted or stored classified information with an unclassified system they are at best criminally negligent as well. I have never defended anyone for mishandling classified information. I didn't defend Petraeus for doing it. I wouldn't defend anyone.
Anyone not understanding how serious this is now is either truly ignorant about the details or is not at all objective.
If it was authorized - as you say it mighta coulda been - why haven't the folks who authorized it been telling folks?
Where is the authorization? If this is so plain and simple, and one had been issued, why has it never been produced - or even mentioned by anyone but you?
Was it a mental, silent authorization?
Hillary lied
About why she did it (she only wanted one device). She lied/parsed about.no classified stuff on it (nothing "marked" classified). And she didn't simply delete her emails about yoga and the wedding, she had the server professionally wiped before she turned it over. Did her "detractors" force her to do these things?
Maybe she has PTSD from being shot at and forced to duck and take cover in Bosnia and can't help herself.
[/QUOTE]
Government officials are not obligated by FOIA to release personal emails. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that she, and her attorneys, are intentionally hiding emails that are subject to FOIA without any evidence provided on your part.
Down another rabbit hole.[/QUOTE]
That's not how FOIA works
If she claims personal privilege on requested documents, she turns the stuff over to the judge for a decision. Hillary chose instead to professionally scrub the server.
By the way, my argument doesn't even remotely come close to trusting Powell and not Clinton. You know that.
There are two debates here. One is the security debate. It seems clear the SoS shouldn't run a private email server. Though IF one is to do that there are two issues here. One is did she send classified email. In that issue, she is wrong. The other is did she receive classified email. Anyone should know @hillaryclinton.com is not a US government address and they have blame here. Not excusing her part of the mistake, but anyone sending classified mail to that address has their own problems that need dealt with.
The second is the FoIA. Mark me down as opposing people trying to evade it. That may well be the reason she ran her email server, and it is wrong. This is something we know the Bush Administration did as well. Now we have such evasion happening under both watches, and it is wrong for both. The problem we have is that voters demand the other side be open, but not their side. How can we force all administrations into being open?
The problem is simple. No Democrat is going to vote Republican because their person violated FoIA and not Republican is going to vote Dem just because their person did the same. there are too many other issues we feel too strongly about to let FOIA get in the way. So, why can't a good prosecutor go after the parties for racketeering if there is any evidence the party provided any support whatsoever?
The second is the FoIA. Mark me down as opposing people trying to evade it. That may well be the reason she ran her email server, and it is wrong. This is something we know the Bush Administration did as well. Now we have such evasion happening under both watches, and it is wrong for both. The problem we have is that voters demand the other side be open, but not their side. How can we force all administrations into being open?
The problem is simple. No Democrat is going to vote Republican because their person violated FoIA and not Republican is going to vote Dem just because their person did the same. there are too many other issues we feel too strongly about to let FOIA get in the way. So, why can't a good prosecutor go after the parties for racketeering if there is any evidence the party provided any support whatsoever?
A couple of things, Marv
The FOIA issue is more about fitness to be POTUS and less about criminal conduct. I haven't checked it but based on what I know about open records in general, violating FOIA is not a heavy duty crime. Second, those in the Bush administration who mucked in the private server world were not the highest ranking cabinet secretaries and do not wanna be POTUS.
While I agree there is a difference, especially with Hillary being involved and a candidate, the correlation is that the lower level people in Bush's White House quite probably didn't set about to do this on their own. Higher ups emailing them certainly should have noticed they were not sending emails to an @gov domain. It went on with at least tacit approval, if not direct approval, of people occupying high positions. There was a significant problem with Bush 43 Administration with this, the sheer number of emails involved is huge. There is a problem with Clinton on this, her position makes it important that someone in the government be able to audit and review for FOIA and for future historians. We can argue and quibble about who is worse and get no where, why not just say the truth that both sides are exceedingly culpable for violating FOIA.
It is a serious issue and scandal. I can't support her. I handle classified information all the time and what she has done with this private email server is too much for me to excuse. Handling it on unclassified email is a huge problem. I'd lose my clearance and my job and maybe go to Fort Leavenworth for doing it. There is no excuse for her to do it either. We agree that her not getting the nomination would be a positive thing to come out of it. It looks like O'Malley isn't going to move up and no one else has talked about getting in so we have to look at Bernie Sanders. I like a lot about him. Single payer healthcare is the way to go and he's all for that. He's for doing something about wealth inequality. He's good on the social issues. I like his immigration position. I agree with him that the poor are suffering disproportionately from too much unskilled and illegal immigration. When I go downtown and all the people working in the restaurants or doing construction are speaking Spanish and people in the black community aren't getting those jobs it's a problem for the black community. I'm liking a lot of Bernie's positions. I think he's older than Hillary and that worries me but right now he's the only option. Hillary is out for me so I say Go Bernie!
Similar threads
