Clinton relents, gives up possession of private email server

[hootch1]

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.[/QUOTE]

Well, we're in luck. There is already a suit filed against HRC and her emails. I can just see it now. Judge, I think these emails about fuchsia wedding napkins have to be code for something Benghazi.

Let's just hope that it is not being reviewed by unelected judges.

 

[davegolf]

It is being reported there might be a back up server - that would be very interesting. Email count of concerned issues now rising it is reported there are over 300 being sent out for further review.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Well, we're in luck. There is already a suit filed against HRC and her emails. I can just see it now. Judge, I think these emails about fuchsia wedding napkins have to be code for something Benghazi.

Let's just hope that it is not being reviewed by unelected judges.[/QUOTE]

LOL

So you think it is okay for HRC to put all messages discussing the security arrangements for our embassies on the same personal server where she keeps her yoga appointments and wedding plans? Maybe the terrorists who hack into it will think "marine security detail" is code for the wedding caterer.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Hillary made possibly the understatement of the year last week when she said, "I was permitted to and used a personal email and, obviously in retrospect, given all the concerns that have been raised, it would have been probably smarter not to.” Yeah, it would have been "probably smarter not to." Probably smarter? Really?

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I seriously doubt she'll be charged with anything.

Having worked in IT for a few years now managers are admantant on only a few things about what they need to do much of their job; email, calendar and reports.

Whoever she charged with setting this up might be in hot water and whoever on the government side of IT signed off on the server. Again, that isn't her.

...and then again it could be nothing more than a turf war.

Apparently a number of these "classified" documents were declared "classified" retroactively after they had already been released to the public.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I seriously doubt she'll be charged with anything.

Having worked in IT for a few years now managers are admantant on only a few things about what they need to do much of their job; email, calendar and reports.

Whoever she charged with setting this up might be in hot water and whoever on the government side of IT signed off on the server. Again, that isn't her.

...and then again it could be nothing more than a turf war.

Apparently a number of these "classified" documents were declared "classified" retroactively after they had already been released to the public.

Got a few things wrong. It's not the private sector first. Policy was that she was to use the official state.gov email system, but she set up a private server instead. The IG found four emails that contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. Two of those contained Top Secret information. He only reviewed 30 of the 10s of thousands. Hundreds others contain classified information now. It's not clear whether all of that was classified after being sent or received and stored on her private system. Sending and receiving email doesn't constitute releasing to the public and this points back to how irresponsible using her system was. The state.gov system is unclassified and unauthorized for classified information, but it does have many security controls. IT security experts are speculating that 100 percent of the emails on her server are likely to have been compromised and obtained by the Chinese and/or Russians. Finally, if she knowingly sent any classified information on her private email she committed a crime. That would apply if she did it in the state.gov system as well. They have a SIPRNET system for classified. At best she was criminally negligent - and incredibly irresponsible for setting up her private email system instead of using the state.gov system. You are right is that she's unlikely to be prosecuted. She's HRC and the Obama administration is highly unlikely to prosecute her.

 

[kingmanite]

Link

So, will it end the trashing of Mrs. Clinton now or are we moving onto something else such as Monica or her McGovern campaign activity, you know the important stuff to become a president? Oh, I know. we can go back to Benghazi!

Link

So, will it end the trashing of Mrs. Clinton now or are we moving onto something else such as Monica or her McGovern campaign activity, you know the important stuff to become a president? Oh, I know. we can go back to Benghazi!

I wonder if she will look good in orange? Of course if she becomes president she can pardon herself. lol

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

She is still just an executive.

I was once hired by a local military base to address compliance issue for one of its codes (dept.). Their entire network was removed from their intranet due to noncompliance.

Dept. head really have little say in the matter. They can make whatever request they want, IT can ignore them. They have guidelines to go by. Regardless of how strongly she urged whoever, it isn't her decision to make to grant it to herself. They'll come back or should on whoever authorized it and the admin of same. Which I'd bet isn't her.

Before we get to all the waivers government agencies get from other government entities.

Frankly it is one of few stories I know of in dealing with classified material where the server wasn't just seized as soon as they knew it was illegal.

However, as I pointed out in another post. A number of those "classified" documents were released to the public domain and a different government agency then classified them, after the fact, as being classified. Turf war...

Remember back around 1980's when, I think it was the Progressive magazine published the article from the college student who wrote a manual on how to make your own atomic bomb? All of it was gleaned from public libraries, but they did this same retro job on that info, even when it was and is still available in most of our libraries across the nation.

 

[iubud]

I seriously doubt she'll be charged with anything.

Having worked in IT for a few years now managers are admantant on only a few things about what they need to do much of their job; email, calendar and reports.

Whoever she charged with setting this up might be in hot water and whoever on the government side of IT signed off on the server. Again, that isn't her.

...and then again it could be nothing more than a turf war.

Apparently a number of these "classified" documents were declared "classified" retroactively after they had already been released to the public.

The biggest issue is why did she want a private server? Even if she didn't get one classified or top secret email, she would have received sensitive information that we would not want people we were negotiating with to see. Imagine a negotiation with Iran and having them able to see what our Secretary of State was discussing internally with the President and other State Department personnel. The decision to separate herself from the government system is important to understand.

I would like to know the reason she had this server. I doubt we will ever be told the real reason from Hillary. She laughs it off as no big deal. She may not understand the risks having the server caused.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

They had one when Bill was president.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I would like to know the reason she had this server.

James Carville has already spilled these beans -- or, at least, let us on to what he "suspects" is the reason (spoiler alert: she sought to evade Congressional scrutiny and oversight):

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I doubt she sought anything outside of local control and what she was used to.

You all need remove your conspiracy hats.

I've not forgotten that over the years the right has made a lot of claims of illegality regarding the Clinton's and to this date have yet to find any actual law breaking. After spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars investigating the Clinton's.

 

[iubud]

James Carville has already spilled these beans -- or, at least, let us on to what he "suspects" is the reason (spoiler alert: she sought to evade Congressional scrutiny and oversight):

View embedded media

If she was worried about Louie Gohmert, she went about it wrong. Having your own server is inviting people to question what is going on. She would rather have a server that could be raided by the Chinese, the Russians, and North Koreans instead of her own government providing security and having access.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

If she was worried about Louie Gohmert, she went about it wrong. Having your own server is inviting people to question what is going on.

I think Maureen Dowd, of all people, made an apt comparison about the calculation that went into this decision:

It turns out Tom Brady and Hillary Clinton have more in common than you would think.

Brady had his assistant terminate his Samsung phone the day before he talked to an investigator about Deflategate. Hillary set up a home-brew private server, overruling the concerns of her husband’s aides, and erased 30,000 emails before the government had a chance to review them to see if any were classified.

Brady and Hillary, wanting to win at all costs and believing the rules don’t apply to them, are willing to take the hit of people not believing them, calculating that there is no absolute proof.​

Now, Dowd is clearly being presumptuous here (which is not unusual). But it sounds like a quite plausible explanation for the thinking that fed into both of these decisions. Surely Tom Brady (and his lawyer, his agent, etc.) knew (a) that it would come out that he destroyed his cellphone before it could be examined, and (b) that this would look very bad. But wouldn't this mean that, by their calculation, the alternative would look even worse?

Better to let people fill in the blanks and assume you're covering something up than to give concrete evidence that there's something to cover up.

By doing what she did how she did it, Hillary gave herself and her staff a window of opportunity to review all the logs of the server and scrub anything that might paint her in a bad light.

 

[iubud]

I doubt she sought anything outside of local control and what she was used to.

You all need remove your conspiracy hats.

I've not forgotten that over the years the right has made a lot of claims of illegality regarding Hillary and to this date have yet to find any actual law breaking. After spending hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars investigating the Clinton's.

From her firing by a Democrat during Watergate for being dishonest and unethical to the current issue over the control of her server, she has earned every bit of mistrust. All the partners in Whitewater went to jail including the Lt. Governor of Arkansas, but somehow Bill and Hillary escaped. When subpoenaed billing records from the investigations went missing, they were found by an aide in the Whitehouse personal quarters.

Hillary and Bill are like John Calipari. There is always someone around to take the blame for what they had an equal part in creating. There are many trustworthy Dems that could be President. I don't see how someone that 58% of the people don't trust could govern effectively. Trust means a lot to me. I know politicians are flawed, but she comes in with an abundance of questionable acts. Just because someone has avoided jail, it doesn't mean they are ethical. I would never vote for a person with her background from either party.

I voted for Obama once and could vote for someone in either party. Right now, the Dems just aren't offering any candidate I could support. I thought O'Malley might have been someone. He lost any chance for my support when he apologized for saying "all lives matter". It showed how quick he can fold under pressure.

 

[NPT]

Here's an interesting blog on the Clinton email situation.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I know a guy who is one of only about a half-dozen certified data center planners in the US. He deals with Home Land Security and the FBI as they are customers of his and he deals with classified requirements in his planner capacity and as a provider of office space to these entities as well.

This is what he posted about it.

--

Operating that E-mail server to begin with was a violation of the Department of State's FISMA ATO (Authority to Operate). FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002) is law, plain and simple. The intent and letter of the law were violated by operating that server. The State Department Inspector General and CISO should be fired, jailed, drawn, quartered, burnt, and their remains urinated upon. The ultimate responsibility for knowing of the server (which they surely did) and shutting it down in order to obey the law was with them (the IG and CISO). Clinton is culpable, too, but can perhaps claim some level of ignorance. But, it's not disputable that using that server for State Department business broke the law. Sadly, I know this because for now I have to deal with this FISMA crap all day every day as I work to make one of our facilities FISMA-compliant and FedRAMP-certified. This one is black and white.

I've also read reports (I don't know if they're credible or not) that prior to the server being turned in for inspection that the disk volumes containing the E-mail message stores had been forensically cleansed with an NSA-grade data-wiping tool. Whether or not any E-mails were classified or any wrongdoing was transmitted through or stored upon that server, going to those lengths to destroy the ability to forensically recover anything doesn't make those who authorized it or did it look very honest. And that is Hillary's continuing self-inflicted problem here...

-

Question: I thought the State Dept was subject to an annual inspection by an independent public accountant the result of which the Office of Inspector General is given. So they didn't find any problem with the Hillary server? Year after year?

Answer: If an agency has held their ATO for any length of time, they usually end up running on an externally reviewed and approved continuous monitoring plan. The OIG and CISO would be handed any findings (and Hillary's server should have generated a slew of findings) and would be responsible for reporting them to the OMB. As I said, this in the laps of the State Department OIG and CISO. Hillary and her staff either knowingly or unknowingly broke the law, and those responsible for enforcement in the State Department failed in their roles. I'd like to see someone held accountable, but that's just wishful thinking.

---

Our own thoughts in the end was her and or her people certainly screwed the pooch but whoever it was that signed off on it, for the government, is who ought to be held accountable overall.