Washington Post: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What would it take for someone to be "negligent" in this instance in your opinion? You two keep posting the same point over and over again and by your postings I can't see anyway that you feel someone would ever be negligent unless they were intentionally sending info to the enemy. And I just do not see that as the intent to the laws and regulations that Cajun is posting (nor is that the interpretation that we in the government are given with how we are required to handle this type of data.)

I've actually given specific examples already. If the government can show evidence of actual general disregard for policy by her or her assistants, that might be enough. Even if they didn't intend to send classified info, I would consider it negligent to make a habit of not following procedures without expecting that very thing to happen.

So far, however, the released emails seem to show a staff that was quite aware of and concerned for security protocols. How did so much classified information leak through? I have no idea. But I certainly haven't seen any evidence it was because someone was negligent.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

But I certainly haven't seen any evidence it was because someone was negligent.

LOL

Of course the staff was concerned; they aren't too big to jail. Hillary? How is her conduct different from Sandy Berger? They both took exclusive possession of stuff and deliberately removed it from government control. The only way she can defend this is to convince a jury that she didn't know she would ever receive secret info in her email. Good luck with that. Whether anything was "marked" made no difference to her. She took everything to her home in Chappaqua.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LOL

Of course the staff was concerned; they aren't too big to jail. Hillary? How is her conduct different from Sandy Berger? They both took exclusive possession of stuff and deliberately removed it from government control. The only way she can defend this is to convince a jury that she didn't know she would ever receive secret info in her email. Good luck with that. Whether anything was "marked" made no difference to her. She took everything to her home in Chappaqua.

Berger intentionally walked out the door with classified info. How is it different than Hillary? In every way imaginable.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I've actually given specific examples already. If the government can show evidence of actual general disregard for policy by her or her assistants, that might be enough. Even if they didn't intend to send classified info, I would consider it negligent to make a habit of not following procedures without expecting that very thing to happen.

So far, however, the released emails seem to show a staff that was quite aware of and concerned for security protocols. How did so much classified information leak through? I have no idea. But I certainly haven't seen any evidence it was because someone was negligent.

I am confused then because they did make a habit of not following procedures. We are talking thousands of emails sent and dozens of instances where classified info was sent and then, as you mention, we have a staff telling her repeatedly that they needed to hold the conversation in a different format.

To me that absolutely speaks to negligence on her part. I am just having a problem seeing where you are coming from because the negligent scenario you describe seems to fit what occurred.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Ollie North and his secretary...

I am confused then because they did make a habit of not following procedures. We are talking thousands of emails sent and dozens of instances where classified info was sent and then, as you mention, we have a staff telling her repeatedly that they needed to hold the conversation in a different format.

To me that absolutely speaks to negligence on her part. I am just having a problem seeing where you are coming from because the negligent scenario you describe seems to fit what occurred.

It wasn't illegal, it's also something people in almost every administration has done.

..and we know Powell and Rice both recieved actual classified documents from personal email accounts.

Her's were not marked classified.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I am confused then because they did make a habit of not following procedures. We are talking thousands of emails sent and dozens of instances where classified info was sent and then, as you mention, we have a staff telling her repeatedly that they needed to hold the conversation in a different format.

To me that absolutely speaks to negligence on her part. I am just having a problem seeing where you are coming from because the negligent scenario you describe seems to fit what occurred.

When people say "we can't talk about it in email," that's the exact opposite of negligence. It's gross competence. The evidence seems to show them greatly concerned with following procedure. I haven't seen a single email that demonstrated a disregard for the rules.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Ollie North and his secretary...


It wasn't illegal, it's also something people in almost every administration has done.

..and we know Powell and Rice both recieved actual classified documents from personal email accounts.

Her's were not marked classifled.

Try using the "everybody does it" defense the next time you get a speeding ticket and see where that gets you...

 

[IUCrazy2]

When people say "we can't talk about it in email," that's the exact opposite of negligence. It's gross competence. The evidence seems to show them greatly concerned with following procedure. I haven't seen a single email that demonstrated a disregard for the rules.

No, when you say "we can't talk about this in email" one day and then turn around and talk about it (or something similar) a week later it shows that you A) know what you can and cannot talk about in that format and that B) for whatever reason you pick and chose when to follow those rules that you clearly know. That is negligence.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No, when you say "we can't talk about this in email" one day and then turn around and talk about it (or something similar) a week later it shows that you A) know what you can and cannot talk about in that format and that B) for whatever reason you pick and chose when to follow those rules that you clearly know. That is negligence.

You're making assumptions about what the classified material is. We have no idea what it is. It might genuinely be information that the person sending it along had no reason to know was classified. Again, the key point I am making is you don't get to just assume it was negligence, which is really what you're doing.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You're making assumptions about what the classified material is. We have no idea what it is. It might genuinely be information that the person sending it along had no reason to know was classified. Again, the key point I am making is you don't get to just assume it was negligence, which is really what you're doing.

Some of it was so classified that it could not even be released in redacted form. So you are arguing that she and her staff are about the most incompetent people to ever hold their positions...got it.

I am not assuming anything. I am putting together all the facts that we have and am coming to a reasonable conclusion on them. Furthermore, this isn't just about the emails. It is about intentionally setting up a private server to avoid those pesky investigations and FOIA requests and then continue to use it when it was shown that classified conversations were bleeding onto the servers. She was negligent in continuing to maintain the server when she should have been aware of the type of info she knew people were sending her on the server.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this but I stand by my original position that she would be in deep doo doo if not for her name and position.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Try using the "everybody does it" defense the next time you get a speeding ticket and see where that gets you...

uh-huh, lets ignore that it wasn't illegal and she didn't send the emails to herself and none of them indicted they were classified.

Other than that you got me good.

---
clarification added

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Some of it was so classified that it could not even be released in redacted form. So you are arguing that she and her staff are about the most incompetent people to ever hold their positions...got it.

I am not assuming anything. I am putting together all the facts that we have and am coming to a reasonable conclusion on them. Furthermore, this isn't just about the emails. It is about intentionally setting up a private server to avoid those pesky investigations and FOIA requests and then continue to use it when it was shown that classified conversations were bleeding onto the servers. She was negligent in continuing to maintain the server when she should have been aware of the type of info she knew people were sending her on the server.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this but I stand by my original position that she would be in deep doo doo if not for her name and position.

It doesn't matter how classified it is. It only matters how it got where it shouldn't be. Without any actual evidence of how and why that happened, you are, in fact, assuming only negligence can explain it. You just did it again in this post.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Ollie North and his secretary...


It wasn't illegal, it's also something people in almost every administration has done.

..and we know Powell and Rice both recieved actual classified documents from personal email accounts.

Her's were not marked classified.

No they did not. You get this wrong every time.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Berger intentionally walked out the door with classified info. How is it different than Hillary? In every way imaginable.

LOL part 2

Hillary deliberately sent classified e-mail out the virtual door. Why in the hell do you think Pagliano wanted an immunity deal?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LOL part 2

Hillary deliberately sent classified e-mail out the virtual door.

You have no information that allows you to know that. You're just assuming.

Why in the hell do you think Pagliano wanted an immunity deal?

I have no idea. I don't even know if he wanted one. I just know they offered, and he accepted.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It doesn't matter how classified it is. It only matters how it got where it shouldn't be. Without any actual evidence of how and why that happened, you are, in fact, assuming only negligence can explain it. You just did it again in this post.

You were the one arguing that they might not know it was classified and that could play into negligence. I am telling you that there were items on that server that were so classified that there is basically zero excuse for them not to know it was classified.

As to your other point, there are only 2 ways the info can get on the server, either someone sends it to her or she sends it to someone else. She would have to answer why she continued to maintain the off site server when it was clear classified information was being passed through it. And we know this was brought up to her because we have emails from her staff stating that they needed to change forums.

I am assuming that negligence is the most likely reason because A)she and her staff are not that stupid and B)even though I think she intentionally was trying to skirt oversight I do not really think she meant to have our secrets available to the world. She was trying to avoid that. She was negligent in taking that info outside the more secure networks (like SIPR net) and instead moving it to her own unsecured network which is directly against the instructions she was given and signed off on. So yes, I choose negligent over grossly incompetent and outright criminal.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You were the one arguing that they might not know it was classified and that could play into negligence. I am telling you that there were items on that server that were so classified that there is basically zero excuse for them not to know it was classified.

I understand what you are telling me, and I'm telling you, since we don't have access to that information, we don't know enough to draw that conclusion (or its opposite). We just don't know.

As to your other point, there are only 2 ways the info can get on the server, either someone sends it to her or she sends it to someone else. She would have to answer why she continued to maintain the off site server when it was clear classified information was being passed through it.

Not until the government can show that she did, in fact, know. Plus, the off-site server is pretty much irrelevant here. It would have been just as illegal for her to knowingly use her regular state.gov address in the same way.

And we know this was brought up to her because we have emails from her staff stating that they needed to change forums.

Actually, the emails illustrate just the opposite. They demonstrate people making a conscious effort to avoid sharing classified info over email.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You have no information that allows you to know that. You're just assuming.


I have no idea. I don't even know if he wanted one. I just know they offered, and he accepted.

So what if I am assuming?

What do you think circumstantial evidence is?

Moreover, her domain name made it pretty clear what she intended with the email. And the immunity deal is not "accepted". He asserted the 5th, he was then granted immunity. He either talks to the FBI or to the GJ, or goes to jail.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So what if I am assuming?

What do you think circumstantial evidence is?

Moreover, her domain name made it pretty clear what she intended with the email. And the immunity deal is not "accepted". He asserted the 5th, he was then granted immunity. He either talks to the FBI or to the GJ, or goes to jail.

The fact that someone was granted immunity isn't any kind of evidence. You're drawing inferences, which is your right as a human being, but don't pretend that you're making any kind of convincing argument that would hold up in court. No one here is. Because none of us have the kind of information necessary to frame such an argument.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The fact that someone was granted immunity isn't any kind of evidence. You're drawing inferences, which is your right as a human being, but don't pretend that you're making any kind of convincing argument that would hold up in court. No one here is. Because none of us have the kind of information necessary to frame such an argument.

I'm not producing evidence

I am making a closing argument based upon the facts we all know about.

 

[Cajun54]

Due respect, but you haven't defended your opinion at all, other than an unsupported claim that Clinton disregarded the rules. You keep repeating the rules. We know them. You repeat that Clinton was aware of them. We know. Show us evidence that she actually broke them.

Your response to IU-C (something like "I promise to have an open mind about your evidence that these emails weren't on her server") is inconsistent with what you are claiming now, but is consistent with what I accused you of: assuming Clinton was negligent without necessary evidence.

I am done with this debate. It's like pissing into the wind. I do not acknowledge defeat however.

And I have defended my opinion quite well. Very well in fact. And quit insulting my intelligence sir. And because Goat says I haven't doesn't make it true. Being and attorney doesn't make it so. The only thing it shows is that you disagree with my opinion. Opinion and conclusion. Proof in a court of law isn't a requirement to form an opinion or conclusion. unsupported claim....wow

In your interpretation the hoard of public info regarding the classified materials discovered, documented and acknowledged on her private server by numerous federal agencies such as the DOD, State Dept, CIA, NSA, IG and security analyst does not support me arriving at a reasonable conclusion that there is enough to indict Hillary. Hell its not enough even to prove its there according to you. And there is most certainly nothing out there to indicate using this private server for classified material regarding the federal rules prohibiting it.

Your accusation against me regarding my assumption that Hillary is guilty is correct. As IU2 pointed out its a reasonable conclusion. I have concluded that the old cliche' about arguing with a lawyer might be correct. Pretty soon you figure out they enjoy it.

You implied in this thread that I desired to throw out the protections afforded us in the Constitution. How you determined this little jewel is beyond me.

It has totally nothing to do with the ability for me to prove anything. Once more its a conclusion. One that I might add has been reached by a huge number of legal and impressive legal minds.

You have and opinion as do I. It's not a court of law. I am not required to prove I have found enough info supporting my opinion, which by the way I have.

This debate is all in vain anyway as short of her killing someone on national tv she won't be indicted for anything.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Due respect, but you haven't defended your opinion at all, other than an unsupported claim that Clinton disregarded the rules. You keep repeating the rules. We know them. You repeat that Clinton was aware of them. We know. Show us evidence that she actually broke them.

Your response to IU-C (something like "I promise to have an open mind about your evidence that these emails weren't on her server") is inconsistent with what you are claiming now, but is consistent with what I accused you of: assuming Clinton was negligent without necessary evidence.

Watching you try to repeatedly explain this to others makes me picture you on a sinking Titanic and all you have is a Dixie cup. At some point you have to realize it's not going to work.