Emailgate Update - For Hillary No News is Good News. Sadly, there is New News. ;)

[Sarpedon]

I guess that depends on whether you think there's more to the iceberg.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess that depends on whether you think there's more to the iceberg.

Currently the iceberg above the surface is about the size of India...

 

[untermensche]

Where is the harm?

Who was hurt?

For those who say this is anything please answer these questions or admit this is nothing but a political witch hunt.

Well, by that logic drunk drivers should be let go as long as there is no harm.

So the fear is she has an addiction to this as people have with alcohol?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, by that logic drunk drivers should be let go as long as there is no harm.

So the fear is she has an addiction to this as people have with alcohol?

Well, some people certainly have an addiction to fake Hillary Clinton scandals.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, some people certainly have an addiction to fake Hillary Clinton scandals.

Maybe we can come up with another scandal-suffix for the fake attacks on Hillary?

I'm thinking -stone.
Email-stone, instead of Email-gate.

Because Watergate really was a scandal that overthrew a government.
These are more like an episode of the Keystone Cops.

 

[funinspace]

Hillary Stoners?

 

[maxparrish]

Are you saying there isn't a "vast-right wing conspiracy" against Hillary Clinton?

I have said, in the past, that there is no "vast...etc.", but in this instance I am making a more specific point about Fallon...he's reflective of the Hillary true believer that doesn't even bother to search for a confirming bias. He just believes his own fabrication must be true, because he (pathetically) needs to believe it. He cannot conceive that anyone could criticize his demigoddess without them being truely EVIL.

Adding to the Hillary camp clown act is this update: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article55628755.html

The IG believes at least several dozen of emails Clinton sent and received while she was secretary of state contained classified material at the highest levels, according to a letter obtained by McClatchy. The IG, McCullough. was nominated and appointed by President President Barack Obama in August 2011 to be the first inspector general for the 16 intelligence agencies and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Ah yes, so even Obama is in on the great right-wing conspiracy. MY GOSH, no wonder her wonderfulness is being so relentlessly persecuted, even Obama is against her.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hillary Stoners?

Or the Benny Hill-ary show?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Are you saying there isn't a "vast-right wing conspiracy" against Hillary Clinton?

I have said that there is not a "vast...etc.", but in this instance I am making much more specific point about ... MY GOSH, no wonder her wonderfulness is being so relentless persecuted.

So your "vast-right wing conspiracy" is not vast, but it is?

 

[Jayjay]

I still don't see anything except than idiocy of State Department for allowing external email servers to be used at all...

It's odd you would think this. Not only is it expressly prohibited, but it's technically illegal. If this wasn't someone "important" it wouldn't be a witch hunt. It would be a plea bargin. A lower level career government employee could actually loose their job. And that's not a easy thing to loose.

My wife works for the Federal Government. So I've heard the stories about the level of criminal activity required to eventually remove a government employee.

Someone already linked an article pointing that it wasn't legal at the time. As for being "expressly prohibited", consider that Clinton can't pull it off alone. Everyone that she sends emails to at the State Department (and other branches of government) and who send emails to her would know that it's not a government address, and they'd have to be in on it. There are fifty thousand emails from Clinton's tenure at her server, and it is simply inconceivable that nobody at State Department would have raised questions about it if it was "expressly forbidden", if not for any reason than to cover their own asses.

Imagine what would happen if your wife suddenly started using her personal email for work. It would be impossible, because her colleagues would refuse to send her any emails (because everyone knows that it is not allowed), and if they received any would immediately either question her why she was not using proper work email, and would likely escalate and report it if such behaviour persisted. Your wife simply couldn't do it unless almost everyone she works with would either be colluding with her, or be completely clueless about the the security policies at her workplace.

 

[dismal]

It's odd you would think this. Not only is it expressly prohibited, but it's technically illegal. If this wasn't someone "important" it wouldn't be a witch hunt. It would be a plea bargin. A lower level career government employee could actually loose their job. And that's not a easy thing to loose.

My wife works for the Federal Government. So I've heard the stories about the level of criminal activity required to eventually remove a government employee.

Someone already linked an article pointing that it wasn't legal at the time. As for being "expressly prohibited", consider that Clinton can't pull it off alone. Everyone that she sends emails to at the State Department (and other branches of government) and who send emails to her would know that it's not a government address, and they'd have to be in on it. There are fifty thousand emails from Clinton's tenure at her server, and it is simply inconceivable that nobody at State Department would have raised questions about it if it was "expressly forbidden", if not for any reason than to cover their own asses.

Imagine what would happen if your wife suddenly started using her personal email for work. It would be impossible, because her colleagues would refuse to send her any emails (because everyone knows that it is not allowed), and if they received any would immediately either question her why she was not using proper work email, and would likely escalate and report it if such behaviour persisted. Your wife simply couldn't do it unless almost everyone she works with would either be colluding with her, or be completely clueless about the the security policies at her workplace.

Regardless, it is clearly expressly forbidden to have classified information on a personal server.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Someone already linked an article pointing that it wasn't legal at the time. As for being "expressly prohibited", consider that Clinton can't pull it off alone. Everyone that she sends emails to at the State Department (and other branches of government) and who send emails to her would know that it's not a government address, and they'd have to be in on it. There are fifty thousand emails from Clinton's tenure at her server, and it is simply inconceivable that nobody at State Department would have raised questions about it if it was "expressly forbidden", if not for any reason than to cover their own asses.

Imagine what would happen if your wife suddenly started using her personal email for work. It would be impossible, because her colleagues would refuse to send her any emails (because everyone knows that it is not allowed), and if they received any would immediately either question her why she was not using proper work email, and would likely escalate and report it if such behaviour persisted. Your wife simply couldn't do it unless almost everyone she works with would either be colluding with her, or be completely clueless about the the security policies at her workplace.

Regardless, it is clearly expressly forbidden to have classified information on a personal server.

You still have a copy of that memo?

 

[dismal]

Sure, this is a bit out of date but it make the relevant points and I'm not sure the HuffPost has updated it. I thought I'd use ti anyway because I know the messenger is so damn important to people here:

It remains to be seen whether Clinton could be found to have violated the Espionage Act, a law that the Obama administration has used repeatedly against whistleblowers. The relevant section of the law says that it is a crime to retain classified material. Clinton, for her part, said Tuesday that she did not send classified information from the personal address, and that the server she used was protected by the secret service and suffered no security breaches.

The Justice Department leveled just that charge against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake and James Hitselberger, a former Navy linguist who sent classified documents to an archive at the Hoover Institution. Former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee also was infamously charged with 10 counts of retaining classified data for storing information on tapes.

There are two big hurdles to making such a determination in Clinton's case, said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of Americans Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. Officials have said it does not appear as if Clinton discussed classified matters over email, and the secretary of state has broad latitude to decide what is classified.

"Any email that the secretary of state sends is at least sensitive, and would be of interest to many foreign intelligence agencies, but that's not the same as it's classified or that mishandling is punishable under the Espionage Act," Aftergood said.

That would make Clinton's case different from that of former Gen. David Petraeus, who handed obviously secret material to his biographer, and recently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information.

Aftergood thought there was "zero chance" that Clinton would face a prosecutor based on what is currently known, but he allowed that it was possible if the material is later determined to be classified.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-email_n_6841218.html

So, now we are at that later point where the material has been determined to be classified.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No the memo.

 

[maxparrish]

No the memo.

Hillary's Attorney: "Your honor, my client never got a memo expressly forbidding her to break federal law."

Judge: "Did your firm represent Richard Nixon?"

Hillary's Attorney: "No your honor. But it was a free legal tip from Bernie Madoff.".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No the memo.

Hillary's Attorney: "Your honor, my client never got a memo expressly forbidding her to break federal law."

Judge: "Did your firm represent Richard Nixon?"

Hillary's Attorney: "No your honor. But it was a free legal tip from Bernie Madoff.".

I was addressing dismal. Not you or Hillary.

 

[fromderinside]

No the memo.

Hillary's Attorney: "Your honor, my client never got a memo expressly forbidding her to break federal law."

Judge: "Did your firm represent Richard Nixon?"

Hillary's Attorney: "No your honor. But it was a free legal tip from Bernie Madoff.".

No memo. No memo. What to do. Find convenient Indian poser pay him two strings of beads to 'send' memo. Wait for results. No memo. Find cloud reader to interpret clouds as if they were smoke signals. Pay her a can of beans. Still no memo report. Go out on balcony and blow smoke as maxparrish just did. Sorry maxparrish that's not a memo either. moveon.org.

 

[maxparrish]

Anyone remember the leak of the CIA NOC-List agent under W? Or when the W Admin spilled the beans about how our drones could fire weapons? How about that time when the W Admin was playing spin when our soldiers were being blown up in Iraq between '03 and '06? Then you have Iran-Contra when the Reagan Admin illegally sold weapons to the fucking enemy.

And here we are hearing about people whining about email security. Not selling secrets. Not compromising American security. Not aiding the enemy. Email security.

That is quite a disjointed, factually mangled, and disingenuous list, especially if intended as comparisons. Your "complaint" by example
is less than coherent, let alone credible.

Just one example should suffice:

THE EVENT - Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage was giving Robert Novak insider gossip in a meeting. Halfway through the interview Novak asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling him," Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?" According to Novak Armitage said off-hand “Well, you know his wife works at the CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger.” “His wife works at the CIA?” I asked. “Yeah, in counter-proliferation.”

Knowingly or not, Armitage may (or may not) have violated a law on the confidentiality of such employment.

The REACTION? Hiring of a special prosecutor who cross-examined and obtaining sworn testimony and depositions scores of executive and State office employees in a grand jury process, long after Armitage had (via Powell) confessed to the SP that he was the leaker. Eventually, 10s of thousands of pages later, the SP caught someone (Scooter Libby) allegedly saying something false unrelated to Armitage's actual act of leaking to Novak.

The RESULT? A sentence of 30 months in jail, 250K fine.

If you are, by comparison, suggesting a special prosecutor, and a grand jury, to interview everyone in the administration and make them all submit to cross-examination under penalty of perjury REGARDLESS if the actual email miscreant(s) confess THEN lets do. And if no one is found guilty of any federal law regarding the handling of classified information, THEN maybe someone in some office can be caught prevaricating about an unrelated incident and sent to prison for two and half years.

Welcome aboard Higgins.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What is the actual harm done by this?

Who was hurt and how?

Is the fear that as president she will continue the policy?

I fear she will continue the drone policy.

There we can see real victims and harm. A real issue.

In court trials, there is a part of the trial at the beginning in which the question is asked: if we were to assume everything the prosecution says is actually true, do the accusations rise to the level of an actual crime?

It is against the law to put classified information on any system whose classification system is lower than that of the information itself.

Any document written in the line of duty is property of the government, and it is against the law to not turn them over to the government for proper disposition.

Right or wrong, those are the laws. She is accused of breaking those laws. My own time working for the government taught me that with quite a lot of stress and emphasis on document production and classification.

If everything that she is accused of is accepted, her acts rise to the level of prosecution. Now it is the job to conduct an investigation to see if she actually did what she is accused of.

Just curious ... if it were a Republican accused of violating document production and classification, would you be as lenient?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Just curious ... if it were a Republican accused of violating document production and classification, would you be as lenient?

If?