Judge Orders State Dept, FBI To Expand Clinton Email Server Probe 303
An anonymous reader writes: In a hearing over Freedom of Information Act requests to the State Department, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said that former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't comply with government policies. He ordered the State Department to reach out to the FBI to see if any relevant emails exist on Hillary Clinton's email server. Judge Sullivan was surprised that the State Department and FBI were not already communicating on the issue following the FBI's seizure of Clinton's email server and three thumb drives of emails. More than 300 emails are being examined for containing classified information, and dozens of the emails were "born classified" based on content. Some of those emails were forwarded outside the government. There are also clues emerging about how some of the classified information made its way onto Clinton's server. The email controversy is beginning to show up on the campaign trail, an unwelcome development for Secretary Clinton. Reporter Bob Woodward, who helped bring down President Nixon, said the scandal reminds him of the Nixon tapes. It is interesting to note that the post-Watergate reforms have helped move the investigation forward.
Lying scum (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Lying scum (Score:5, Informative)
Whether she knows what a server wipe is depends on the meaning of the word "is".
We've known this family is full of lying scum for at least 20 years. We've also known she (rather than Bill) likes to use informal processes to avoid government openness laws since the HillaryCare shenanigans in the early 90s.
Re: Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me point out something very, very important - Thinking the other side is worse justifies nothing.
Re: Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
The way that you get everyone to follow the same laws is to enforce them fairly and predictably, regardless of who violates them. M. K. Gandhi is widely credited with saying (something like) "An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind", which exemplifies why the enforcement of this kind of thing should be as impartial as practical: otherwise it looks like partisan hits, which is corrosive to both compliance with the law and the larger political environment.
Re: Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Laws are for the little people to obey. Not the rich and powerful.
Blame game (Score:2)
This is also one of the few times a politician doesn't get to blame an underling. "But I didn't know Bob was shredding secret documents and working with arms dealers" might be able to pass, but you can't blame Bob for an illegal server full of government emails set up in your f**king house.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but noone has come around to fondle my testicles yet.
So either you are lying, or someone needs to hire more fondlers.
Re: Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time someone accuses Hillary of doing something nefarious with these emails I picture explaining to my mother that she will need to use two different email accounts for different purposes and the resulting blank looks that would ensue.
Your mother was the Secretary of State?
Your mother is running for president?
Your mother has a staff that could have set up the phone for her to receive emails from two addresses?
I really doubt your mom has the resources and training that Hillary has. The only thing your statement demonstrates is that a lot of people will not realize this is a big deal because they have no idea how things work.
Re: Lying scum (Score:4, Interesting)
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
She is either incompetent or evil. I'm not judging her motives, I'll the those better qualified to figure it out.
Re: (Score:3)
Is your mother a former First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State?
I don't expect my mother to understand why she might need more email addresses, but I don't expect her to violate federal law to avoid it either.
Re: Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has gotten to the entire judicial system in the USA, that's obviously the only way anyone would make such a big deal over something that certainly was completely legal and moral at the time...
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has gotten to the entire judicial system in the USA, that's obviously the only way anyone would make such a big deal over something that certainly was completely legal and moral at the time...
In case this isn't sarcasm:
And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time,
and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
and they're coming to take me away ha ha
Love that song.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As an older IT guy/programmer I can tell you most non geeks over 60 have no idea about IT stuff.
Re:Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
That is irrelevant. The disgusting sack of shite had paid advisors and consultants to take care of this stuff. There are procedures in place. Obviously, Clinton decided that she was going to do things HER WAY - and in the process broke a metric shit-ton of laws.
Her understanding of technology is totally irrelevant to the investigation.
That said - I strongly suspect that she understands a lot more tech than you are giving her credit for. Who set up that server? Who administered the server? How did she access the server? Who decided what to turn over to the state department? Who made the decision that she would have her own private server, under her own control?
The unsophisticated old coots down at the community center certainly don't have their own servers.
Re:Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
No we don't know if she violated any laws yet, although it looks more and more like she probably did. We do know she at least violated some government practice documents, she was not obligated to comply with but should have.
The issue isn't if she broke the law or not. There are bunch of people that would enjoy seeing Clinton in the slam but it won't affect things much beyond that. What matters is she should be losing this election. She was the Secretary of State for the United States of America. She either could have and should have recognized that she was dealing with sensitive information classified or not and cared enough about operation security to do something about it.
So she knew or should have known the risks of E-mail its not 1998 anymore, everyone has heard the post card analogy with inter-domain mail. If she did not know she should have people around her to tell her that. If she did not listen or only select a bunch of yes men and women that is also a problem.
Even if all the operational security issues and risks of e-mail were a surprise to her, you'd think her behavior would have very suddenly improved when Bradly Manning and a few other events took place, again nope, so we are left with willful ignorance, or gross negligence. Crime or not, prosecutable or not, there isn't a good spin you can put on it. Even Her own justifications about carry multiple devices etc have been contradicted, she has been evasive about it and her story keeps changing so she is only compounding it with lies and bad ones. She isn't a good candidate to lead the country pure and simple.
Re: (Score:3)
No we don't know if she violated any laws yet
Actually we do and she is still doing it. She is a civilian in possession of classified material that she collected while she wasn't a civilian. End of the fucking discussion. She is still breaking the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually we do and she is still doing it. She is a civilian in possession of classified material that she collected while she wasn't a civilian. End of the fucking discussion. She is still breaking the law.
The documents were not classified at the time. Contrary to the assertion in Routers article, FGI (foreign government information) are not 'born classified' - this is shown both by the wording of the statutes themselves; court interpretation of the statutes and executive orders; and according to the State Department itself.
It is far from clear what duty, if any, she has in the case of retroactively classified documents, but almost certainly she has no legal culpability.
Re: (Score:2)
The documents were not classified at the time.
Im pretty sure the whole point of classifying a document after the fact is to indicate that it is not, from that point on, suitable for viewing by non-cleared / non-need-to-know parties.
It is irrelevant whether it was classified at the beginning, its classified now, and its classified for a reason.
Re:Lying scum (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, some documents are classified upon generation / receipt. The term I have heard is "born classified", meaning they are classifed from the beginning. The "Marked Classified" is a lame attempt at obfuscation of the seriousness of the problem here. Hilary knows she's politically dead. The real question is, is she bound for Prison or will Obama pardon her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She is a civilian in possession of classified material that she collected while she wasn't a civilian.
If she still has the Clearance and Need to Know, that's not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
There are procedures in place.
Yup, from Rice and Powell the procedures were to wipe the server and delete all records of the emails so that they wouldn't be included in any records retention or available for inspection.
If Clinton had followed the standing procedures, none of this would have happened. ;)
-Rick
PS: Don't take this as defense of Hillary. It's offense at the cherry picked nature of this witch hunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lying scum (Score:5, Informative)
From Powell's interview:
You may also have forgotten the Bush Administration's use of private email servers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Seriously, this is record of fact. Powell openly admitted to using a private email server, that he 'thinks' most or all of the emails were unclassified, and that he doesn't think that any that may have been classified were impactful.
Rice has not openly admitted it, but she was on the Bush admin's private web server and there were records that she "occasionally" used the official state department email system.
Politically speaking, Clinton's mistake was to keep a backup of the emails. Security speaking, this whole thing has been a wank fest for over a decade. At least Kerry started getting it cleaned up.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
There are procedures in place. Obviously, Clinton decided that she was going to do things HER WAY - and in the process broke a metric shit-ton of laws.
Along with the people that allowed it to happen. Email doesn't get forwarded on its own. *If* she broke any rules, someone let and helped her do it and they should be as, if not more, accountable. Part of an administrator's job is to say "no" to things that are wrong. Sure you might get fired, but I know that I would stand by that decision and consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody is a Trump supporter....
No, somebody is making perfectly valid observations that call into question those who are attempting to help Hillary by excusing her behavior and contempt for the rest of us by saying she's old. Those are observations that could be made by a Biden supporter, a Sanders supporter, or a Jindal supporter ... or by anyone that simply finds her career of duplicitous hypocrisy under the cover of a fawning media to be simply too much, for too long.
Re:Lying scum (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, that is now blowing up in her face...but seriously, there aren't many other valid reasons to just NOT use the govt supplied and managed email servers.
Setting up your own email server isn't rocket science....but why bother when you have all the security questions taken off your shoulders and allowing the govt security types to set up and run your email for you? Unless you fear you will have something to hide....
Re:Lying scum (Score:4, Insightful)
Ding ding ding. We have a winner!
The entire purpose was to dodge Freedom of Information Act requests and to prevent her communications from entering into the National Archives. A nice side-effect was that her political enemies would have a tougher time snooping on her.
She believed she could skirt the law (as so many in DC do). Regardless of what happens with her over the issue, it looks like there will be severe penalties for future Secretaries of State that attempt this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Than maybe someone her age who isn't a geek has no business being the President of the United States in the "Information Age"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary Clinton should know what a "server wipe" is because she was in charge of the people who were managing this, she was the head of a Federal Department, and she wants to be President. Your parents might be random schmoes with no reason to know simple computer jargon, but high-level executives in the modern world do not have that excuse.
Re: (Score:3)
because she was in charge of the people who were managing this
I find very hard to believe that she was directly in charge of the people who were managing this. I'm willing to bet there was a layer in between her and the server admins doing the executive level "translating". I picture it like the CIO and CEO role. I'm willing to bet my CEO wouldn't know what a "server wipe" is, much less care what it is. That's not his job, he has smart people hired to handle stuff like that. I imagine the conversation went something like this: Clinton:I need to make sure my e-ma
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or when they say "private e-mail server" does any body else mentally picture an old Dell desktop PC sitting in a broom closet somewhere?
Close...
It was kept in the bathroom [theblaze.com]
Re:Lying scum (Score:5, Insightful)
What she probably said was "I want a server that isn't subject to legally mandated retention or public records requests". The IT person then responded with "Sure ma'am" like you suggest.
The fact that doing this also makes security hard is just a side effect. The security problem didn't happen because she told someone to make it secure without supervising them closely, the security problem happened because she decided she'd rather not be subject to the rules, and not being subject to the rules automatically comes with bad security unless you're really careful.
Re: (Score:2)
What she probably said was "I want a server that isn't subject to legally mandated retention or public records requests"
I'm betting your paraphrasing of the conversation is more accurate, I was trying to keep it as neutral as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not his job, he has smart people hired to handle stuff like that.
But its not the smart people's responsibility to comply with laws (and common sense)-- its Hillary's.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton should know what a "server wipe" is because she was in charge of the people who were managing this
Personally I find it hard to accept Hillary as a former Secretary of State would not know a lot more than she lets on. Its difficult to imagine she could have done her job effectively otherwise. That said she does not need to know the details of what "wipe" means in terms vs say a simple delete.
The question could have plainly been understood as "did you or someone in your employ attempt erase the contents of the server before handing it over and how do you explain that as anything other than destruction o
Re:Lying scum (Score:4, Insightful)
Where those her terrorists? If not, find a better strawman to burn.
Look, I'm not a US citizen, but in the current circus that is the US elections, I tend to support the democrats. This is a breach of security unacceptable for a low level officer; in a secretary of state it would be tantamount to treason. The bottom line is that she broke the protocols in place and did something illegal with a huge potential to cause harm to the country.
That simple fact would disqualify her from running for presidency and most likely would put her behind bars. That a lot of people still supports her blows my mind away; it means that in today US politics, party lines trump human decency and respect for the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit ass-hole. You like Condoleezza Rice should have known terrorists would hijack a plan and crash it into the Trade Towers.....
You mean the terrorists who hatched that plan and were working on it under the Clinton administration? Those terrorists? The ones who were answering to Bin Laden, a person that the Clinton administration let slip through their fingers more than once, even after his group and associates had already killed hundreds of people, including US Navy personnel? Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit ass-hole. You like Condoleezza Rice should have known terrorists would hijack a plan and crash it into the Trade Towers.....
You mean the terrorists who hatched that plan and were working on it under the Clinton administration? Those terrorists? The ones who were answering to Bin Laden, a person that the Clinton administration let slip through their fingers more than once, even after his group and associates had already killed hundreds of people, including US Navy personnel? Yeah.
Or do you mean the Bin Laden family who have long ties with the Bush family?
Or how the Bush family wealth comes not only from partnering and or owning everything from banks to Halliburton and selling or financing arms to the Bin Laden family as well as Hitler?
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power [theguardian.com]
How War Made the Bush Family Rich [blogspot.com]
You mean *those* terrorists?
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, after the first World Trade Center attack in the 1990s, I did know that the next attack would be with planes. It would have to be to get past the security measure put in place to prevent a second truck bomb.
Question: How do you get a truck bomb past cement barricades that stop trucks?
Answer: Strap a set of wings to the fucker and fly it over them. In other words, use a plane.
Even if you bleed Blue this is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if your a loyal Democrat, this is not good. Keeping highly sensitive documents on personal servers when your a top government official is just wrong. No matter if there is a smoking gun or not. Just the fact this goes against all protocol setup and defined to protect information is very troubling. It shows Mrs. Clinton totally disregarded protocol simply for her own benefit and possibly for a convenient way of controlling history and her legacy in case she messed up.
This goes far beyond a Richard Nixon moment and I cannot believe how many people still thinks she is the best the Democrat's have for President??
In my mind, she is just what America doesn't need in the White house. Another politician who makes up her own rules and disobey's government policy. Really?
We want more of that in government? Hey, if your a Democrat do what you will next year at election time. But if Hillary Clinton is a choice. Do the right thing and don't vote that disgraceful piece of work into office. She has no place in public office of any kind.
Re: Even if you bleed Blue this is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong?
I that a legal term?
How about using the Republican Party server? It that wrong?
How about ex post facto?
Was it illegal at the time?
Lots of thing were fine at the time and now they are wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My sister is an Ambassador (not an American) and her eyes opened really wide when she saw the letter encoding on some of the emails and basically stated that if anyone else did that (in our government, likely in hers) - they would be up on charges -- facing serious prison time.
The breach that occurred with Petraeus was less severe (sharing documents with someone doing his bio - which BTW would still be vetted by US security for things that should be omitted on security grounds) faced lesser charges (a rel
Re: (Score:2)
sharing documents with someone he was doing
ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
And once again, with the Clintons, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. If she had said "whoops, silly me" issued an apology and vowed to do right in the future, this would have blown over by now. Republicans would still harp on it, of course, but Democrats could respond "she made a technical mistake, it was brought to her attention and she corrected her behavior. Move on."
But she keeps trying to make excuses and tell stupid lies because NEVER SHOW WEAKNESS. It's disgusting.
Democrats, you have a choice in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Even if you bleed Blue this is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
"I cannot believe how many people still thinks she is the best the Democrat's have for President??"
An increasing number of people think Bernie Sanders is the best Democraft for President.. even if he isn't really endorsed by the party elite.
Re:Even if you bleed Blue this is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps *because* he isn't endorsed by the party elite? The appeal of Trump appears to be largely because he's not cut from the same cloth as the standard politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
??? The Democratic party has been swinging right since ... well, nearly 20 years. At this point they're somewhat to the right of Nixon. And despite claims both parties are also proponents of big government and centralized control, so that's nothing to choose between on their part.
Tbe Democrats *do* tend to try to return a little value to their the general populace, though not enough to repay the centralization that they demand in return. The Republicans also tend to return a bit of value to their suppor
Re: (Score:2)
Both Parties delete emails. (Score:2)
Even if your a loyal Democrat, this is not good. Keeping highly sensitive documents on personal servers when your a top government official is just wrong. No matter if there is a smoking gun or not. Just the fact this goes against all protocol setup and defined to protect information is very troubling. It shows Mrs. Clinton totally disregarded protocol simply for her own benefit and possibly for a convenient way of controlling history and her legacy in case she messed up.
This goes far beyond a Richard Nixon moment and I cannot believe how many people still thinks she is the best the Democrat's have for President??
In my mind, she is just what America doesn't need in the White house. Another politician who makes up her own rules and disobey's government policy. Really?
We want more of that in government? Hey, if your a Democrat do what you will next year at election time. But if Hillary Clinton is a choice. Do the right thing and don't vote that disgraceful piece of work into office. She has no place in public office of any kind.
Weird, you should say this, because the republicans have been guilty of the same thing in the past and yet nothing came of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So while everyone is getting on Clinton's ass, this isn't the first time this is happen and I'm guessing she'll get away with it also. Republicans, Democrats, both kinds of politicians that are cheating lying scum. At least we know there is one candidate out there who's had a record of doing what he says and doing what is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was entitlement which when combined with no excess of competence is a decidedly inert combination.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you have been raised, but in 'Murica, the law, much like the bus, is for poor people.
Re:She deserves to be in prison (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know the relevant law (or really much of any law) in detail, and hope that someone here who does can express an informed, educated opinion.
Stuff that is TS/SCI (Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information) is what commonfolk call state secrets. It's stuff that is so important to national security that we call people who share it with non-cleared foreign folks spies and charge them with treason, and the punishment is up to and including death. It is a Big Frelling Deal. That's the heavy hammer that's being threatened and used against Assange, Snowden and Manning for doing the same thing, albeit on a larger and wider scale. Just storing it on a non-secure system within the government is considered Bad Form and subject to disciplinary action or worse. Printing it out and taking it home is Particularly Bad Form. Doesn't forwarding it over private email systems amount to all of that and much more?
Why aren't we calling for Hillary's political head, if not sending her to jail?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1) From all accounts the material wasn't marked classified and apparently wasn't classified till after the fact and even that state may be in question.
2) Having a private server means nothing in this context. An unclassified server is an unclassified server, whether Hillary or the Government owns it. The violation would be the same.
3) No matter where the emails were republican operatives would pour over every tiny dot trying to find a way to destroy her. In fact this nasty political climate may have been
Re: (Score:2)
Even the average person who reads the news knows by now that TS/SCI materials can't legitimately end up in unclassified email systems. The very best she could argue is "I had no idea what it was and deleted it immediately" at which rate she's still guilty of not handing over the machine(s) to the federal government to verify that the data is actually gone.
She needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because the alternative is that we live in a country where contractors and lower level civil servants go to Leavenworth while the elite gets to make cutesy jokes about destruction of evidence in a national security scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nothing came of that, nothing will come of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the Palin email thing. It seems to be a standard practice in US politics: There is just so much secret activity of dubious legality going on that needs to be kept away from the prying eyes of the media, everyone seems to have a desire for some off-the-record personal or unofficial communications channel. Occasionally someone gets caught, and the other party doe their best to exploit it to the fullest without reminding people that they were caught doing the same not long ago.
Reach out and touch base and have a chat (Score:2)
What the FUCK is with this language.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Reuters is engaged in a witch hunt that much is clear. The only thing Clinton is guilty of is bad email practice. There has been no smoking gun; nothing that come close to treason or giving away state secrets. Jesus Christ, check every member of Congress and see how they handle email, are they all in compliance.
Okay, let's translate this:
"Hillary isn't guilty of anything. Her crime is far from being on the same level as treason. You can't convict Hillary for her crime until you convict the congress members who are committing the same crime."
Forgive me if I chuckle a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Reuters is engaged in a witch hunt that much is clear. The only thing Clinton is guilty of is bad email practice. There has been no smoking gun; nothing that come close to treason or giving away state secrets. Jesus Christ, check every member of Congress and see how they handle email, are they all in compliance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"He ordered the State Department to reach out to the FBI to see if..."
You'd prefer reach around ?
Am I missing something? (Score:2, Interesting)
I still don't understand why this is so bad, especially to the point of being compared to the Nixon tapes. (I'm a Dem, but not really a Hillary fan)
The emails in question were believed to not contain classified info, so they would have been sent on the official unclassified server anyway. It wasn't against the law to have her own server, but possibly against policy. If she fired people for doing the same, that makes her a hypocrite, not a criminal. (although, hypocrites don't make good leaders either)
Th
What you are missing (Score:5, Insightful)
The emails were subpoenaed by Congress for an investigation. She deleted them 14 months AFTER the subpoena, which she then claimed she never got. The Congressman who subpoenaed them came on news the next day showing what he sent her requesting the emails. She deleted evidence during an investigation (obstruction of justice).
Since then they have gotten more evidence of why she deleted them. This is all based on her original obstruction of justice and now they want to find out what she is hiding by not turning them over. She has lied at every step for not giving them over.
1. I wanted to use 1 device. She used 3
2. They were private emails to husband. Bill Clinton doesn't use email
3. No classified documents. There are classified documents
4. No documents were classified at time. They included signal intelligence which is classified at all times
5. Server protected by secret service at her house. It was in a Denver apartment that didn't have an alarm.
6. There are no backups. There is a backup server in New Jersey that is still not in government control.
Re: (Score:2)
Often in the foreign service you communicate things that would not necessarily be classified - such as talks or communications in confidence with others in power etc. (off the record) -- and this lack of taking security seriously put both them and their lives at risk in some cases. What this teaches the world is that the US cannot be trusted with confidential or
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
By avoiding government systems Clinton potentially put lives, diplomatic relations, and US secrets at risk.
The emails in question were believed to not contain classified info
That's simply not true (and I'm surprised you could believe Clinton's utterly false claims). As per State department rules, anything related to foreign countries is classified by default, without any need for such marking.
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand why this is so bad, especially to the point of being compared to the Nixon tapes.
It's the cover up (wiping the servers) which make it just like the Nixon tapes.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because it's part of a pattern of "willful" coverup under her tenure?
http://gawker.com/state-department-finds-thousands-of-philippe-reines-ema-1724560491 [gawker.com]
"Over two years ago, the department claimed that 'no records responsive to your request were located' - a baffling assertion, given Reine's well-documented correspondence..." "Last last week, however, the State Department came up with a very different answer: It had located an estimated 17,000 emails responsive to Gawker's request."
It took a lawsuit t
Re: (Score:2)
The emails in question were believed to not contain classified info, so they would have been sent on the official unclassified server anyway.
Not sure where you are getting this. I see several sources confirming that her email did in fact contain classified information. They certainly contained sensitive FOUO content. We are talking the head of the State Department here. Her server was more than likely already compromised by several foreign intelligence organizations. Can you imagine their glee when they reported to their superiors that they have access to all the emails sent by Secretary of State of the US of A?
The emails were not 'born classified' (Score:5, Informative)
Read the effin statutes. The emails are not automatically classified if they are from a foreign government. They are only classified if the foreign government has stated they are classified.
The courts have ruled that being from a foreign government is not sufficient to be classified. The State Department argued that it was in a FOIA case and lost.
The case and the law are discussed in this link,
This provision of Executive Order 12,958 was a significant factor in a 1998 decision by the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that rejected the government's claim that a communication from the United Kingdom could be withheld from a FOIA requester because it had been classified by the Department of State. Weatherhead v. United States, 157 F. 3d 735 (9th Cir. October 1998), vacated as moot, 528 U.S. 1042 (1999) . The Ninth Circuit found that the government was unable to demonstrate that there was any specific reason for withholding the documents at issue and, therefore, without a presumption that foreign government information should be classified, the government could not justify withholding this document under the 1995 Order. The Court of Appeals panel also examined the letter, and found that its contents were innocuous and disclosure could not reasonably be expected to result in damage to the national security.
http://www.bushsecrecy.org/pag... [bushsecrecy.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The very fact that an email originates from the SoS means that it is at least potentially classified.
It is HER dutyto mark it as such if it contains sensitive information. Are you saying that she is too stupid to recognize classified information? So if some source tells her that Iran will be attacked at X hours, she can send that inform over plain email because, "it wasn't marked classified"?
Remember where Hilary was during the Nixon tapes? (Score:2)
She was an intern for the Senate Judiciary committee....
does she really think she can win? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, have you ever walked around with two phones? It's inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Dude, have you ever walked around with two phones? It's inconvenient.
While I understand trying to do something about getting multiple email addresses into and out of one account (gmail does this pretty easily for example), the "I carry one phone" theory is nonsense.
Hillary points out that she carried two phones at the state department [americarisingpac.org] [Advisory: Contains video] [Advisory: Originally posted by a vast right wing conspiracy]
T
Re: (Score:3)
The mishandling of email was probably a simple, unintentional mistake that as both a lawyer and politician she is automatically lying about. *shrug* unsurprising.
There is no evidence yet of her mishandling email. There have been a lot of false claims about the classified nature of the email. The courts have ruled that information from a foreign government is not 'born classified', it must be explicitly stated that it is classified by the foreign government for it to be treated as classified material.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that lie fell apart already. You're not keeping up to date. Many of the emails were classifed.
She then changed her story to "they weren't marked classified"
That fell apart after that because classified material is not marketed "classified" anywhere on it. Several former state department people, CIA people etc have all stepped in to clarify how that works.
She did put classified material into that email server in Colorado.
And whatever you might think about it... the FBI and Justice department is taki
Re: (Score:2)
All the time. I call them "personal phone" and "work phone." Because work does not need access to my personal emails, contact lists, apps, etc.
Meantime, please let me know how "it's inconvenient" can be used as an affirmative defense to complying with workplace policies or, in this case, the actual law. There are hordes of people not named Clinton who'd like to be able to play that card...
Re: (Score:2)
According to CNN, she actively used multiple personal electronic devices at the time, including one that was prominently mocked for being as big as four phones.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/... [cnn.com]
Re: This was all about convenience (Score:2)
Scooter Libby did no such thing. Richard Armitage did. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice anyway. Your rant is unhinged.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how often you tell him this. He will keep posting the same incorrect facts.
I don't know if people do this because they believe it so much they have blinders, they never check if someone replies to their posts, or that they are trying to get others to believe it knowing there will not be a fact correction every time they post a falsehood.
Re: (Score:2)
Convicted, but the instant his appeal failed Bush commuted his sentence. Some people are just too well-connected to be subject to the justice system.
Re: (Score:2)
so I guess you wanted Scooter Libby tarred and feathered when he disclosed the name of a CIA operative.
Either you're much to ignorant about an event that you can research in moments with a few keystrokes (in which case, please resist commenting in your ignorance), or you know that what you said is a simple straightforward lie, and you're saying it anyway (in which case, what do you think you're actually accomplishing when everyone else around you knows you're lying like a little kid who thinks he's clever)? Trotting out pure fiction like that just makes you, and what ever point you think you're making, look
Re: What with a cloth?!?!?! (Score:4, Informative)
The RNC case and this are worlds apart. The RNC operated email servers for partisan purposes that are illegal to perform using government resources (labor time, equipment, and so forth). Hillary Clinton operated a private email server to keep government records out of the government's hands, contrary to both policy and statute, when both of those were crystal clear about what was required. Any law or policy violations in the RNC case went against specific direction from higher-ups. In the more recent case, the law and policy violations were directed by a member of the Cabinet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This statement is just plain wrong on so many levels, Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward notwithstanding, that one went so far over your head that you really can't be blamed for not hearing the woosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably while at a Starbucks. Public email on a public wifi.