Justice Dept. Grants Immunity To Staffer Who Set Up Clinton Email Server (washingtonpost.com) 592
schwit1 writes with this news from the Washington Post: The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email server, a sign the FBI investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is progressing. A senior U.S. law enforcement official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009. As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said. The inquiry comes against a sensitive political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
Will she pardon here self and him once she gets in (Score:2)
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get (Score:4, Informative)
The Clinton have far too many suicides of partners in their history. If the FBI doesn't protect the witness, that one will surely die as well.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if you're a DNC shill, you think she has done nothing wrong, in spite of the ongoing revelations of secret, classified, and beyond classified documents found on an unsecured server. I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging, and not saying "nothing to see here, move along"
Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party, and not the crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
"beyond classified"? Pray tell, what's that?
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Informative)
There's over a thousand items that were classified after the fact, but dozens were top secret or above at the time.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Interesting)
And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction.
She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Insightful)
And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction.
Not entirely true, but your point is irrelevant anyway, because...
I used to work in the fun little world of TS and above clearances (specifically in a technical role with what eventually became the F-117A Nighthawk). Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified, it never leaves Tonopah Test Range.
And yes, we had email back then - and so did the academic world. If I had so much as thought of doing what she did, *even if I generated/controlled the data in question*, I'd still be sitting in Fort Leavenworth, a quarter-century-plus later. And, no partisan hacks would be on the blogs or the Sunday TV shows trying to defend the act, either.
Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it were true that the markings had been removed before emailing, THAT in itself warrants a major investigation. And we know there is at least one email where someone was instructed to do just that.
There seems to be almost zero chance that this information wasn't compromised to foreign governments. As if Russia and China didn't know about this and have it breached...
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Interesting)
Not me. I only had a Secret clearance. And that was while I was in the Army. And that was back in the 80's. So we had Soviets and a divided Germany.
And our instructions were to NEVER talk about ANYTHING work related to ANYONE who did not have a need to know AND a clearance.
It might not seem like important information to YOU but that is because YOU do not know what OTHER information the enemy has.
Or, to quote Hillary Clinton:
If we had done things similar, we WOULD be rotting in Leavenworth.
FUCK! We even had to answer the TELEPHONE with the statement "this line is not secure".
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is an excellent view. We should collectively try to rise above petty politics and have an objective look at what she did. She needs to go through the due process just like everyone else, no exceptions.
One could of course argue that there are other immoral or illegal actions closely tied to certain politicians (torture to death for example), but the glass shield needs to be broken somewhere. Once you punch through, the whole illusion of privilege tied to high positions in the political system will come down.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Informative)
As Secretary of State she had the authority to declare when something is classified or not.
Only regarding classified information that originated from the state department.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Informative)
If you read to the bottom, they do clarify that there are two pretty major unknowns in this argument:
1. Was the contents of the talking points that they were (unsuccessfully) trying to send through the secure fax machine actually secret (at the time), or were they just trying to use it as a convenience?
2. Did the talking points in question ever get sent over insecure email?
Both of these have to be "yes" in order for something illegal to have happened. And, as usual in this debate: we have answers to neither question. You can argue that if #1 is true then there was definitely some inappropriate instructions, but #2 has to also be true for actual transgression to have happened.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Informative)
And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction. She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.
You have evidence for this claim? Perhaps a link?
An image of the email in question, from Hillary. [wordpress.com] The text says: "If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Technically, that's a federal crime punished by 10 years in prison.
Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get (Score:3, Insightful)
There were keyhole satellite spy photos which should not have been shared regardless of content (good way for the enemy to determine our capabilities), as well as a few documents apparently manually transcribed from classified sources by one or more interns. And that's just what has been disclosed. It's a wonder she's still free.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Insightful)
"But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not. "
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get (Score:3, Insightful)
If you understood how items get classified you would understand that wether or not someone said it was classified before or after, the information was still classified upon its creation. And if she didn't have a personal server this wouldn't even be an issue... She chose to have the server she chooses to take all responsibility. Even though she's really just trying to say it's a GOP witch hunt... Ironic she said the same thing before her husband was impeached. Turns out it was all legitimate then and it's a
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Interesting)
The only people who made that claim were Hillary reps and State department officials who have been trying to slow the entire review process down and cover her and their own asses.
Of the now thousands of emails found to be classified or above most were classified at the time. Many are what are generally called 'born classified' meaning they contain information that by it's very nature, is always considered classified.
While the State Department can classify/declassify their own internal documents (which has happened) they have been trying, and failing miserably, at getting the various intelligence organizations to agree to retroactively declassify their materials so that they can make the claim that no classified materials exist in her emails.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a fucking embarassment to anyone that holds a security clearance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I love Trump because he's the DeadPool of Politics. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, hopefully, if they find enough evidence, they'll indict her BEFORE she wins any election.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Insightful)
Think this through with me, please, think.
Is there anything more dangerous than to indict a popular (within their own political movement) and likely nominee for the office President of the United States?
Well, yes, electing an unindicted felon, one accused of federal crimes that would disqualify them for civil service.
But, if indicted and even convicted, could they be elected anyways? This is an interesting potential constitutional issue.
- Do elections overrule the law, and so require that a President-elect be permitted access to information they have already been found guilty of mishandling in the past?
- If indicted before nomination, and thence nominated, would any states declare the nominee disqualified? If so, how do they replace the nominee? Wait, which states decide the nominee? Don't most states merely oversee primary elections, and parties hold conventions where those delegates chosen decide the nominee?
- If indicted after nomination, would a judge be persuaded to void this indictment as being an improper interference in the election?
I'm proposing that any indictment must occur before nomination, and indeed before the primary process goes far enough to ensure the candidate will be the nominee.
So it is interesting that today two events are noted in the spew:
It is claimed that Bryan Pagliano has been granted immunity by the Justice Department to offer testimony regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home.
And a former U.S. Attorney, Joseph diGenova, claims he is 'confident' that a grand jury has been convened to investigate the issues regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton;s email servers, the handling of classified material at the State Department during her tenure there, and the possible violation of law.
If this is true, three salient points come to mind:
0. The timing is probably crisis driven. This can't be rushed, but should/must be completed before Hillary is the presumptive nominee. That may happen pretty soon.
1. If true, the empaneling of a grand jury indicates the pressure is irresistible from the various government constituencies to 'do something' about this. If so, I doubt that a grand jury can merely whitewash the affair, for if the public reports are even marginally accurate, she is plainly guilty of several felonies, and the primary question is whether these infractions were intentional. Many groups will probably not care about that, as the results of such errors are the same whether intentional or not- lost lives and lasting harm to our nation and others.
2. And if this is indeed true, then Justice has either been compelled to move on prosecution, or given permission to do so, by the White House.
I'm not hopeful that this is true because I wish to see Hillary discredited and abandon her campaign. I'm hopeful because she needs to be held to account for her actions. She had the misfortune to be the first credible and likely woman to be a nominee for President, only to be up against the first credible black nominee. Now she should experience the self-inflicted misfortune of being forced to abandon her aspirations to the office due to criminal indictment and conviction.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Insightful)
the Phrase "Marked Classified" is a red herring, and completely irrelevant. Not only that, there is evidence that the markings were REMOVED by her staff (and orders to do so shown), which is ALSO a felony. FURTHER the law doesn't indicate it has to be marked at all. But keep spewing the DNC talking points, as it shows you care more about (D) party than actual security of our people serving overseas (exposed)
Re: (Score:3)
But officer, I didn't see any MARKED speed limit... I don't deny going 150mph, but how was I to know that was not within the law?
Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? Even more so when the person being investigated is the head of an organization that deals in classified materials... I have no government or military experience. Even I understand that spy satellite photos and the names of operatives within the government intelligence community are probably things I shouldn't share using my personal em
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Informative)
Those are BORN Classified.
On an unsecured server? Doubtful.
Congratulations! You have just outed yourself as a fucking Hillary Kool Aid drinker and cult member.
As moderate conservative, I'm voting for Hillary. If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, the neocons will vote for Hillary.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151 [politico.com]
The laws forbidding using a 3rd party server for communication were put in place AFTER Hilary's email server was shutdown.
Re: Will she pardon here self and him once she get (Score:4, Insightful)
If this was anyone except the presumptive Democrat nominee, they'd be in handcuffs already.
Re: (Score:3)
The laws forbidding placing classified materials on unsecured servers connected to the public internet were in place BEFORE Hilary's email server was created.
Stop confusing FOIA and recordkeeping compliance with classification and information security. They're different issues.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You sure sound like a Cankles supporter.
1. You ignore, deny, or are outright ignorant of the FBI investigation, its scope and the level of people involved.
2. You desperately throw out the "just partisan which hunt" card
Next you'll be recycling the "not marked at the time" mantra.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone seems to forget that it was SOP during the Bush years for everyone to use an email server run by the RNC. That means as soon as anyone except Bernie pulls out the email thing against Clinton, the entire Republican Party will be under withering fire for the same issue. It could easily tilt the balance of the election totally against the republicans and end up as a sweep for the democrats.
If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US. It could easily turn into a nationwide war on police.
So everyone needs to tread very carefully and make sure everything gets whitewashed regardless of what the truth really is.
Captcha:imperial
Are we sure slashdot's captcha software isn't some sore of psychic AI?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Insightful)
"Obvious" and "proven in a court of law" are very different things.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary is in a tough spot.
Her only escape is a No Bill.
A deal or a trial will sink her candidacy, at least if the world still makes sense.
On the other hand, Trump looks to get the GOP nod...so does the world really make sense?
It is going to be as depressing on Nov 4 as "choose the manner of your death".
Re: (Score:3)
"Her only escape is a No Bill.
A deal or a trial will sink her candidacy, at least if the world still makes sense."
In *my* makes-sense world, there's a saying about criminal offenses that go more or less "innocent till proven guilty".
In *my* makes-sense world, a public person is open to all kinds of abusing due to above standard public scrutiny making even more sense my paragraph above.
NOTE: I'm not implying absolutely anything about the specific Clinton's case.
"It is going to be as depressing on Nov 4 as "c
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Interesting)
Patreus handed some classified materials to his biographer who also happened to have classified clearance, just not the right ones for some of the materials she apparently was given.
Some of the emails released, though heavily redacted (up to 100%), from Hillary's emails cache were code-word classified meaning they were generally only to be seen by a very short list of people and only in a secure viewing room. Some of it was so highly classified that the IGs doing the initial investigation weren't even permitted to read them and had to go to the source organizations to have them reviewed.
The fact that these were on her unsecured server, shared with several underlings without codeword clearance as well as then handed to her lawyer (who also did not have all the required clearances) who stored them in his office without the proper level of security for the types of documents that existed on the storage drive shows a complete disregard for the proper and legally required handling of classified materials.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Informative)
No, the mere fact that the server was used at all is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.
Using the same logic, driving under the influence isn't a crime if you haven't run anyone over. Right?
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, your argument is:
They did it, so she can too?
Are you a fucking 4 year old?
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Informative)
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[edit]
The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[20]
At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.
The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.
There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.
The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary also deleted her emails originally, then destroyed the servers, then handed over printed copies of the emails she deemed worthy of review. It was only after initial investigations had begun that it was found that she had given a copy to her lawyer and that drive was taken into custody.
She's cooperated much in the same way an inmate on death row 'cooperates' during his execution; never by choice, only because she was forced into having no alternatives.
Re:Will she pardon here self and him once she gets (Score:4, Informative)
How much do you bet he dies some times befor trial (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How much do you bet he dies some times befor tr (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Bill was holding out for getting it as a Keep Sake, or a Trophy.
Remember how "Top Secret" works (Score:2, Informative)
Good to see that Hillary as President will be more of the same, there are rules for them and rules f
Re: (Score:2)
And, interestingly, "public" information can deemed classified if an analysis of the information and any related resources deem it so. And, such classification can occur at anytime. Does that mean everyone in possession of that information prior to classification should be held accountable for possessing it? No.
However, as you noted, removal of classification markings from a document does not make it any less so until the appropriate classification authority lowers or removes the classification.
Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works (Score:4, Interesting)
Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified. Removing markings, headers, footers etc. doesn't change the classified nature of it. If you measure what was done with her server (leaving it in her hands to sift through at her leisure, turning over only that which she felt like doing and then wiping the rest) with what happens to ANYONE else when they are even suspected of breaking clearance rules ...
Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.
I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.
Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works (Score:4, Insightful)
Markings are irrelevant. Classified materials are classified regardless of markings and are generally easily identifiable as such (by subject matter or sources) and it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the receiver to identify possibly classified materials and contact the required authorities if (s)he receives them on an unsecured service.
That's besides the fact that in at least a few of the pieces of correspondence that have been reported on Hillary herself instructed underlings to remove the classification to make it easier to get the info she wanted sent to her.
Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works (Score:5, Informative)
Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified.
Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.
I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.
And the Special Access Program (SAP) information? The emails that everybody involved, including the recipient Clinton, certainly knew was always and permanently classified? Clinton committed a crime in multiple ways in the handling of that info. Here's an example -- simply leaving the received email on her server in any format that could be read by her own IT staff was a crime. Deleting it and knowing that the bytes might still be on the HDD would also be a crime. Ignoring the situation was a crime.
Of course, somebody went to great lengths to somehow hop the airgap between the SAP network and the public internet. But even as the recipient, Clinton committed a crime in allowing that email to continue to exist on her server.
Stop trying to paint her as anything other than a willing lawbreaker on this. Lesser analysts of the State Dept or the TLA intelligence agencies would go to jail right away. It's only the Democratic party's M.O. of corruption while they hold the reins of power that keeps Obama's DOJ from arresting her.
FFS, just indict her (Score:4, Insightful)
They have emails from her telling people to take classification markings off. They have found CIA human intelligence [breitbart.com] on her private server. They have Special Access Program data which everyone with an IQ above 80 outside of the federal government knows is presumed classified. What she did makes Bradley Manning look like a prankster, since she was a cabinet level appointee responsible for overseeing the protection of classified data.
LOL (Score:3)
Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] (Score:5, Informative)
Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release, such as removing the classified parts and rephrasing. She said the office worker she sent it to knew what she really (fully) meant because he had done it many times before.
http://hotair.com/archives/201... [hotair.com]
If all my internal emails were interpreted by the public/press verbatim, I'd probably be on trial also.
Think about your own internal work emails being read and interpreted by bloggers, pundits, and trolls.
I don't know if her claim is true yet, but until that's determined from the investigation, it should be "innocent until proven guilty".
Further, note that if she had used the "regular" office server instead of her home server, the classified/problematic emails would probably still end up on a server NOT designed for classified materials. The risk/breach would still exist. (There was a separate transmission system for classified stuff, but it wasn't email as we know it.)
The regular office server was no more special or vetted than her home server. Pundits keep implying it is.
I'm not defending her actions, only saying many are jumping to conclusions prematurely. Using a home server is probably not illegal (although the laws are subject to interpretation*), just poor judgement, which she admitted to. Members of the other party made similar errors of judgement.
* Wealthy people are more likely to afford top lawyers who can successfully argue their side of such vague laws, and in that sense, her "privilege" may indeed just get her out of it. But that's life in an unequal society. OJ would probably lose if he were poor.
Re: (Score:3)
Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release
Maybe. Or maybe she's lying about that, the same way she lied in her claim that there was no classified material on her server. She deserves the benefit of the doubt in terms of a fair law enforcement investigation, but news flash -- she really doesn't deserve the benefit of the public's doubt.
Re:FFS, just indict her (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Trey Gowdy also got caught with his own private email server, and possibly sending classified emails. His claims are going no where.
Re: (Score:3)
It is also why you haven't heard the Republicans screaming over her emails lately. They got caught doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Let that be a lesson to any technology worker: (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter who you are, you're probably not the fish they want to fry.
Don't incriminate yourself. Then, wait for a deal which allows you to unload on specifically what was asked of you, when, how, and why, and what you said, and what your concerns were.
You're far more important as a neutral observer than as someone who configured a server.
Warnings (Score:3, Insightful)
1. It only works if you have the proof they need in their case against a "bigger fish"
2. It only works if the political class chooses to not use YOU as a scapegoat (i.e. blame it all on you, jail you, and tell the public that the case is over)
3. It only works if the prosecutors have a good case against their "bigger fish"... if not and if YOU have broken the law then you may be the only one going down.
4. None of this "works" in four favor, if you are the little guy without a good lawyer and the prosecutor i
Seems legit (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy who pushed the buttons was clearly just following orders, which was "set up a mail server", a relatively common task. Moreover, her statement of "it was above board when I did it" was correct, in that it was contingent upon those e-mails being turned over upon her exit from the position, so the initial setup wouldn't have had reasons to raise suspicions of wrongdoing at that time.
I see no reason not to grant immunity in this context.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all.
Anyone with more than half a brain cell doesn't talk until they get such a grant of immunity. It doesn't matter if you've done nothing wrong (or think you have - not a single person on this planet knows every single law that applies to every situation and thus you don't actually know there isn't some obscure sentence somewhere on the books that the prosecutor can twist).
This is a fundamental part of "don't talk to the police". If they want testimony/information from you they need to give you some
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with what you said, my point is that "set up a personal Exchange server for me, a multimillionaire for whom an Exchange server is pocket to purchase, who just so happens to be Secretary of State" is not, in itself, an inaccurate statement to the point where Pagliano should have dug deeper or outright refused to set up the mail server for her. The fact that Clinton misused her mail account and didn't follow the established protocols (thus violating compliance, then trying to hand wave it away and gen
Re: (Score:3)
Some information is classified upon creation. Being "Marked Classified" is nothing but a strawman, and anyone with half a brain understands that "Marked" doesn't mean shit. If she emailed someone a NEW document that used CLASSIFIED information (from memory, for example) it is still "Classified" regardless of someone marking it that way.
Or it's a sign... (Score:2, Interesting)
.
The FBI doesn't go around granting immunity unless they need information to justify the immunity grant.
Re:Or it's a sign... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Obama, who as chief executive controls the FBI, hates fellow-Democrat Clinton and wants her to lose?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm actually OK with this (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it's a fair investigation, go for it. As crimes go, though, setting up a private server (not explicitly forbidden by the rules) and receiving (not sending) some emails that are retroactively classified, seems to be a fairly minor crime.
Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?
Re:I'm actually OK with this (Score:5, Insightful)
My 2c. Take it for what it's worth.
Re:I'm actually OK with this (Score:4, Insightful)
If she thought there'd be leaks, she should have called for an investigation into the security of the government mail servers. You're suggesting she had reason to fear a leak and responded to that by protecting her own email and leaving everything else on the government servers vulnerable.
Re: (Score:3)
"Because her server was private, the State Department’s records did not include its contents when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The department wrongly told FOIA applicants that no such materials existed. Not only did the materials exist (on Clinton’s server), senior officials knew it and allowed false denials to be made." http://www.realclearpolitics.c... [realclearpolitics.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's not even a remotely plausible explanation, since she was sending emails to and receiving emails from people using State email addresses/servers, which provides exactly the same exposure, plus the added exposure of her own server getting hacked.
Re:I'm actually OK with this (Score:5, Informative)
We know Powell used a private email service (not sure which one) because email rules weren't well developed when he was SoS. He claims (and no one has yet to prove otherwise) that all his work related emails included a cc to a state department address which was considered adequate at the time.
Rice, apparently, rarely used emails and had a .gov email address.
The State department reviewed both Powell's and Rice's emails (which wasn't requested by anyone) while simultaneously claiming in federal court to not have time to review Hilary's (which they have a standing judicial order to do) and found a few classified documents but they were all State dept documents which the SoS has authority to classify or declassify at will, as opposed to Hilary's which contained all levels of classified documents from several outside agencies.
Also telling, they had access to Powell and Rice's emails while, until this whole fiasco broke, they had no access to Hilary's.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no reason to limit it to past secretaries of state. There's been a LOT of flagrant violations of the rules before Hillary.
Jeb did practically the same thing:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/je... [cbsnews.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/... [cnn.com]
And George W. Bush did even worse, breaking the law in doing so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
He even refused to turn over e-mails under subpoena: "The White House stated it might have lost five million emails"
At least 5 different investigations were hampered by his private e-
Re:I'm actually OK with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore the classification issue entirely. The private mail server was a way of dodging accountability by hiding any potential evidence from where investigators would be able to access it. The whole thing was an attack on government transparency and accountability.
Re:I'm actually OK with this (Score:5, Funny)
Just part of the "Most transparent administration in history"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?
Do you not understand the shit storm that happens in the private sector if someone accidentally sends you classified information? If you don't respond to it instantly in the correct way, you're going to jail.
I've posted about seeing this happen before. Someone accidentally marked some stuff classified and then uploaded it. The fallout for merely mismarking information as classified and storing it on an unclassified network was instantly killing the network, checking which machines had accessed the server af
Re:I'm actually OK with this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I'm actually OK with this (Score:4, Informative)
Leaking the name of Valerie Plame a CIA agent led to a long investigation with Scooter Libby going to prison.
Worth noting: Scooter Libby was NOT the leaker. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, confessed almost immediately and was never charged. After Armitage confessed, Libby was caught with an inconsequential lie that the prosecutors ran with. Also worth noting: Libby did NOT go to prison. President Bush commuted his sentence. (Bush removed the jail time but left the fines intact.)
Re:I'm actually OK with this (Score:4, Informative)
"Toed." The idiom does not refer to pulling on a rope; it refers to people standing next to each other with their toes along a line marked on the ground.
A sprat to catch a mackerel (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server, gets immunity in exchange for all he knows, or can be persuaded to "remember".
Although I'm far from being a Clinton fan, (either of them), there's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity" (often in exchange for unspecified "co-operation") rather than just being confident enough in itself to say "hey, you've done nothing wrong, but we would like to call you as a witness where your civic duty is to tell the truth".
Re: (Score:3)
But the fallacy is saying the little fish "certainly did nothing wrong." In a nation of lawbreakers [goodreads.com], by definition there's no way to say that with confidence about anyone. The only realistic way to give you any comfort is to say, "hey, whether or not you did anything wrong, we're not going to come along later and say you did." Whether there should be such a blizzard of broad/vague/obscure laws is another issue, but for better or for worse that's where we are.
Re: (Score:3)
That was kinda my point; the poor sap has done nothing wrong but still feels the need to go for "immunity".
How fucked-up a "justice" system is that?
Not sure how the heck that will protect him from the dowdy twin-set when a desperate America picks her over Trump anyways...
Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel (Score:4, Informative)
And the screws begin to tighten (Score:3)
Rumors that Hillary will face questioning by investigators in a few weeks.
This should be a familiar timeline:
- Rumors that the FBI is interviewing lots of people.
- Immunity granted to a key person of interest.
- Grand Jury empaneled
- Interview the subject of the investigation.
- Compare the interviews.
- Give your results to the Grand Jury
- Indictments.
Whether a prosecution is forthcoming is an open question of course. And plenty of opportunity to fiddle with the interviews to get the outcome you want.
GOP showing true mastery of shooting themselves (Score:5, Interesting)
If the GOP were to manage to somehow knock Hillary out of the race for president, things actually get much worse - not better - for their cause. As much as they hate Hillary, they are overlooking the fact that Sanders beats every GOP candidate in national polling by even larger margins than does Hillary. Knocking her out would only guarantee their defeat.
Uh, it's the Obama administration (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure if you noticed, but Obama is the President and the FBI is running the investigation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I usually vote Democrat, you asshole!
Only "simpering fucking retards" think people can't recognize a lying, sociopathic criminal for what she is just because she claims to share some ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is backwards. (Score:4, Interesting)
I work in aerospace. EVERY email we send has to be marked as Classified, Company Secret, or Unclassified. Even if you are asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home.
Re:This is backwards. (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? Even if she was ignorant about security, she damn well knew that non-State Department-controlled servers were categorically disallowed because they could be used to circumvent FOIA requests.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah that is problem... Patraeus did much worse and he only got a hand slap because of his position. From what I hear the FBI was pissed at the Patraeus ruling because after a huge investigation, painstaking police work and commitment of resources the judge just slapped his hand - and this sets a precedence.