10 ms·

Isn't this the least bit fishy? To say that politicians are held to a different standard than the average citizen is in full effect here. Its a HUGE cover up.

Isn't this the least bit fishy? To say that politicians are held to a different standard than the average citizen is in full effect here. Its a HUGE cover up. How is she not in jail yet?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zer00eyz 10y ago
I love the mythical "cover up". Is she hiding the fact that she knows Ted Cruz dad helped shoot JFK? What exactly do you think is being hidden. Also, at what point do you get upset about tax dollars being wasted to investigate something to death. Couldn't we be spending this money on better things?
- VMG 10y ago
  > What exactly do you think is being hidden. Evidence of corruption.
- spoiledtechie 10y ago
  Next time a cop pulls you over or cites you for something, why don't you just tell him leave you alone and NOT investigate. Since Hillary Rodham Clinton can do it, why shouldn't it be passed down to every citizen under her. Once a countries laws become negligible, the country ceases to exist.
  - zer00eyz 10y ago
    Here is the thing, I don't disagree with you. But the facts in this case point to something different. If were working with your analogy, then my car got taken apart (every last bolt and nut is on the side of the road). The people in the car with me have been investigated... Still found nothing, keep investigating. At what point does an investigation become a witch hunt? At what point does an investigation become waste? I think were at that point (or just slightly past) it. The investigation has revealed some rather alarming things about our government: 1. The government doesn't have it's shit together when it comes to archiving email. Go figure, we all knew there was waste there but this is worse than any decent nerd ever expected. 2. Our classification system is a mess. The fact that we can retroactively classify something is INSANE. Documents got out that you don't like, classify them, then prosecute any journalist who writes about them. 3. The number of people recently (not just in clintons case) who have immunity for testimony is amazing. In the case of clinton it looks like there was/is some wrongdoing on the part of the staffer who RECEIVED immunity. We all understand this is a prisoners dilemma problem, but there are external ethics that we don't often think about: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378070 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378070 -- and this doesn't even factor in outside actors (us) who are harmed by the crime. 4. After Chelsea/Bradley Manning(see note) released all the cables, it apparently had ZERO impact on the IT culture at the state department. You would think that after an issue like that, things would have been on lockdown, but apparently government doesn't learn from its mistakes. Why isn't any one screaming on high about these things? NOTE: The whole gender and name change thing is confusing when referring to something done under/by the old name/gender so I put both down.
    - ryanmerket 10y ago
      Just curious, have you read this analysis? It's extremely thorough. https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-reall...
      - zer00eyz 10y ago
        Its an interesting read, but I don't think it goes in depth enough in some areas: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-refused-clinton-a-secure-blackberry-like-obama-so-she-used-her-own/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re... “Each time we asked the question 'What was the solution for POTUS,' we were politely asked to shut up and color,” Donald Reid, State Department coordinator for security infrastructure, said in a 2009 email first obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by the political action group Judicial Watch. The woman asked for a workable solution, one that former SofS had access to and was told no. She asked what POTOUS had and was told NO, and instead offered something 1/2 assed at best. There is also the question of a foundation staffer having highly compartmentalized data from the NSA... that is, to say the least, interesting as it apparently came from an "outside source". The story as it is being presented is NSA->leak-> Blumenthal -> clinton. One would think that this would have lead to a swift inditement of him (Blumenthal), yet nothing. I suspect that there is a LOT more to this portion of the story that has NOTHING to do with Clinton, and it might make one want a tinfoil hat.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- castis 10y ago
  We could absolutely be spending this money on better things. If Hillary and Co. would stop doing suspicious things we could move on to spending this money in other places.
  - cwilkes 10y ago
    That's what annoys me the most about this. what was going through her head when she became one of the most powerful people in government, trusted with securing deals with foreign countries, and thinks that setting up a back channel wouldn't be looked at as suspicious? It is almost like she doesn't give a damn what you think. I'm beginning to not give a damn about her.
    - mladenkovacevic 10y ago
      When you're actively orchestrating illegal coups, or using the American soldiers as guns for hire in order to curry favor from various billionaires and autocrats for personal gain or to shape the world according to your own vision of how the global pecking order should work, you might not want that on the public record during your time in office.
    - danielweber 10y ago
      what was going through her head She remembered how the Republicans witch-hunted her before, and wanted to keep all her stuff under her control so they couldn't FOIA all her stuff. I empathize with that. I really do. But there's no exception to FOIA for "the people who want the information are meanie heads."
- sremani 10y ago
  There is a meme, where Nixon was complaining about losing his job for 18 minutes of missing tape, but Clinton getting a pass for 30,000 missing emails. Irrespective of your political leanings, what is the magic behind making emails disappear? Is it incompetence, gross-negligence. I think, its another standard DC "plausible deniability".
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    Don't forget its not just emails! she never texted anyone either! "In addition to the emails, the State Department also does not have any text messages or BlackBerry Messenger messages sent to or from Clinton during her time in office, the RNC claimed. The State Department declined to discuss that declaration."
    - danielweber 10y ago
      Is there evidence that there should be texts? She's 68 years old. Maybe she's never texted in her life.
      - whatok 10y ago
        No BBM or text messages TO and from. Let's go with your scenario and say that she doesn't text. You're telling me that she didn't receive a single spam text message from her provider or a random text message from a friend? Come on.
        danielweber 10y ago
        A log of my parents' phone might not show any text messages, either. I'm hardly a Clinton apologist, but I'd like to make sure, before I criticize her of something, that there is actually evidence.
      - brandon272 10y ago
        "omg really screwed up on benghazi today lol"
Mendenhall 10y ago
Sadly because of partisanship, almost everyone is worried about their "side" so they will do whatever it takes to protect them. Anyone who has security clearance will tell you they would be locked up already if they even did a fraction of what she did.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  Anyone with security clearance who understands the law knows that purposely disclosing classified information like Snowden did will result in prison, while negligently allowing classified information to leak like Clinton did will just get you fired.
  - Avenger42 10y ago
    > purposely disclosing classified information like Snowden did will result in prison Not necessarily. General Petraeus purposely handed over documents to his biographer / girlfriend, and he got nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It seems again to be a high court / low court thing. If you're important enough, your crimes get you lesser sentences, but if not, they throw the book at you.
    - gfodor 10y ago
      A slap on the wrist? It ended his career. (Any charges, etc, were a means to that end, but he resigned.)
      - oarsinsync 10y ago
        Compared to possible life in prison, possible capital punishment, possible gitmo, currently exiled in Russia, I'd say losing one's job is a comparative slap on the wrist
        GVIrish 10y ago
        True, but the magnitude and scope of the disclosures were far different. One would reasonable expect the (potential) punishment to be different.
Spooky23 10y ago
This is really common. Remember this was Exchange 2003/2007. It sounds like they didn't have an archiving solution, so most users would probably use Outlook rules or manual actions to move data from their 50/100/250MB mailbox to a PST file on their local PC. Once you do that, it's up to the user to retain or not retain email. It's not a criminal act to clean up old files. The "fishy" part is a twist on this that isn't in the news -- the use of external BlackBerry devices for stuff other than email. I'll bet you that anything of a substantive nature that was communicated with Clinton was done via PIN messages on the Blackberry devices -- data which was never accessible by anyone other than those folks who had a means to capture and decrypt them in transit. The other thing with PIN messaging is that they were device based, so even if you intercept, you need to establish who had physical custody of the device.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  It is a criminal act however not to preserve official government records.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    Yes, but regular emails for State Department employees don't fall under that. There are some 25000 State Department full time employees and about as many locally-employed staff around the world, then several thousand contractors. Every email sent by someone with a @state.gov email address is not an official government record. Even files create in the numerous IT applications are not part of the official record unless that applications was designated a system of record.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      This is an important caveat to my comment. We don't know how many of Clinton's top IT aide's e-mails were official government records. Speculation & Proposition: Since he worked to set up an extra-governmental private server which could potentially be used to hide governmental records, that number should be strictly greater than zero.
mej10 10y ago
Because she didn't commit a crime? > All criminal laws require a certain level of intent and, in the area of classified document cases, the intent to disclose it to someone not authorized to receive it," says Lowell, who has a long history of defending politicians in ethics cases, and served as chief counsel to the House Democrats during Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings. "Secretary Clinton's use of an email server was [for correspondence with] her own staff and other officials. It was not [intended to be provided] to the press or to a foreign country or any other entity, so it would be ridiculous [for her to] even be considered charged under these laws. The emails also weren't classified at the time.
- spoiledtechie 10y ago
  Your being fed misinformation. Please stop reading things like HuffingtonPost. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email...
- jayess 10y ago
  It's absurd on is face to claim that the Secretary of State of the United States, exclusively using a private server, "didn't know" that classified materials would be flowing through her server. It's even more absurd to say "they weren't classified at the time." Classified materials don't need to go through a formal classification process in order for them to contain classified materials. Either the material is or isn't and a Secretary of State would know that.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    There is more than one network in use at State Department. Opennet is for unclassified materials and that is the network that the Secretary's public email would be interacting with. There is another network expressly for classified material, and the Secretary has a separate email address for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_United_States_website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_United_States_websi... Yes, email classifications can be changed after the fact, but that in and of itself would not constitute wrongdoing by the Secretary. Colin Powell did exactly the same thing and wasn't punished after the fact either.
sebular 10y ago
You're right, politicians are held to a different standard-- a much more strict one. Clinton had her own private email server set up. I'm sure that many people on this forum can back me up on this one, it's quite legal to set up an SMTP host on your own domain. The issue is that she was apparently told to use the .gov email address provided to her by her work, and she did this instead. People have accused her of doing this for various reasons, but personally I don't believe there's evidence to show that she did this for any other reason than wanting to stand out and look special by sending mail from hillary@clintonemail.com, and so that she could use her own BlackBerry.
- spoiledtechie 10y ago
  Stop speculating. Just ask yourself why are all the emails missing from her IT admins account? I used to own a blackberry. I could use more than one email account on it at a time.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- whatok 10y ago
  I'm sure a lot of people here own their own domains but kinda don't host and maintain the server themselves. You can be a spoiled politician and use your own device with your own domain without hosting your own server.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  Nobody has suggesting that setting up an SMTP server is a crime. Heck, nobody has said she shouldn't be using clintonemail or w/e for her personal communications (inc. Clinton Foundation business). The issue was and is only with her use of a privately run SMTP server for her government job. There's three key problems, first off it avoids FOIA requests, secondly it can avoid other legal discovery, and lastly information was sent through it of a sensitive nature. And before someone replies with "nothing was sensitive!" if that were true then why has the government redacted and withheld emails from the public? And retroactive classification is largely a myth, things inherit classifications from their source. So for example if you attend a classified meeting and you or your staff take notes on that meeting, those notes are classified at the second pen touched paper. It doesn't matter than it lacks a classification marking.
GVIrish 10y ago
> Isn't this the least bit fishy? To say that politicians are held to a different standard than the average citizen is in full effect here. Its a HUGE cover up. How is she not in jail yet? I think that's a bit of a misreading of the situation. First, Clinton was allowed to use a non-state.gov email address as Sec of State. Colin Powell did exactly that and ran into the same problem of some unclassified emails being classified after the fact. Secondly, the Sec. of State has original classifying authority so there are things she can do with respect to classifications that a normal person with a clearance cannot. Third, State Dept emails sent over the open internet are not meant to be classified, there are other secure networks for that. This is not a case where someone was intentionally handling classified material on a system it should not be handled on. Lastly, deleting emails does not mean a crime was committed. People delete emails all the time, people fail to archive their emails all the time. Now, with the State Dept there is an archiving requirement with NARA for official email. But would the aide's emails fall under that? Probably not. Now if there were criminal charges pending or a subpoena and Pagliano destroyed emails to get around that, it would be a different story. But to date, that doesn't seem to be the case. Clinton showed poor judgement in setting up her own email server simply because she of all people should know there is a target on her back and that the use of a personal email server might look suspicious. But as of yet there hasn't been any clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing. That could still change but I think the likelihood of a smoking gun has gone down considerably.
- spoiledtechie 10y ago
  You haven't read much news on this have you? She is being subpoenad, there is an investigation pending criminal charges. So now that you know those two things, would you consider it a different story like you said it would be above? The truth is like poetry and everyone hates poetry.
  - knodi123 10y ago
    > She is being subpoenad, there is an investigation pending criminal charges Was she subpoenaed before or after the deletion occurred? If nobody can show she was subpoenaed before the deletion occurred, then you're still engaging in idle speculation. Does that change your response?
cloverich 10y ago
Well, not that I'm at all defending what happened here, but the situation is more nuanced than the average citizens. In this case, putting her in jail would effectively put Trump into the White House. I wouldn't be at all surprised if left-leaning (and maybe right-leaning too) groups who could (perhaps) apply more pressure in this situation are backing off by that reasoning.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  No, it wouldn't. She's had a competitive primary where she's only won registered Democrats over 45.
- runchberries 10y ago
  That comment honestly makes me really sad. People would rather put a criminal in the white house and have her run free because she is the "lesser of two evils". Regardless of whether or not she is guilty, that flow of logic is deplorable and anyone who follows it is only contributing to the the problem of crooked politics. God damn American politics is fucked up.
  - knodi123 10y ago
    > and anyone who follows it is only contributing to the the problem of crooked politics You're suggesting that the best way to fix american politics is to let trump burn it down, and build a new nation from the ashes?
  - rev_bird 10y ago
    I should preface this with the declaration that I'm not trying to start a debate about which presidential candidate to vote for. People get really touchy about that -- I'm just talking about the logic that you are criticizing, because I don't think it's particularly sad. I don't see why even your characterization of the situation is "deplorable." Let's accept that Clinton is a "criminal" -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify her for public office, so the question becomes whether it bothers voters enough to matter. Personally, I think Donald Trump would be the worst president in the history of the United States. I have lots of opinions about lots of politicians, but he's probably the only one that I'm genuinely scared of. I'd prefer almost anybody over Trump -- that Clinton may have broken federal laws is just another bullet point in the pros/cons list. I'd have voted for Eugene Debs while he was literally in prison, and hundreds of thousands of people did.[1] People bemoan the whole "lesser of two evils" thing, but I always wonder: What's the alternative? I'm not saying that I give up on improving the system, because there's a lot that could be improved. But "lesser of two evils" is just a negative way of saying "my preference." Politicians have a zillion positions, you're never going to agree with one 100% -- and if you do, great, but that means there are literally millions of other people who don't. You pick the one who gets the government a step closer to what you want it to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920#Other_candidates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
baldfat 10y ago
In Jail for what exactly? EMails that didn't have clasified documents? I am no Pro-Hilary person but I always ask for what and get weird remarks that never mean anything solid. They also don't know anything about the George W Bush's White House use of unoffical email.
- mden 10y ago
  This[1] is a good compilation of things she might get indicted for. [1] https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-reall...
- ryanmerket 10y ago
  The Inspectors General of the Classified Community disagrees that the emails didn't have classified information: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and...
  - baldfat 10y ago
    Well looks like there were some but we don't know what extent it was. Since this was from 7/2015 I guess it didn't led to criminal charges but it was a security risk. People seem to treat it like hse email stuff directly to N. Korea and China on military instulations and nucealer weapon plans.
USANEEDSHELP 10y ago
Because the rich and powerful have a different set of rules that only apply to them. We Americans live in a very corrupt system, where the people/corporations in charge have absolute power over all. It's spread out over multiple organizations We live in a time where the corruption is being exposed, but nobody is doing a damn thing about it. Maybe we are all too afraid of getting jailed, beaten, losing our jobs or killed by "law" enforcers. Regardless - We must wake up and shine a light on the corruption. Voting will not work, it never has and it never will as long as the corrupt persons are managing the entire system. You cannot go against this system with violence, they are ready for it & they will use it against you or a form of it (terror, fear). Only though peace can we achieve change. If you desire change and are not afraid of losing what you have, your life, your loved ones then find peace within yourself. Don't participate in the corruption. Look within. Starting being peaceful in your daily life. You cannot ever expect somebody else to espouse peace, it must come from each individual. Do no harm to your self or to others. Regardless of what others may do to you. Love & Peace

Isn't this the least bit fishy? To say that politicians are held to a different standard than the average citizen is in full effect here. Its a HUGE cover up. How is she not in jail yet?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

zer00eyz 10y ago

I love the mythical "cover up". Is she hiding the fact that she knows Ted Cruz dad helped shoot JFK? What exactly do you think is being hidden. Also, at what point do you get upset about tax dollars being wasted to investigate something to death. Couldn't we be spending this money on better things?

VMG 10y ago
> What exactly do you think is being hidden. Evidence of corruption.
spoiledtechie 10y ago
Next time a cop pulls you over or cites you for something, why don't you just tell him leave you alone and NOT investigate. Since Hillary Rodham Clinton can do it, why shouldn't it be passed down to every citizen under her. Once a countries laws become negligible, the country ceases to exist.
- zer00eyz 10y ago
  Here is the thing, I don't disagree with you. But the facts in this case point to something different. If were working with your analogy, then my car got taken apart (every last bolt and nut is on the side of the road). The people in the car with me have been investigated... Still found nothing, keep investigating. At what point does an investigation become a witch hunt? At what point does an investigation become waste? I think were at that point (or just slightly past) it. The investigation has revealed some rather alarming things about our government: 1. The government doesn't have it's shit together when it comes to archiving email. Go figure, we all knew there was waste there but this is worse than any decent nerd ever expected. 2. Our classification system is a mess. The fact that we can retroactively classify something is INSANE. Documents got out that you don't like, classify them, then prosecute any journalist who writes about them. 3. The number of people recently (not just in clintons case) who have immunity for testimony is amazing. In the case of clinton it looks like there was/is some wrongdoing on the part of the staffer who RECEIVED immunity. We all understand this is a prisoners dilemma problem, but there are external ethics that we don't often think about: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378070 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378070 -- and this doesn't even factor in outside actors (us) who are harmed by the crime. 4. After Chelsea/Bradley Manning(see note) released all the cables, it apparently had ZERO impact on the IT culture at the state department. You would think that after an issue like that, things would have been on lockdown, but apparently government doesn't learn from its mistakes. Why isn't any one screaming on high about these things? NOTE: The whole gender and name change thing is confusing when referring to something done under/by the old name/gender so I put both down.
  - ryanmerket 10y ago
    Just curious, have you read this analysis? It's extremely thorough. https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-reall...
    - zer00eyz 10y ago
      Its an interesting read, but I don't think it goes in depth enough in some areas: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-refused-clinton-a-secure-blackberry-like-obama-so-she-used-her-own/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re... “Each time we asked the question 'What was the solution for POTUS,' we were politely asked to shut up and color,” Donald Reid, State Department coordinator for security infrastructure, said in a 2009 email first obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by the political action group Judicial Watch. The woman asked for a workable solution, one that former SofS had access to and was told no. She asked what POTOUS had and was told NO, and instead offered something 1/2 assed at best. There is also the question of a foundation staffer having highly compartmentalized data from the NSA... that is, to say the least, interesting as it apparently came from an "outside source". The story as it is being presented is NSA->leak-> Blumenthal -> clinton. One would think that this would have lead to a swift inditement of him (Blumenthal), yet nothing. I suspect that there is a LOT more to this portion of the story that has NOTHING to do with Clinton, and it might make one want a tinfoil hat.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
castis 10y ago
We could absolutely be spending this money on better things. If Hillary and Co. would stop doing suspicious things we could move on to spending this money in other places.
- cwilkes 10y ago
  That's what annoys me the most about this. what was going through her head when she became one of the most powerful people in government, trusted with securing deals with foreign countries, and thinks that setting up a back channel wouldn't be looked at as suspicious? It is almost like she doesn't give a damn what you think. I'm beginning to not give a damn about her.
  - mladenkovacevic 10y ago
    When you're actively orchestrating illegal coups, or using the American soldiers as guns for hire in order to curry favor from various billionaires and autocrats for personal gain or to shape the world according to your own vision of how the global pecking order should work, you might not want that on the public record during your time in office.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    what was going through her head She remembered how the Republicans witch-hunted her before, and wanted to keep all her stuff under her control so they couldn't FOIA all her stuff. I empathize with that. I really do. But there's no exception to FOIA for "the people who want the information are meanie heads."
sremani 10y ago
There is a meme, where Nixon was complaining about losing his job for 18 minutes of missing tape, but Clinton getting a pass for 30,000 missing emails. Irrespective of your political leanings, what is the magic behind making emails disappear? Is it incompetence, gross-negligence. I think, its another standard DC "plausible deniability".
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Don't forget its not just emails! she never texted anyone either! "In addition to the emails, the State Department also does not have any text messages or BlackBerry Messenger messages sent to or from Clinton during her time in office, the RNC claimed. The State Department declined to discuss that declaration."
  - danielweber 10y ago
    Is there evidence that there should be texts? She's 68 years old. Maybe she's never texted in her life.
    - whatok 10y ago
      No BBM or text messages TO and from. Let's go with your scenario and say that she doesn't text. You're telling me that she didn't receive a single spam text message from her provider or a random text message from a friend? Come on.
      - danielweber 10y ago
        A log of my parents' phone might not show any text messages, either. I'm hardly a Clinton apologist, but I'd like to make sure, before I criticize her of something, that there is actually evidence.
    - brandon272 10y ago
      "omg really screwed up on benghazi today lol"

Mendenhall 10y ago

Sadly because of partisanship, almost everyone is worried about their "side" so they will do whatever it takes to protect them. Anyone who has security clearance will tell you they would be locked up already if they even did a fraction of what she did.

lern_too_spel 10y ago
Anyone with security clearance who understands the law knows that purposely disclosing classified information like Snowden did will result in prison, while negligently allowing classified information to leak like Clinton did will just get you fired.
- Avenger42 10y ago
  > purposely disclosing classified information like Snowden did will result in prison Not necessarily. General Petraeus purposely handed over documents to his biographer / girlfriend, and he got nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It seems again to be a high court / low court thing. If you're important enough, your crimes get you lesser sentences, but if not, they throw the book at you.
  - gfodor 10y ago
    A slap on the wrist? It ended his career. (Any charges, etc, were a means to that end, but he resigned.)
    - oarsinsync 10y ago
      Compared to possible life in prison, possible capital punishment, possible gitmo, currently exiled in Russia, I'd say losing one's job is a comparative slap on the wrist
      - GVIrish 10y ago
        True, but the magnitude and scope of the disclosures were far different. One would reasonable expect the (potential) punishment to be different.

Spooky23 10y ago

This is really common. Remember this was Exchange 2003/2007. It sounds like they didn't have an archiving solution, so most users would probably use Outlook rules or manual actions to move data from their 50/100/250MB mailbox to a PST file on their local PC. Once you do that, it's up to the user to retain or not retain email. It's not a criminal act to clean up old files. The "fishy" part is a twist on this that isn't in the news -- the use of external BlackBerry devices for stuff other than email. I'll bet you that anything of a substantive nature that was communicated with Clinton was done via PIN messages on the Blackberry devices -- data which was never accessible by anyone other than those folks who had a means to capture and decrypt them in transit. The other thing with PIN messaging is that they were device based, so even if you intercept, you need to establish who had physical custody of the device.

tanderson92 10y ago
It is a criminal act however not to preserve official government records.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  Yes, but regular emails for State Department employees don't fall under that. There are some 25000 State Department full time employees and about as many locally-employed staff around the world, then several thousand contractors. Every email sent by someone with a @state.gov email address is not an official government record. Even files create in the numerous IT applications are not part of the official record unless that applications was designated a system of record.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    This is an important caveat to my comment. We don't know how many of Clinton's top IT aide's e-mails were official government records. Speculation & Proposition: Since he worked to set up an extra-governmental private server which could potentially be used to hide governmental records, that number should be strictly greater than zero.

mej10 10y ago

Because she didn't commit a crime? > All criminal laws require a certain level of intent and, in the area of classified document cases, the intent to disclose it to someone not authorized to receive it," says Lowell, who has a long history of defending politicians in ethics cases, and served as chief counsel to the House Democrats during Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings. "Secretary Clinton's use of an email server was [for correspondence with] her own staff and other officials. It was not [intended to be provided] to the press or to a foreign country or any other entity, so it would be ridiculous [for her to] even be considered charged under these laws. The emails also weren't classified at the time.

spoiledtechie 10y ago
Your being fed misinformation. Please stop reading things like HuffingtonPost. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email...
jayess 10y ago
It's absurd on is face to claim that the Secretary of State of the United States, exclusively using a private server, "didn't know" that classified materials would be flowing through her server. It's even more absurd to say "they weren't classified at the time." Classified materials don't need to go through a formal classification process in order for them to contain classified materials. Either the material is or isn't and a Secretary of State would know that.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  There is more than one network in use at State Department. Opennet is for unclassified materials and that is the network that the Secretary's public email would be interacting with. There is another network expressly for classified material, and the Secretary has a separate email address for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_United_States_website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_United_States_websi... Yes, email classifications can be changed after the fact, but that in and of itself would not constitute wrongdoing by the Secretary. Colin Powell did exactly the same thing and wasn't punished after the fact either.

sebular 10y ago

You're right, politicians are held to a different standard-- a much more strict one. Clinton had her own private email server set up. I'm sure that many people on this forum can back me up on this one, it's quite legal to set up an SMTP host on your own domain. The issue is that she was apparently told to use the .gov email address provided to her by her work, and she did this instead. People have accused her of doing this for various reasons, but personally I don't believe there's evidence to show that she did this for any other reason than wanting to stand out and look special by sending mail from hillary@clintonemail.com, and so that she could use her own BlackBerry.

spoiledtechie 10y ago
Stop speculating. Just ask yourself why are all the emails missing from her IT admins account? I used to own a blackberry. I could use more than one email account on it at a time.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
whatok 10y ago
I'm sure a lot of people here own their own domains but kinda don't host and maintain the server themselves. You can be a spoiled politician and use your own device with your own domain without hosting your own server.
Someone1234 10y ago
Nobody has suggesting that setting up an SMTP server is a crime. Heck, nobody has said she shouldn't be using clintonemail or w/e for her personal communications (inc. Clinton Foundation business). The issue was and is only with her use of a privately run SMTP server for her government job. There's three key problems, first off it avoids FOIA requests, secondly it can avoid other legal discovery, and lastly information was sent through it of a sensitive nature. And before someone replies with "nothing was sensitive!" if that were true then why has the government redacted and withheld emails from the public? And retroactive classification is largely a myth, things inherit classifications from their source. So for example if you attend a classified meeting and you or your staff take notes on that meeting, those notes are classified at the second pen touched paper. It doesn't matter than it lacks a classification marking.

GVIrish 10y ago

> Isn't this the least bit fishy? To say that politicians are held to a different standard than the average citizen is in full effect here. Its a HUGE cover up. How is she not in jail yet? I think that's a bit of a misreading of the situation. First, Clinton was allowed to use a non-state.gov email address as Sec of State. Colin Powell did exactly that and ran into the same problem of some unclassified emails being classified after the fact. Secondly, the Sec. of State has original classifying authority so there are things she can do with respect to classifications that a normal person with a clearance cannot. Third, State Dept emails sent over the open internet are not meant to be classified, there are other secure networks for that. This is not a case where someone was intentionally handling classified material on a system it should not be handled on. Lastly, deleting emails does not mean a crime was committed. People delete emails all the time, people fail to archive their emails all the time. Now, with the State Dept there is an archiving requirement with NARA for official email. But would the aide's emails fall under that? Probably not. Now if there were criminal charges pending or a subpoena and Pagliano destroyed emails to get around that, it would be a different story. But to date, that doesn't seem to be the case. Clinton showed poor judgement in setting up her own email server simply because she of all people should know there is a target on her back and that the use of a personal email server might look suspicious. But as of yet there hasn't been any clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing. That could still change but I think the likelihood of a smoking gun has gone down considerably.

spoiledtechie 10y ago
You haven't read much news on this have you? She is being subpoenad, there is an investigation pending criminal charges. So now that you know those two things, would you consider it a different story like you said it would be above? The truth is like poetry and everyone hates poetry.
- knodi123 10y ago
  > She is being subpoenad, there is an investigation pending criminal charges Was she subpoenaed before or after the deletion occurred? If nobody can show she was subpoenaed before the deletion occurred, then you're still engaging in idle speculation. Does that change your response?

cloverich 10y ago

Well, not that I'm at all defending what happened here, but the situation is more nuanced than the average citizens. In this case, putting her in jail would effectively put Trump into the White House. I wouldn't be at all surprised if left-leaning (and maybe right-leaning too) groups who could (perhaps) apply more pressure in this situation are backing off by that reasoning.

pessimizer 10y ago
No, it wouldn't. She's had a competitive primary where she's only won registered Democrats over 45.
runchberries 10y ago
That comment honestly makes me really sad. People would rather put a criminal in the white house and have her run free because she is the "lesser of two evils". Regardless of whether or not she is guilty, that flow of logic is deplorable and anyone who follows it is only contributing to the the problem of crooked politics. God damn American politics is fucked up.
- knodi123 10y ago
  > and anyone who follows it is only contributing to the the problem of crooked politics You're suggesting that the best way to fix american politics is to let trump burn it down, and build a new nation from the ashes?
- rev_bird 10y ago
  I should preface this with the declaration that I'm not trying to start a debate about which presidential candidate to vote for. People get really touchy about that -- I'm just talking about the logic that you are criticizing, because I don't think it's particularly sad. I don't see why even your characterization of the situation is "deplorable." Let's accept that Clinton is a "criminal" -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify her for public office, so the question becomes whether it bothers voters enough to matter. Personally, I think Donald Trump would be the worst president in the history of the United States. I have lots of opinions about lots of politicians, but he's probably the only one that I'm genuinely scared of. I'd prefer almost anybody over Trump -- that Clinton may have broken federal laws is just another bullet point in the pros/cons list. I'd have voted for Eugene Debs while he was literally in prison, and hundreds of thousands of people did.[1] People bemoan the whole "lesser of two evils" thing, but I always wonder: What's the alternative? I'm not saying that I give up on improving the system, because there's a lot that could be improved. But "lesser of two evils" is just a negative way of saying "my preference." Politicians have a zillion positions, you're never going to agree with one 100% -- and if you do, great, but that means there are literally millions of other people who don't. You pick the one who gets the government a step closer to what you want it to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920#Other_candidates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

baldfat 10y ago

In Jail for what exactly? EMails that didn't have clasified documents? I am no Pro-Hilary person but I always ask for what and get weird remarks that never mean anything solid. They also don't know anything about the George W Bush's White House use of unoffical email.

mden 10y ago
This[1] is a good compilation of things she might get indicted for. [1] https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-reall...
ryanmerket 10y ago
The Inspectors General of the Classified Community disagrees that the emails didn't have classified information: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and...
- baldfat 10y ago
  Well looks like there were some but we don't know what extent it was. Since this was from 7/2015 I guess it didn't led to criminal charges but it was a security risk. People seem to treat it like hse email stuff directly to N. Korea and China on military instulations and nucealer weapon plans.

USANEEDSHELP 10y ago

Because the rich and powerful have a different set of rules that only apply to them. We Americans live in a very corrupt system, where the people/corporations in charge have absolute power over all. It's spread out over multiple organizations We live in a time where the corruption is being exposed, but nobody is doing a damn thing about it. Maybe we are all too afraid of getting jailed, beaten, losing our jobs or killed by "law" enforcers. Regardless - We must wake up and shine a light on the corruption. Voting will not work, it never has and it never will as long as the corrupt persons are managing the entire system. You cannot go against this system with violence, they are ready for it & they will use it against you or a form of it (terror, fear). Only though peace can we achieve change. If you desire change and are not afraid of losing what you have, your life, your loved ones then find peace within yourself. Don't participate in the corruption. Look within. Starting being peaceful in your daily life. You cannot ever expect somebody else to espouse peace, it must come from each individual. Do no harm to your self or to others. Regardless of what others may do to you. Love & Peace