6 ms·

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

by 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.
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    She had no .gov address ever, so she had no separate address that was solely for classified. Article discusses some of that. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
    - Bedon292 10y ago
      The .gov email would have served the exact same purpose of the personal email: unclassified conversations. There are complete separate networks, with separate email addresses, that are for classified discussions. They are completely unreachable from unclassified networks, and would be required to actually have classified conversations.
      - ryanmerket 10y ago
        And when FOIA requests came in for her .gov emails, she said she didn't have any emails. It took Sydney Blumenthal's hack to get her to admit that she did have an unclassified email address.
matwood 10y ago
Have you ever worked in a government secure environment? Regardless of the politics, if anyone else other than her had done this they would have been fired on the spot, and had possible charges brought depending on the outcome of the investigation. Saying it was not considered sensitive at the time is exactly why the government defaults to sensitive and will change it later. Additionally, managing your own server off to the side when you are a high ranking government official just looks suspicious.
- mej10 10y ago
  Oh, like Colin Powell and aides of Condoleezza Rice?
  - mladenkovacevic 10y ago
    Is this the best defense available? Republicans do it too so let's just look the other way. I understand somebody being paid by the Democratic party or one of Hillary's SuperPACs to try to push this argument, but for a regular citizen to attempt it shows just how successful the suggested partisanship of the US political system is in dividing regular citizens to act against their own best interests.
    - epistasis 10y ago
      If somebody says "it is obvious that this is illegal and the person should be in jail," and then somebody else says "well all these other people did it and they we're scrutinized for it but didn't go to jail," then perhaps the reasonable thing to conclude is that it is not an act that somebody should go to jail for. I mean, that's the only thing I can conclude. If you're assuming a priori that there's a crime, then you're putting the cart before the horse. When you're assuming that counter points can only come from some sort of paid posters, you're being disrepectful. This is why political topics are bad in HN. There's no news for nerds in here, just lots of people playing fast and loose with the facts to score political points.
      - 10y ago
gthtjtkt 10y ago
> The emails also weren't classified at the time. Information is born classified, markings are irrelevant. Clinton had to sign a document affirming her understanding of this in order to gain access to classified information in the first place. As for the crimes she committed, here are a few good candidates: 1. Gross Negligence (doesn't require intent) 2. Espionage (requires knowledge you're compromising security; also chargeable as Gross Negligence) 3. Obstruction of justice 4. Perjury 5. Violation of the Federal Records Act 6. Violation of National Archive and Records Administration's regulations 7. Violation of Freedom of Information Act regulations 8. Materially False Statements to federal agents 9. Conspiracy (under 18 U.S. Code § 371)
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Information is born classified, markings are irrelevant. Clinton had to sign a document affirming her understanding of this in order to gain access to classified information in the first place. Exactly. I really wish the whole "it wasn't classified at the time" argument would die already.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  > Information is born classified, markings are irrelevant. Not sure what you mean by this. An enormous amount of effort is expended in government to mark classified and confidential documents properly, set their disposition dates, record who classified it and why, and so forth. Classification is not just determined at the time of the creation of a document/artifact, it can be changed as a result of being coupled with other information, or by changes in circumstances, or simply by different readings of by different people.
  - uremog 10y ago
    Spending time marking it is just a means to an end. Even if you hide (or don't have) all the markings, it's still classified. The end being, proper handling.
danielweber 10y ago
> The emails also weren't classified at the time. The State Department's review said they should have been classified at the time. “These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department. ... Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” That's from the inspector generals at the State Department.
- ryanmerket 10y ago
  Link to the source: 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...

by mej10 10y ago

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.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  She had no .gov address ever, so she had no separate address that was solely for classified. Article discusses some of that. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
  - Bedon292 10y ago
    The .gov email would have served the exact same purpose of the personal email: unclassified conversations. There are complete separate networks, with separate email addresses, that are for classified discussions. They are completely unreachable from unclassified networks, and would be required to actually have classified conversations.
    - ryanmerket 10y ago
      And when FOIA requests came in for her .gov emails, she said she didn't have any emails. It took Sydney Blumenthal's hack to get her to admit that she did have an unclassified email address.

matwood 10y ago

Have you ever worked in a government secure environment? Regardless of the politics, if anyone else other than her had done this they would have been fired on the spot, and had possible charges brought depending on the outcome of the investigation. Saying it was not considered sensitive at the time is exactly why the government defaults to sensitive and will change it later. Additionally, managing your own server off to the side when you are a high ranking government official just looks suspicious.

mej10 10y ago
Oh, like Colin Powell and aides of Condoleezza Rice?
- mladenkovacevic 10y ago
  Is this the best defense available? Republicans do it too so let's just look the other way. I understand somebody being paid by the Democratic party or one of Hillary's SuperPACs to try to push this argument, but for a regular citizen to attempt it shows just how successful the suggested partisanship of the US political system is in dividing regular citizens to act against their own best interests.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    If somebody says "it is obvious that this is illegal and the person should be in jail," and then somebody else says "well all these other people did it and they we're scrutinized for it but didn't go to jail," then perhaps the reasonable thing to conclude is that it is not an act that somebody should go to jail for. I mean, that's the only thing I can conclude. If you're assuming a priori that there's a crime, then you're putting the cart before the horse. When you're assuming that counter points can only come from some sort of paid posters, you're being disrepectful. This is why political topics are bad in HN. There's no news for nerds in here, just lots of people playing fast and loose with the facts to score political points.
    - 10y ago

gthtjtkt 10y ago

> The emails also weren't classified at the time. Information is born classified, markings are irrelevant. Clinton had to sign a document affirming her understanding of this in order to gain access to classified information in the first place. As for the crimes she committed, here are a few good candidates: 1. Gross Negligence (doesn't require intent) 2. Espionage (requires knowledge you're compromising security; also chargeable as Gross Negligence) 3. Obstruction of justice 4. Perjury 5. Violation of the Federal Records Act 6. Violation of National Archive and Records Administration's regulations 7. Violation of Freedom of Information Act regulations 8. Materially False Statements to federal agents 9. Conspiracy (under 18 U.S. Code § 371)

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Information is born classified, markings are irrelevant. Clinton had to sign a document affirming her understanding of this in order to gain access to classified information in the first place. Exactly. I really wish the whole "it wasn't classified at the time" argument would die already.
GVIrish 10y ago
> Information is born classified, markings are irrelevant. Not sure what you mean by this. An enormous amount of effort is expended in government to mark classified and confidential documents properly, set their disposition dates, record who classified it and why, and so forth. Classification is not just determined at the time of the creation of a document/artifact, it can be changed as a result of being coupled with other information, or by changes in circumstances, or simply by different readings of by different people.
- uremog 10y ago
  Spending time marking it is just a means to an end. Even if you hide (or don't have) all the markings, it's still classified. The end being, proper handling.

danielweber 10y ago

> The emails also weren't classified at the time. The State Department's review said they should have been classified at the time. “These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department. ... Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” That's from the inspector generals at the State Department.

ryanmerket 10y ago
Link to the source: 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...