9 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.

by 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?
patrickg_zill 10y ago
No. I am no fan of the NSA, but the handling and sending/receiving of what was clearly classified info was clearly done. http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ (I am speaking to the wider issue, not the specific issue of 1 guy's email archive, as you also seem to be.)
- bduerst 10y ago
  That's not clear at all. The information that was emailed to Clinton was sensitive but only supposedly from a classified source. There is no proof that it was, just accusations.
  - patrickg_zill 10y ago
    So explain to me how a non-classified source would get information from a meeting of Sudanese generals that occurred 24-48 hours prior, in such quantity that it needed Blumenthal to summarize it in a lengthy email.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Supposedly from Tyler Drumheller in the NSA, but nobody knows and it could have come from anywhere. Did you even read the article? That's not clear at all.
      - patrickg_zill 10y ago
        My point was exactly that: there is no source, whether NSA or spy or someone paid off, that wouldn't be classified.
        bduerst 10y ago
        Lack of evidence != evidence. I know what you're trying to get at, but it's not as clear as you think it is. Clinton didn't know the source either.
giardini 10y ago
"First, Clinton was allowed to use a non-state.gov email address as Sec of State." By whom? Even the SOS she is required to follow the rules. She did not. "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." But she cannot declassify emails. "Third, State Dept emails sent over the open internet are not meant to be classified" What actually happened remains to be seen and may never see the light of day. And then there's intent. One must ask "Why did she request that a separate server be set up?" and then follow her answer to the base of her justification. Why her request? Is her justification valid? Was she ignorant of the ramifications (also bad if you're running for the Presidency)? In the end one faces the dilemma "Was Hilary evil and deceptive or merely incompetent?" Having read about her part in the Whitewater scandal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr960602.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitew... which is titled "Hillary Clinton and the Whitewater Controversy: A Close-Up" By David Maraniss and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, June 2, 1996 I know where I come down.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  State Department regulations allowed the Secretary of State to use an external email server in their official capacity. As I said, Colin Powell did exactly the same thing, although his reason was because when he came in, State Dept. was woefully behind technologically. > And then there's intent. One must ask "Why did she request that a separate server be set up?" and then follow her answer to the base of her justification. Why her request? Is her justification valid? Was she ignorant of the ramifications (also bad if you're running for the Presidency)? These are all good questions. It sounds like she wanted to retain her personal email and be able to field personal business from that same account. However, as it stands she wasn't required to provide any sort of official justification. I often wonder if anyone told her how bad this could look for her, and whether she listened or not. I know from people that have worked directly with her that she is not particularly tech-savvy, but that could mean that maybe she thought having a personal server would shield her in ways it cannot, or it could mean that she didn't think it would be a big deal at all. Either way, poor judgement I think.
strictnein 10y ago
> "Secondly, the Sec. of State has original classifying authority" False. Not on materials created by the CIA, NSA, etc. She would have no authority on those, and those are what everything is about.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  You are mistaken. Original classifying authority means that she can classify things herself up to Top Secret. That is how the term is defined. She can't unilaterally declassify anything so if another agency sent something classified to her, she could not lower the classification. If something came from one of the intelligence agencies that was Secret or Top Secret, it would not be sent over the open internet to her public email. That would be a security violation on the part of the sender.
  - strictnein 10y ago
    We're in agreement, because I said that the documents sent to her were classified by other agencies and that she had no authority on those documents. Classified items were sent to her to her private email address. Her server, which she had setup for herself, contained those classified items. That is against the law. It is also against the law to handle classified items in a way that puts them at risk. She is responsible for the content of her server, and therefore broke the law. That she somehow didn't recognize classified material isn't a defense. The people who sent her the classified materials also broke the law (especially since they may have removed any classified markings from the documents).
    - GVIrish 10y ago
      By your reading, if someone removes classified markings from classified documents or makes a derivative document with classified information and sends it to your email, you are breaking the law by receiving that document. If something is not marked properly, the receiver doesn't automatically get a security violation.
linkregister 10y ago
The aide's emails would fall under NARA; relevant email must be archived. Personal email exchanges, emails linking already archived documents, and other redundant and irrelevant emails may be deleted and not retained for the required amount of time. http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins /2014/2014-06.html

by GVIrish 10y ago

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?

patrickg_zill 10y ago

No. I am no fan of the NSA, but the handling and sending/receiving of what was clearly classified info was clearly done. http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ (I am speaking to the wider issue, not the specific issue of 1 guy's email archive, as you also seem to be.)

bduerst 10y ago
That's not clear at all. The information that was emailed to Clinton was sensitive but only supposedly from a classified source. There is no proof that it was, just accusations.
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  So explain to me how a non-classified source would get information from a meeting of Sudanese generals that occurred 24-48 hours prior, in such quantity that it needed Blumenthal to summarize it in a lengthy email.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Supposedly from Tyler Drumheller in the NSA, but nobody knows and it could have come from anywhere. Did you even read the article? That's not clear at all.
    - patrickg_zill 10y ago
      My point was exactly that: there is no source, whether NSA or spy or someone paid off, that wouldn't be classified.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Lack of evidence != evidence. I know what you're trying to get at, but it's not as clear as you think it is. Clinton didn't know the source either.

giardini 10y ago

"First, Clinton was allowed to use a non-state.gov email address as Sec of State." By whom? Even the SOS she is required to follow the rules. She did not. "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." But she cannot declassify emails. "Third, State Dept emails sent over the open internet are not meant to be classified" What actually happened remains to be seen and may never see the light of day. And then there's intent. One must ask "Why did she request that a separate server be set up?" and then follow her answer to the base of her justification. Why her request? Is her justification valid? Was she ignorant of the ramifications (also bad if you're running for the Presidency)? In the end one faces the dilemma "Was Hilary evil and deceptive or merely incompetent?" Having read about her part in the Whitewater scandal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr960602.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitew... which is titled "Hillary Clinton and the Whitewater Controversy: A Close-Up" By David Maraniss and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, June 2, 1996 I know where I come down.

GVIrish 10y ago
State Department regulations allowed the Secretary of State to use an external email server in their official capacity. As I said, Colin Powell did exactly the same thing, although his reason was because when he came in, State Dept. was woefully behind technologically. > And then there's intent. One must ask "Why did she request that a separate server be set up?" and then follow her answer to the base of her justification. Why her request? Is her justification valid? Was she ignorant of the ramifications (also bad if you're running for the Presidency)? These are all good questions. It sounds like she wanted to retain her personal email and be able to field personal business from that same account. However, as it stands she wasn't required to provide any sort of official justification. I often wonder if anyone told her how bad this could look for her, and whether she listened or not. I know from people that have worked directly with her that she is not particularly tech-savvy, but that could mean that maybe she thought having a personal server would shield her in ways it cannot, or it could mean that she didn't think it would be a big deal at all. Either way, poor judgement I think.

strictnein 10y ago

> "Secondly, the Sec. of State has original classifying authority" False. Not on materials created by the CIA, NSA, etc. She would have no authority on those, and those are what everything is about.

GVIrish 10y ago
You are mistaken. Original classifying authority means that she can classify things herself up to Top Secret. That is how the term is defined. She can't unilaterally declassify anything so if another agency sent something classified to her, she could not lower the classification. If something came from one of the intelligence agencies that was Secret or Top Secret, it would not be sent over the open internet to her public email. That would be a security violation on the part of the sender.
- strictnein 10y ago
  We're in agreement, because I said that the documents sent to her were classified by other agencies and that she had no authority on those documents. Classified items were sent to her to her private email address. Her server, which she had setup for herself, contained those classified items. That is against the law. It is also against the law to handle classified items in a way that puts them at risk. She is responsible for the content of her server, and therefore broke the law. That she somehow didn't recognize classified material isn't a defense. The people who sent her the classified materials also broke the law (especially since they may have removed any classified markings from the documents).
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    By your reading, if someone removes classified markings from classified documents or makes a derivative document with classified information and sends it to your email, you are breaking the law by receiving that document. If something is not marked properly, the receiver doesn't automatically get a security violation.

linkregister 10y ago

The aide's emails would fall under NARA; relevant email must be archived. Personal email exchanges, emails linking already archived documents, and other redundant and irrelevant emails may be deleted and not retained for the required amount of time. http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins /2014/2014-06.html