well it looks like joe is probably gonna join the race now..............................

and I suspect most any employer in the public or private sector would too if you're keeping business data, sensitive or not on personal devices or third party services.

Pagliano was not doing anything against State Department rules, nor was Hillary. This is nothing like your firm situation.

It speaks to some terrific brew of arrogance and incompetence and looks really, really bad.

Freelance statedepartmenting while on the payroll. Stupid guy.
Hils needs to go home.

You have no idea what he or the Clintons were doing or why. Perhaps he'll be given immunity to get to the bottom of this.

like something nefarious was going on to a casual observer.

The IT dept didnt even know whose address it was. Huma's message to Hillary says exactly that. "They didnt know it was you"

Anthony Weiner of recent weiner texting fame. You can't make this stuff up. No editor would ever buy it.

When you say "State Department ", you can be referring to as few as the Secretary or as many as everyone working there. In this case, it was more than just Clinton because some top aides were on it. It was not known by all as the computer help desk people did not know.

Note that ALL career State Department people, including those in whatever department managed computer accounts likely reported to at least one Clinton person who reported to HRC. The real question is whether this rose to the attention of top White House people and what their reaction was. It may have been they were unhappy, but what real political leverage could they have used against HRC?

I suspect that, unlike anyone else in the administration, Obama politically could not ask HRC to leave.

That having a private email server wasn't an important issue with her.

Then why did she go to the trouble to have one set up?

Why did they go to such lengths to expunge the backups and hard disks?

I'm guessing there are copies all all emails incoming/outgoing on that server that can be resurrected - and probably will be. If needs be, just ask the friendly gov't backup machine - the NSA for copies.

A lot of effort for a non-thought.

It just shows Hillary was basically honest. She needs to push the line that she did the private server because she knew the repukes would be coming after her some day.
I think most Americans will see her and her family as harassed for no good reason, they are the victims here. Hillary was just trying to protect her family.

... used by the U.S. government? The real reason Condo, Collin and Hillary used gmail is due to near real time communication advantage. I have read the State department email system is pretty slow and insecure.

"This isn’t the first time the State Department has dealt with malware attacks. In November, it conducted a similar series of repairs to deal with a cyberattack that took place a month earlier. The White House, the U.S. Postal Service and the National Weather Service also reported similar attacks at the time."

[link:http://www.ibtimes.com/are-russian-hackers-behind-cyberattack-email-system-down-us-state-department-weekend-1846938|

The first thing Colin Powell did was authorize upgrading the State Department computer system, computers, and communications.

Regarding the classified info anyway. I've said this before, every person in the military is given training to recognize classified information and what to do if you get some that probably SHOULD be labeled classified but isnt. For her to hang her hat on "It wasnt marked classified when I saw it" either shows she wasnt smart enough to know the laws and protocols regarding classified info, or she's lying about the entire thing. And she's NOT stupid, so that leaves only the other option. Not to mention her being SoS would likely mean ANY of her official correspondence would be marked "sensitive" at the very least.
She's also said she never asked Blumenthal to send her anything, after some of his embarrassing emails came out, yet her emails show her telling him to "keep 'em coming". There's no telling what else will come out.
And for those trying to equate her actions to Dick Cheney, thats pretty sad. I'd be ashamed to have to use Cheney to excuse any of MY actions.

If you are Secretary of State when are you ever not on the job?... When is POTUS ever not on the job?...

What is the NYT suggesting by its headline, that Pagliano should have maintained the server on the State Department's dime? This media hyperventilating over nothing is so stupid. This was a private server, and so she made sure no tax money was used to maintain it.

then declared them private and went to the Supreme Court to prevent those public records being released and won? He has yet to release any of those records that he deems to be his personal business which is effectively all of them.

Clinton has released all her emails and surrendered the server. Forensic records analysis will show any deletions. So what is your gripe?

in the office that nearly burned up in a fire?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/washington/20fire.html?_r=0

And that was only after weeks.
So now we want To compare Hillary to Dick Cheney? Thats scrapping the bottom of the barrell

difference?

actionable under law. So it probably will never go to court.

Before "all investigating bodies" as he put it. No laws broken? I don't think so.

a court of law. Who are you Roy Cohn?

You can take the Fifth in front of a a Congressional committee which is not a court of law. If you went to law school get your money back. He has said he will take the Fifth anywhere.

Personalty I would plea the fifth just to thumb my nose at any Repug fishing expedition and say,
"Get back to me when you have enough evidence that a crime has been committed"

To hell with Issa and Gowdy and the rest of the RW yappers


This is an old tactic from the Army Mccarthy hearings. Roy Cohn came up with it. Force someone to plead the fifth and then go to the press and say it's as good as a guilty plea. His favourite tactic was to call someone a Fifth Amendment Communist and Fifth Amendment Spy.


It isn't it's meant to protect someone from giving evidence that may be used against them in later proceedings or as an attempt to trap them into perjuring themselves.

Six years they went after the Clintons and they got the Dawg on 'never had sex with that woman'

Republicans know if you can keep people testifying long enough they will eventually contradict previous testimony which forms the basis for a perjury charge.

They're doing it with Hill now and she isn't biting

Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess he can thumb his nose at them too.

exactly the same except Clinton has released requested information.

Bush/Cheney did not and they may have deleted as many as 22 million emails sitting on a private RNC server.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Same situation.

This points to a Catch 22 regarding cabinet level emails. What is public and what is private and who decides. Is it just the content that is private or the mode of communication and record keeping private as well and who decides that.

Full disclosure of everything implies public scrutiny which means privacy in communications by cabinet level and elected officials does not exist.

That would be a complete reversal of 200 years of practice in the US at least

The constitution says every person is entitled to privacy in their property and papers

Is nothing private then once you enter public office? I can't believe that will ever be a consequence of this tempest in a teapot

Which means there was no oversight.

the more weak justifications like this one that are put up, the weaker her case looks.

can make/break a candidate.
Yet not disclosing tax returns (R$) did not affect Romney that much. What hurt him was the hidden camera work.

These "revelations" don't really mean anything outside of partisan circles. They're proclaimed as important only by people who never supported Clinton in the first place or otherwise want her campaign to falter.

Nothing suspicious about that!!

Let me be clear - this email thing is a non-issue. Is it an ethics issue? Sure. So is swiping a wheat penny when you see it in the "give a penny take a penny" tray at the local gas station. You shouldn't do it, but no one gives a shit if you do. That so much of this stuff is apparently retroactively classified just makes it stupider.

I simply don't care. I'm not a clinton fan at all, but this? Out of all the things that Hillary could be taken to town over? This is what catches? How fucking banal.

Even so, I read things like this, that she paid, out of pocket, to maintain a private server where official business was conducted? That actually makes me start to give a shit about this. That's just some shady-looking shit, really. I still hold that the "scandal" is nonsense, but... Jesus, it's almost as if Clinton set herself up on this or something.

Clintons are always trying to hide what they do. Everything with Bill and Hillary is covered-up. Sometimes for better reasons, other times for worse.

I don't think the email thing is a big deal either. But the handling has been atrocious. For no good reason. That's why I am supporting the guy who seems to be the straight talker.

that was just because she was befuddled and didn't know what such things were about.

Not sure who everybody expected to pay to maintain clintonemail.com?

Did he receive that authority for outside employment?

Security needs to insure a secondary position does not present a conflict of interest. This would never be done by the head of a Department alone. I want to know if permission was sought by the employee.

Wouldn't it have been better for HRC to have disclosed this months ago?

the FBI, and the Republicans in Congress. (Yet the Clinton supporters refer JUST to the Congressional committee.)

Note the fact that her team had to create a State Department job for him - that he left February 2013 - though he appears to do some remote computing for them as a contractor. It seems that defining a unique communications system for the top of the State Department could not really have been the easy - don't think about it result.

Whoever decided to have a state dept employee maintain the private e-mail - seems to me did a great job..what the hell was compromised? - Perhaps this person was the BEST person for the job..I couldn't have done my job and work from home or on the road - without the BEST IT person in our employ...

Kuddos for the decision and the decision not to have taxpayers pay for it -

NOONE!

already seen some results of such - like the VA or the IRS - or Ashley Madison - or Target - or Home despot etc etc etc...

But let's all bicker among ourselves..and let the republiklan walk right in to the WH...I am not chosing sides other than my FEAR if repubs get in..they are lovin' this internal struggle we are having..they have a smoke screen named trump - you watch..either Bush gets his act together..or Romney jumps in like a white knight to save them..we need to pay attention...

I was told growing up "don't believe everything you hear, and only 1/2 of what you see" - thus I am a factulist..so my comment of NOONE stands until we have concrete evidence to the contrary - but keep fighting among yourselves...

the private employment as he was suppose to.

Add this to the Huma Abedin situation where she was simultaneously working part time for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation AND a private Clinton linked company. Note HRC told Andrea Mitchell that she was "not involved" in that arrangement - a statement that defies reason when you consider that H.A. was her right hand person and she headed the SD and it was hers, Bill's and Chelsea's foundation!

Now, it was known and non controversial that HRC was allowed to bring a huge number of her people to fill the top positions of the State Department, commonly filled by politically aligned people. This is true in every administration. It is also known, that almost all of these people left in February 2013 - few being willing to stay to help a transition.

Now, I question how many were already on her - or the foundation's payroll - even as they were working for the State Department. One question - would it have been a bigger conflict of interest to work for the second term Obama State Department and HRC, when the SoS was no longer HRC? One question would be what they felt their first loyalty was to - the country, the Obama administration, the Secretary of State personally.... Did this go beyond the normal practice - ie I would assume that most had a CoS who was someone with long term loyalty to them?

except for this: "It is also known, that almost all of these people left in February 2013 - few being willing to stay to help a transition. " I would guess that it was not just a matter of their own decision whether or not to stay on. Most or all of "her people" were not career appointments, but in a separate line of essentially "political" appointments. By definition, those are term appointments, and end with the end of of a particular White House administration. I'm not sure how it works when your cabinet-secretary boss -- the person who brought you on -- also leaves. Do the terms of these political appointees also end automatically when your boss leaves? My guess (and it IS a guess) is that their terms also ended automatically when HRC left, or that it was/is considered standard protocol to submit your own resignation in that kind of situation. Two things would have been necessary for them to stay on: Sec. Kerry would have asked them to stay on (for most of them, highly unlikely, since Sec. Kerry would have wanted his own people in most of those positions, especially since his M.O. seems night-and-day different from HRC ) and also those people would have had to agree to the request (also highly unlikely, since HRC seems to have hired most of them to work on her campaign or in one of the other Clinton enterprises, and, in fact -- as you already mentioned -- many were already working in those enterprises.
I guess what I'm saying is that Sec. Kerry is unlikely to have wanted to keep those people on, and presumably was able to get all the transition help he needed from the career appointees at State.
This is all more or less conjecture, except for the bit that there really are two appointment tracks, one for career appointees, and one for "political" job openings.

I guess there are always major transitions to be expected when a cabinet position changes.

So far the answer seems to be "no"--which is a violation of the law that covers such outside employment. How did he get paid--were hours logged in? which "hat" was he wearing at any given time: State gov. employee or Hillary's personal IT guy? did he declare income to the IRS? Did Hilllary do all the paperwork and tax work/withholding that surrounds hiring someone? Did he travel to her house to maintain the server, did he bill for travel expenses, did he take PAID time off or vacation days from State to do this? These are all the details that will be looked into, but the entire thing boils down to this: she wanted her communications guarded to this extent, that she appears to have paid someone "under the table" to keep it hidden and separated from her own agency. That's pretty shady.

System secured..check - We didn't pay for the private service - check - If I was SOS I would want my information secured as well...such conspiracy - All this does NOTHING but divide a party that NEEDS to push back against republiklan opposition..or is it?? -

These are all the details that will be looked into - good luck with that one....shady - I don't think so - secured - travel time - so what - vacation time from state - so what....if ..he had vacation time..that was a benefit, then - of the job at state..has nothing to do with what he does on his vaca time...do you report what you do on your vaca time? - I didn't think so

Let's make all the email transactions classified NOW...retroactively - this is what doesn't make sense...be well all..

It becomes clear that this decision to have her email on her personal server led to confusion in terms of what was private and what was personal.

How many others were there with similar arrangements?

Nothing improper has been done. Period.

I know "Democrats" on this site love to wallow in the Clinton mud, but please try to disguise your glee.

Thanks.

She is so thoughtful.

been proof of the existence of a private server?

Would the Clinton supporters have been silent had she followed procedure and Kerry repurposed JOHNKERRY.com, rather than just deactivating it? I suspect many would have been in the forefront demanding Obama fire him.

Generally, it's not allowed to ask your staff to attend o your personal business. They're not allowed to pick up your dry cleaning, walk your dog, water you flowers, or maintain your server. If you force them to work for you without paying them, it's a straight up violation of labor law. "Suffer and permit" is the phrase. If you do pay them, there are other problems, such as tax withholding, etc. Government employees are generally prohibited from holding two government jobs at the same time, and there' an interesting gray area here. If Pagliano is invoking the Fifth, I wonder why. If I were Pagliano, I would ask for blanket immunity and sing like a bird. Loyalty is a fine thing, until it outs me behind bars.

Do state dept business. Cop to that and you're fired. And investigated. Just my hunch. Shady as hell, though.

He's only allowed to plead the Fifth if he believes his testimony might incriminate him, not because he might have violated government employment regulations, and could be fired. If he's genuinely afraid of being indicted, what did he do?

Esp. on state dept business. IT guys probably have high security clearance...I hope.

or would you rather have best buy geek squad come set it up.

do you folks really think she set up the network herself????????

i work with smb business in technology and am amazed that as tech filters down from enterprise level
to smb , there is not the corresponding attempt to make that it easier to implement and monitor.

with state dept it doing it we can assume there was a greater emphasis on security than i have with my belken router at my house.


i am not really a fan of hrc but would rather see her judged on issues and not this doing the gops work for them bullshit that i see gong on with dems

Sheesh.

Then he will be compelled to testify since the 5th amendment would then no longer apply.

or truthiness is going to help because of Clintons negitives her campaign has been shot across the bow and its taking on water.People are sick and outraged by the antics of our Gov,both parties .

there are secrets you still need to maintain.

Why? Because their hatred of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton is that visceral.

Still can't understand it, because Bill Clinton was one of the best Rethuglican presidents ever.