I remember doing that before we'd get a bust. I wonder if Law Enforcement will pursue them with the same passions they pursued us in regards to questioning.

Not sure if "The Right to Tell your Story" pertains to Federal Law regarding Security Violations.

It's my biggest sticking point with her email server.
I was a CTM back in the day, subrate part of charter N/IT.
Navy computer repair tech, installation expert, and network/IT specialist.
ANY of us that had violated SCI (special compartmented information), from enlisted to officer, would stand tall at mast. I've balked time and again seeing civilian contractors given secured assignments, this is just one more.
That she OR her staff would have the audacity to collude in regards to this and likely face no uppance for it should be nauseating to any veteran or active duty member that works in intelligence.

There are reporting requirements

the rules that the common folk have to live by. I am still worried about how much stuff could have (probably) leaked off that damn off site server. They never thought that the rules are in place for a reason, just like most managers in business never think about it.

that if they couldn't get a fax working to list it as unsecured and email it, I shat. rules and standards for security only apply to the little people in uniform I suppose.

exercises at all. It must have just always been a game. When I was a young pup and ran into something I knew I wasn't supposed to see, I always reported the incident, Hills people must have always been playing a game, always thinking how important they were because they got to see classified information. I worked for AT&T and farmed out to DOD so I was under all that and the Communications Act of 1934. So I normally would not even reply when someone asked me how the weather was outside.

if any of our cousins on the Hillcat side of the fence know or care about the standards engaged or reasons why or think that they're all negotiable because it's their golden girl?

Bernie was running and I liked him but liked HRC a little more. But once the server intel really came out, there was just no way I wanted to have anything to do with her. Supporting Hill just seemed like supporting the friend who is a drunk and got loaded and drove to the store with the kids in the car and had a wreck and the kids got killed. How do you support someone that just did not think or worse did not care. Security is a royal pain in the ass. It drove me crazy, literally. I had many friends tossed out over very minor things, but still a violation. I had a friend tossed out because he told a man where the rest room was. (Floor plans were classified). TOO MANY DAMN SECRETS.

And worked for the government.

S/he seems to avoid these threads...

It's just the Republicans out to crucify him. I think most Democrats have gotten over ignoring everything our party leaders do. If Bernie is elected I think (I Hope) that we will watch him and call him out every single time he does something wrong. He will, he has to. This is a big country and not everything can be like we want it to be.

still operational two years after she had stopped being Secretary of State.

In effect, all of her sent/received emails were just sitting there on that unsecure server, at her house, for those years.

It really just boggles the mind.

Those devices need to have the memory card erased before they are disposed or passed on to another entity.

Her running excuse "never sent nor received....." would never hold water if it were ANYONE else but her.
Its either lying or incompetence. Period.

Not only that, but I don't see anyone going bonkers over their private emails.

So if Powell says he is "not terribly concerned" about his, why should Hillary?

Only civis and the apathetic politicians with bigger W sized fish to fry.

I find it mind-boggling that this is the "go to" line for HRC supporters: "Condi and Colin did it".
So disgraced Bush administration officials who showed a stunning lack of judgment and were complicit (before and or after) in the lies that lead into our bullshit invasion of Iraq, are your examples of behavior to make what she did ok?

The fact that she is good friends with the Bushs and her supporters are now defending bush administration officials and using the right-wing "free stuff" meme says all I need to know.

set by previous Secretaries of State.

What is so mind-boggling about that?

And what better way to demonstrate the double standard being applied to Hillary?

And take it easy on the generalities. This thread is about Hillary's aides hiring the same lawyers, remember?

So you stand by you original statement? Your position is that Rice and Powell set the appropriate standards of conduct and sound judgment in that office?

On edit:
Association with these and another former SoS, the criminal Henry Kissinger, speaks to her judgment and how she felt she could conduct herself in office.

Doing so would have been totally irrelevant. I don't have enough information on the subject, nor am I qualified to pass a judgement on it.

I merely pointed to the precedent. And I stand by my statement, as long as it is not being twisted around.

I think you may not realize the point you are making.
A "precedent" is a current action that assumes a standard from a previous action.
If the precedent we are using for conduct in office are people like Powell or Rice, than that is a pretty low bar ethically and morally, which is the standard we are using in this situation.

but like I said, I am not going there.

And I fully realize... no, I insist, that Hillary be held to the same standards as her predecessors.

Pretending that I said more or less than what I said would be twisting my intention. I said nothing about those standards being appropriate or sound.

The only standards she should be held to is the law. Something her predecessors were not held too.

You don't see the issue with your logic? By that logic, almost everyone caught speeding should not get a ticket. If you and a bunch of others are speeding but only you get stopped, because the cop didn't stop everyone, should you be allowed to leave without a ticket?

So, as Democrats, we shouldn't hold our elected officials to a higher standard? So whatever republicans do is good enough?

You'll have to be more specific please. "Right wing talking points against Clinton (on DU?) are worse than...."

Angry armchair u are letting beastieboy lead u off into discussions they like to have. The best response to the Hillary Cult of Personality is Powell and Rice did use private email account, but they NEVER set up a private unsecured server at their home! Hillary did way worse than Powell and Rice ever did. She even lied to State Dept security, she lied to her boss, the President of the United States!

There is little in common with what Hillary did compared to Rice and Powell.




This is what Rice and Powell had according to Newsweek, which is nothing at all like what Hillary had in her home.

"For classified information, both of them—and their aides with appropriate clearance—had a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes.

These are not just extra offices with a special lock. Each SCIF is constructed following complex rules imposed by the intelligence and defense communities. Restrictions imposed on the builders are designed to ensure that no unauthorized personnel can get into the room, and the SCIF cannot be accessed by hacking or electronic eavesdropping. A group called the technical surveillance countermeasures team (TSCM) investigates the area or activity to check that all communications are protected from outside surveillance and cannot be intercepted.

Most permanent SCIFs have physical and technical security, called TEMPEST. The facility is guarded and in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week; any official on the SCIF staff must have the highest security clearance."

They emailed staff using public servers...

I guess you are right. It's not the same.

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said. “A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870

It was Hillary's email that were recovered.

Powell said it would be inappropriate to comment on Clinton’s email use. The State Department’s policy on personal email accounts dates back to 2005, the year Powell left the administration.

“When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly,” he said. “I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870#ixzz44bKLl6Vb
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Colin Powell and Condi Rice used personal emails accounts on private, secure government servers. They each sent a few Gmail emails to friends/family, but they did this from a secure, government-mandated line.

Hillary had an entire server--that was not government-issued--installed in her house! It was not a secure server. Anyone could have hacked into it. The President was unaware that this server existed.

Do you understand the differences?

My Lai Captain. Or a dupe about Yellow Cake and WMD surely someone with the highest of morals. Condo with the same lies. Remind you of someone

My Lai Captain.

Can we stay on subject please?

And the FOIA case which also contains the transmission of classified info via unsecured emails and possibly obstruction.

Powell and Rice are not analogous to what Hillary is being investigated for though I thought I remembered that they're also being investigated as a result.

And it is absolutely analogous to Powell and Rice.

I am not sure that the FOIA case you are referring to is an investigation per se (I don't know who or what is being investigated by whom), but I fully expect the Clinton foundation investigators to follow precedent in their case.

You forgot to mention one more investigation: The Benghazi Congressional investigation. So far, bobkes for results. But this too has nothing to do with the Powell and Rice analogy.

There is a HUGE difference between Colin Powell having a Gmail account (and sending that email from secure work computer) and Hillary Clinton sending "classified" and "top secret" information through an unsecured, personal server that she installed in her home. A server that even the President didn't know about!

There is absolutely NO precedent for what Hillary Clinton has done. None at all. No cabinet member has ever done this.

And I really question her judgment when she makes these public statements. It's really not going to help her case. The FBI knows that the Condi/Powell comparison is a false comparison. She may be trying to defend herself during a presidential primary. However, she has been trying this in the court of public opinion and I can't imagine that this disinformation has helped her at all in the eyes of the FBI officials who know the truth, because they have the facts.

It's really a disgrace that people buy into her talking points on this.

(Powell or Rice) ran their own personal servers from their basements...

nor mixed official govt business with personal business, i.e. Clinton Foundation

When Hillary insists that she "never sent classified material" she is parsing.

There are documents and materials--that are marked as "classified"

However, she was originating emails. She was writing them. So, of course they wouldn't be marked "classified" or "top secret". It's my understanding that this type of material is defined as "born classified."

It may be true that she never sent "marked classified documents".

However, are we to believe that out of the tens of thousand of emails that she sent as Secretary of State, that she never once--discussed anything or originated any emails that contained sensitive information? It was her job to deal with foreign-policy and foreign governments. This seems impossible.

It has all ready been made public that the government has retroactively classified several of Hillary's emails as "top secret" and countless other emails as "classified." Obviously, this signals that she did in fact send "top secret" and "classified" information. It may not have been marked, but of course it wouldn't. She wrote it!

Again, word games.

ANY conversations with foreign leaders is considered sensitive information. Therefore any email discussing those conversations would be considered sensitive. And ALL govt employees & military are taught how to determine sensitive info from day one.
And what about the exchange with Blumenthal? How did he get obviously sensitive information when he wasnt even IN the government?

I HATE this election cycle. I HATE it.

And a chance for all of us.

Did you not take security seriously then too?

Being dismissively flippant about national security shows just how much you don't know.

Educate yourself...keep America beautiful.

I am not sure that they chose then best strategy.

US attorneys love to play defendants or potential defendants against one another, offering carrots and threatening with big sticks. The instant that one potential defendant sniffs a far better deal than his/her cohorts, the attorney representing all of them MUST withdraw from all cases. And they are bound to keep all conversations absolutely confidential, especially between the other clients and the atty.

possible that they don't have much if anything. She is not a stupid woman.

to tie up the loose ends. Part time contract staff just collating files?

but this is a very unique situation. These are cybercrime that they are investigating. They have all of her emails, keystroke sand an electronic paper trail of everything.

My guess is that this is not going to be much of an "interview."

I think they will most likely sit Clinton down and lay out the case against her. All of the answers are on her server. Furthermore, they granted immunity to Pagliano, her IT guy. So, they've got his corroboration.

They've most likely got info from the Romanian hacker "Guccifer" (He was extradited to the US about a month ago). This guy hacked into Sidney Blumenthal's emails and made them public. Talk about a bad streak of luck for Clinton--the Feds happened to notice that these were emails that Clinton had NOT turned over to the FBI (what are the chances???). The FBI had asked Clinton to turn over her server. She did, but 30,000 emails were deleted. She said because those were "personal" emails. Then, this Guccifer guy--while being an attention hound--unwittingly reveals that Clinton didn't hand everything over.

Blumenthal was forced to hand over his emails and the inbox list of all of his emails. There are several listed to/from Hillary that Hillary never turned over to the FBI. They are about Libya.

Here's a pic of the inbox list from Sid B (and Sid B wasn't even a government employee! He worked for the Clinton Foundation and was being paid through the Clinton Foundation. Obama had told Hillary he couldn't be hired as one of her advisers).

?w=700

I mean...SERIOUSLY. This is so seriously bad, it reads like a comic book.

Conflict? What conflicts with what in this case?

You are assuming the FBI has something on one or more of the witnesses. That's pure speculation.

And for god's sake, THEY ARE NOT DEFENDANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, this is what screams to me.

Here are the ABA rules on conflicts. Pretty cut and dried.

Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.7 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer

b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

No way anyone would take the bullet without a huge payday.

Take the fall, a few years at Club Fed, big time paydays at the end of the line.

The Clintons are good at this game.

The article includes this morsel of information clarifying Sullivan's role as actually sending Top Secret material across HRC's uncertified server. Recall HRC campaign claimed that Sullivan did not actually "send unsecured" classified document per HRC's instructions. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265210-email-clinton-asked-adviser-to-send-secure-fax-by-email This report also seems to confirm that a second staffer, Heather Samuelson did some of the sorting of official and private HRC email ( which conflicts with HRC staff claims that sorting was all done by keyword search, not by a person). These are major dents in the defense account:

For one, Hillary is being treated quite differently from any other suspect in this sort of matter. Anyone else would have been indicted by now. I believe that there's an effort being made to keep defense costs down. Collusion opens the potential for perjury during testimony, but there's already enough evidence to send the principal target along with several of these co-defendants away for a long time.

Her server is being investigated to determine whether she, or anyone else, may be a suspect in improper or illegal activity. Until this investigation is over, we can only speculate.

As a point of reference, the very partisan Congressional committee with subpoena power has been investigating Hillary for years, and so far they came up with nada.

If they are not careful they may open themselves up to conspiracy charges. The appearance of a joint defense will not play well whether there is a conspiracy or not, they will be painted as such.

It goes like this: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

How is getting a lawyer an unlawful or criminal act?

"conspiracy charges" mark my word this will show up in right wing blogs

And the definition of "conspiracy" applies equally to the right wing media.

They will be laughed off by everyone except Alex Jones fans. I hope you will be laughing at them as well.

The FBI really cannot tell them they can't do this. The FBI may draw its own conclusions, however.

Just saying.

from the article:

By tapping Wilkinson, the Clinton confidants have selected someone with deep ties to Washington politics and the DOJ. The 53-year-old wife of former “Meet the Press” host David Gregory is a Clinton donor and Democratic contributor, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

She cut her teeth on classification issues early in her career, serving as a captain and assistant to the Army general counsel for intelligence and special operations.

As a former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, counsel to the deputy attorney general and principal deputy to the Justice office on terrorism and violent crime, Wilkinson is the only two-time recipient of the DOJ’s highest honor, the exceptional service award.

And she’s no stranger to high-profile cases. She prosecuted former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and Colombian drug cartel kingpin Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera for bombing a civilian airliner and killing U.S. citizens.

“They’ve hired her because she knows everyone in main Justice,” said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney-turned-right-leaning legal commentator. “She has very good personal relationships with all the political and career people in the Justice Department, so that’s very smart on their part.”

If the FBI does have something, they will offer immunity to one of them in exchange for testimony. So which one of the four will be smart enough to say yes and avoid a conviction and jail time?

That's quite an assumption.

But what if they don't and immunity will not change their prospects, and they all know it? Then their strategy makes perfect sense.

It is amazing how many people presume Hillary's guilt without any evidence pointing to it.

to the computer guy who set up the server.

What's really amazing is how many Clinton supporters bury their heads in the sand and refuse to see what any reasonable person sees: that there certainly enough there to warrant a criminal investigation and that it seems likely that either Clinton and/or one or more of her senior aides committed crimes.

This is pure speculation.

Investigation and immunity notwithstanding, at this point, the FBI is not even willing to say that a crime has been committed, let alone link it ti Hillary.

Will you please hold your horses until you hear from them? Or will you rather join the right wing chorus screaming bloody murder?

You have zero credibility, I'm not interested in your claims as to why there is nothing to be found.

I believe the State Department IG Steve Linick (appointed by President Obama) far more then I ever will believe Hillary Clinton

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/24/425839486/report-officials-seek-criminal-inquiry-over-clintons-use-of-private-email

Keep believing in what you believe, and I will stick to the facts. Or, as you call them, my claims.

Just a point of interest, tough: I never claimed there was nothing to be found. What I said was, it is a fact that nothing has been found. Sorry to hear that facts have no credibility with you. But this being the case, I see no point in continuing to deliver the facts to you.

1) Who could be offered it? and 2) Would any accept.

If you look at what the op accuses each of (note accusation does not mean they did it), the question who could provide the information that proves the others did things that are illegal - including either things they are now accused of or other related things.

Mills likely knows more of what happened than anyone else, making her the "biggest fish" of the group. She, however, is unlikely to being willing to say anything that could harm Clinton, who she has worked for for years. I could see her saying anything to block the chain from implicating HRC - even if it means taking the blame for being the decision maker on the entire set up. I do not see her taking immunity.

I suspect that any of the other three could say what Mills asked them to do - and Reines and Samuelson reported to her.

It looks like Sullivan is the one who personally is accused of the most serious thing, however, he is clearly on tract to be given a major portfolio on the national security team if HRC, as seems rather likely becomes President. Not to mention, he did a lot of good work, mostly while reporting to Biden in 2013 working with Bill Burns, working for Kerry then on the very early secret binational Iran talks - both started this work under Clinton. That might make it easier for him to risk being indicted as there would be some reason to think that Obama would have reason to pardon him for anything done while he worked for the State Department. I suspect that he is ambitious and taking immunity could end his career.

I know far less on the others.

Reines is basically a spokesperson and he is with HRC now. He seems to some degree to be at less risk of being in jeopardy himself - unless I am missing something. He seems on target to get a good position under HRC, so he may benefit more keeping quiet and have little risk in doing so.

Samuelson, a lawyer, whose whole career, until recently, was centered around Clinton. She worked as Treasurer and compliance officer respectively for 2 Hillary superpacs starting from 2002- 2006, immediately moving to the Hillary for President campaign for 2007-2008, then working for the State Department, leaving in March 2013. Interestingly, her bio listed that she worked as assistant council for the White House from March 2013 - April 2014. After that, it just says a DC attorney - though we KNOW that it is after April 2014, that she sorted HRC's emails. Note: that spring 2014 was when the State Department realized they did not have the Clinton emails and pushed HRC to return them, which she did in December 2014.

So, some observations - I think she started basically worked for Clinton all her career, yet, in her bio, she opted not to show that she worked for Clinton in 2014. In addition, one source indicated that though she moved to NYC to join the HRC campaign, she didn't -- and now lists that she is a DC lawyer. (The link was the only bio I found from google - I am not on linkedin, so looked only at what was at the link - https://www.linkedin.com/in/heather-samuelson-223379a )

That she is NOT part of HRC 2016, unlike Reines, Mills and Sullivan is interesting. For someone who had a role from 2002 - 2008, on past HRC campaigns, was with her for the full time she was in the State Department, and came back to take what really was a thankless job of sorting the email NOT to be involved opens questions. For months, I have said that the SD team putting out the emails has a lose/lose job - it has to be tedious, they will be knocked for being to slow even as they work long hours, and a mistake that puts out something that should have been redacted is a significant risk. What she took on is really even worse. ANYTHING that should have been sent that wasn't can be blamed on her. She could easily be accused of covering up if embarrassing emails were excluded. To some extent, she is maybe the one least attached to Clinton at this point and she might be accused of being part of destroying government documents, if a significant number of emails that reasonably should have been included were not and were in the 30,000 that were "destroyed" (but may have been recovered.) If, indeed, some emails, maybe involving the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, were intentionally excluded AND the FBI has hinted, truthfully or not, that they have recovered the 30,000. could she fear being the scapegoat.

Of the 4, I think if there is a vulnerable link, it is Samuelson. (That said, when you look at how many years ALL of them worked for Clinton and the fact that they all made it to her relatively small inner circle, my other observation is that it is very likely that none of them takes immunity.)

Their loyalty to Hillary may disappear if they face the real possibility doing 10 years or more in jail.

Presuming of course there is something to charge them with and given that the FBI gave immunity to the computer guy, I'm inclined to believe there is something there.

Thanks...

And...Samuelson info...interesting:

1. Normally, group defendants can waive certain confidences so the lawyers can coordinate. This is common in mafia and street gang cases. Here, the lawyers could not coordinate due to the classified nature of the material. All having the same firm allows broad cooperation and an United front against the Feds.

2. Cost. Much cheaper.

3. Time. We need to drag this out. So having one lawyer means being able to claim to cooperate but scheduling 30 different interviews, especially with the lawyer handling other matters (and I would schedule him for a few trials, hopefully long ones once a month or two). Each interview must be treated like a trial, with a week of preparation. This could go past the first of the year and Hillary will be able to get a good FBI head and her Attorney General will not indict her and if they did Hillary would be able to fire them, or just pardon herself.

Because the breathless anti-Clinton theorizing sure makes y'all sound like it. Are you all Fox Newd addled these days? Do you realize how ridiculous and conspiratorial you sound? Sheesh. Desperate people will become their own worst enemies if they think it can help them win an election, it seems.

and want her out of the race. It is crap like this that will be in the headlines from the moment she gets the nomination (damn, I pray that doesn't happen), and through the election process, and through her Presidency, if by some miracle she wins. Absolutely nothing will get done, and she'll have shorter coattails than any former President, dead or alive.

Z

Maybe if you stop throwing fuel into the fire of the right wing Clinton crap, you will at least contribute to putting an end to the Clinton drama...

Besides, any Bernie supporter knows that they don't really have to do anything except report the news for her to look bad, and she always does. Republicans will tie her up constantly, just like they did to her husband. And, if you think that the email thing will die down, you ain't seen nothing yet. It will follow her to the White House, if she makes it, and on the first day impeachment hearings will be started.

Z

like the one presented in the OP.

Have a comment about that? Or are you going to hunker down under your anti-Clinton conspiracy theories?

This is the part where the right wing media makes Clinton out to be another Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen...

Once,

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Twice,

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

"Legal experts said Petraeus’ actions were far more serious than anything Clinton is accused of doing. Clinton’s emails, even those later deemed classified, were sent to aides cleared to read them, for example, and not private citizens, they said".

Third time,

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-is-wrong-hillary-clinton-shouldnt-be-charged-based-on-what-we-know-now/

Your links don't contradict the OP in any way.

So why are you trying to make this about Clinton herself?

Plenty of analysis showing how she is either lying or incompetent about this issue.
But dont worry, nothing will happen to her.

you certainly carry a LOT of their water.

By tapping Wilkinson, the Clinton confidants have selected someone with deep ties to Washington politics and the DOJ. The 53-year-old wife of former “Meet the Press” host David Gregory is a Clinton donor and Democratic contributor, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

It is unclear who is paying the legal bills for the four staffers. But Wilkinson just this January left Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Warton and Garrison LLP to set up her own boutique firm, telling The Wall Street Journal that her company would ditch the billable hour setup typically used by big law firms in favor of flat fees that are intended to reward efficiency.

The strategy can also bolster the defense team as a whole, allowing the lawyer to gather information from multiple clients to help benefit another, legal experts said. Wilkinson, for instance, will get an idea of the FBI’s line of questioning after her first client's interview, which could benefit following witnesses.

Keep Telling yourselves that!