The Koch's money is now supporting Hillary so I'd think there's an email to or from hillary

but I didn't see that they were actually backing her.

This should be important news to any Democrat, Gomez, because this is just the tip of the iceberg the GOP is going to throw at her if she's the nominee.

Hillary may have effectively secured the nomination; but her White House bid - and the Democrats' - may already be over.

Extradited.

But that would really suck as it was sat on for a long time if so.

Now I see.

This interview on NBC tomorrow night will be the beginning of MSM coverage of the whole stinking mess.

A milestone.

interview for weeks. I guess they felt they finally had to go with it when Fox did theirs. Pathetic that they sat on it for weeks.

Server folders, system file folders or even email folders (likely).

And that is what hasn't been talked about yet.

I'm an IT Director and hadn't dug into it to that extent. Was it set up only to service users through the virtual desktop environment? I assume that the answer is no - it wouldn't be very useful on portable devices and the inconvenience of logging into a virtual desktop environment every time you wanted to send or check email would be considerable.

Jesus, though. If the virtual desktop environments were actually used to store additional data, then... Damn. That would be really, really bad. How much classified or otherwise sensitive data could have stored on a personal, private server if a number of the users treated their virtual desktops as OK places to conduct State Department work?

You know any more about this? Like the vendor of the virtual desktop? Microsoft RDP, VNC, some other proprietary service, or some flavor of Linux?

Last year and I was like whoa that's kinda crazy considering I have two lotus accounts that have all kinds of stuff stored on both desktops that I've forgotten about.

I thought about the mobile access as well but not 100% up on that side. I do know that I can access my desktop from my phone but it's definitely not as easy as clicking on a notification. Would it be easier to access through a Blackberry?

I will check my links to see if I can find the vendor but I think it was MS of some sort.

And go for the state secrets and influence peddling.

Just imagine what Russia and China are sitting on...

So if they did get into Hillary's server, this was more of the same -- non-classified trivia.

we're even.

that, regardless of whether the server was hacked or any confidential data taken, this exhibited a monumental lack of good judgment.

Regardless of her weak "never sent nor received" nonsense.
When you are at the top, you're SUPPOSED to be smart enough to know when you are discussing sensitive information, regardless of its classification at the time. Thats the way EVERY govt employee is trained. Even an E-1 private knows this. Not to mention Blumenthal's messages with no explanation as to how he got the info, since he wasnt even IN the govt.
So she either has been lying or she's incompetent.

If this was a republican, you'd want them tossed & rightfully so

Yawn.

No worries though, because no matter WHAT the FBI ends up deciding nothing will happen to her.

of all this information, says that the large majority of what he sees should never have been classified.

And I know that within the State Department Hillary had total discretion on whether info needed to be classified or not, and that no evidence has ever been reported that someone sent then-classified into to her other than through the separate classified system.

So the person who oversees storage of information is now the decider of whether it should be classified? Umm, no.
And Hillary does not get the final say as to whether or not information should be classified a certain way either. See, thats the whole problem. She did discuss sensitive info on open systems. She did carry her blackberry into her office, which is also prohibited. And Sid Blumenthal did discuss sensitive information that he should have had no access to

but again, nothing will happen to her.

on whether a state department document needs to be classified or unclassified.

And Blumenthal sent her accounts of European media stories that were, years later, retroactively classified. Big deal.

By a U MI law professor who wrote the classification manual while he was with the Dept. of Homeland Security.

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

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

By Richard O. Lempert

But I wouldnt doubt one of her minions gets tossed under the bus.
Someone in her position should know better than to do what she did. And she was told NOT to do it. She didnt care. Because she's not like the rest of us. And while I want to win, I'd like to do it with a candidate that isnt the 2nd least liked one in the country. Luckily for Hillary, the GOP is stupid enough to run the LEAST liked candidate against her!

In her job as Secretary of State, she had the lawful authority to classify or declassify any state document. The rest of us don't have that authority. She did.

As the research has shown, she SHOULD have attached levels of classification to many of her communications. She ignored it. If the decision was solely up to her, there wouldnt be any so-called "retroactive classification"

Quit beating your head against the wall. I tried to tell her this last week and whooosh.

Can't deviate from the script.


Cher

Using that logic the higher ups have no responsibility to manage classified info because anything they lose/leak/misplace etc... can just be deemed unclassified with this magical authority.

Hillary's server minus the classification markings she is toast. Clinton has no authority to declassify it. Only the President or the originating agency has that authority. So if, for instance, she had spy satellite photos on her server as has been speculated, she is toast, whether they were marked or not The SD doesn't own any satellites.

She used a separate system for sending and receiving classified documents -- with one set up at her office and one at home. She only used the private server for emails that otherwise would have been sent on a .gov account -- which also are not meant for classified documents.

RW's have been "speculating" horrible things about her since they blamed her for Vince Foster's death. After more than 30 years of these wild speculations pushed by the Rethugs, Dems should know better than to keep falling for this crap.

Classified system to her private server. Classified information from classified documents? Yes. If someone reads a classified document and sends Hillary a summary or if Hillary read a classified document and sent a note about it to her aide then classified information is now on her server without any classification markings. Plus some of the information was supposedly born classified.

That's all just reporting from inside sources. We won't know for sure until the FBI finishes their investigation and hopefully releases their findings to the public so we can put this mess to bed one way or the other.

Even if you are right and every one of the emails did not contain classified information when they were sent, and only the Clinton people are saying that, don't you think that a very smart lawyer who loves her country and has had years of experience handling classified information would have read even just one of the 2,200 now classified emails and thought "Wow. This is kind of sensitive. I wonder if this info should be on my private server"? Just once? Out of 2,200 now classified emails? If so, what did she do about it since that info is now already on her server? Apparently nothing.

sources reported by Rethugs.

And there is no such thing as information that is "born classified" -- no matter how "obviously sensitive."

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

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

By Richard O. Lempert, Professor of Law, University of Michigan

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

SNIP

Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clinton’s server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such.

SNIP

How does a person know if information she has received is classified?
There are elaborate rules for marking and protecting information, depending on its level of classification. For example, a letter containing confidential information can be sent by ordinary mail. If it contained secret information it would have to be sent by certified mail, and if it contained top-secret information, except in special circumstances, a courier would have to deliver it rather than the U.S. mail. Secretary Clinton has claimed, so far without leaked contradiction, that no message she received or sent was marked so as to indicate that it was classified.

Similarly, the government has specially secure, and different, computer systems for transmitting or discussing secret or top-secret information, and high security locales, called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities or SCIFs, where secret and top-secret discussions can be held, and where an agency’s employees can access its secure computer systems. The key to knowing whether information is classified and at what level are markings to be attached to documents, whether paper or electronic. Secretary Clinton has claimed, so far without leaked contradiction, that no message she received or sent was marked so as to indicate that it was classified.

Shouldn’t Clinton have known that some of information in her emails must have been classified?
If the ?material she received was unmarked, the answer is most likely “no.” Some classified information, no matter how sensitive, may appear sensitive only to those aware of a larger context. A report that Iran had received a ton of apricots from Turkey might, for example, be classified as top secret not because there is anything sensitive about the apricot shipment but because if Iran knew we had this information, it would know we had found a way to penetrate a secret shipping network. Yet few but the report’s originator would have reason to think the information was classified. The government also has rules regarding classified information that strike many people as silly. Following the WikiLeaks and Snowden incidents, for example, references to documents containing top-secret information were the subject of television and press reports. But the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world knew the once closely held information did not change its classification status, as I was reminded in a memo sent to DHS employees, which went on to tell its recipients that they should avoid exposure to news referencing these documents.

SNIP

wasn't classified at the time it was sent/received. All we get is the Clinton parsing that none of the documents were marked classified which tells us nothing. As I explained earlier, classified documents could not be moved from the secure server to Clinton's private server. Either the markings had to be removed or the information summarized and sent in an email.

As I said before, we will have to wait for the results of the investigation to know what really transpired. But the "no documents marked classified" mantra doesn't prove anything and is just a lawyerly dodge meant to sway public opinion. The Clintons have always done that well. It won't sway the FBI though. They will follow the evidence.

of justice and that means not deciding people are guilty simply because other people -- in this case, RWers who have hated the Clintons for decades -- have gone on a witch-hunt.

the investigation results to see what transpired. Just quit going around saying no documents marked classified proves she did nothing wrong. That's just trash and legal spin. You are misleading people by repeating it. That's what I was arguing against.

and remove the markings and send them on her private server.

There is no evidence that she ever did that -- just a bunch of rumors by unreliable people -- and no reason for her to have done so. She had a separate, secure system for sending classified communications and she used it.

And with regard to State Dept documents, she was the ultimate authority for classifying and de-classifying. Any decision she made with a state department document was hers to make. Period.

reported about her computer prowess she probably didn't know how. Did her aides send her documents with the markings removed or summarize classified documents in an email to her so she didn't have to go to the secure room herself to read the classified info? I don't know. Did she then send some of that classified info on to others? I don't know. That's what we will find out.

You're right, she does have the ultimate authority for classifying or declassifying. With that ultimate authority comes the ultimate responsibility to make sure that nothing that should be classified gets on her private server and if it does it is her ultimate responsibility to see that it is removed. Over 2,200 emails have been deemed by others as should be classified. At least 22 emails have been deemed as should be classified at top secret or above. Given her ultimate responsibility,how could she have missed all 2,200, 22 of which were later classified top secret or above? It gives the appearance that she wasn't paying any attention to whether any of the job related information going to her private server should possibly be classified. If that turns out to be true then that is gross dereliction of duty and she is unfit for office.

I think a good question for her would be did she ever during her entire tenure as SOS receive an email that she thought, in her capacity as the ultimate decider on classification, might contain information that should possibly be classified? If so what did she do about it?

2200 is 4% that have been retroactively classified. That doesn't seem like a large number to me, given that the person who heads the National Archives says that more than half of what he sees marked classified shouldn't have ever been classified at all.

4% actually sounds like a low number of retroactively classified emails to me, since these emails are now being judged by a whole different agency, and different agencies have different review practices. The whole process of classification is much murkier and inconsistent and subjective than you seem to realize.

From Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/21/a-comprehensive-guide-to-myths-and-facts-about/206289#linkextra

The National Law Journal: Clinton "Obeyed The Law." In a March 9 article on Clinton emails, The National Law Journal explained that according to legal experts, Clinton "technically obeyed the law" with her use of email. The Journal explained:

mishandling a single classified document. Nice try though.

I'm sure many of the emails were over classified. Maybe even most of them. I doubt all of them were. But we'll see.

I am glad you recognize that Clinton had the ultimate authority in classifying/declassifying SD information. I've seen some here on DU argue that it wasn't her job to determine if information should be classified.

For example, the general shared classified documents with his mistress.

Hillary, by contrast, used the separate classified system for classified documents, and she only shared them with other authorized personnel who were on the classified system, too.

She used her personal server for the kind of email that other people used .gov accounts for -- not for classified documents.

document home by putting it in his briefcase by mistake.

Hillary may have, by contrast, purposely had her staff retrieve classified information from the classified email system and send it to her via her private unsecure server so she did not have to walk to a different part of the building to access the classified system in a secure room. That's part of what is being investigated.

Nothing that you state in your last two paragraphs can you know for sure but you state it as fact. It's what she should have done but somehow 2200 emails containing what authorities believe should have been classified information ended up on her private unsecured server. It's up in the air how much, if any, of that information was classified when it was sent/received.That's what is being investigated. And you keep using the red herring term classified document. It is classified information that is at issue here whether it was in a document or just in an email.

will make different decisions about whether the same documents need to be classified or not -- it's not nearly as cut and dried as you appear to think. And in other situations, the passage of time has made something sensitive that wasn't in the beginning.

4% is really a tiny amount of documents on which there are inconsistent decisions.

stating conjecture as fact.

That the passage of time has made something more sensitive is possible but counter-intuitive. For example the details of our negotiating
position during a treaty negotiation would be much more sensitive during the negotiations than 3 or 4 years after the treaty has been implemented. If there were just a few retroactively classified emails I would grant you the possibility. But 2,200 retroactively classified emails. No way I believe that without rock solid proof.

2,200 classified emails is a huge amount when it only takes one to do damage to our country. And in many if not most of the emails the only inconsistency in decisions are those made by Hillary as the ultimate decider on classification on what went to her server and the authorities who classified 2,200 of the emails when they finally had a chance to see them.

to be guilty of something. You can hardly wait.

can put it behind us one way or the other. You seem to just want it to go away and don't care if she is guilty of something or not. Like I said. A zealot.

But I don't see you here worrying about that.

needed retroactive classification.

That's just how things roll. Every fresh set of eyes increases that chance that someone somewhere will decide that a previous innocuous document needs to be classified, just in case.

of your emails, those emails should not be held against you because they are only a tiny percentage of the thousands of emails you sent.

Your source stinks, therefore.

try to keep up.

You're just hoping you can discourage someone else from reading it.

in the case of ANY state department document. Where is your evidence that it wasn't a state department document? Within the state department, Federal law made Hillary the ultimate authority on what needed to be classified -- or declassified.

both at home and at work.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday produced a number of revelations about the ongoing Hillary Clinton email probe, including that she was provided an email account during her time at the agency designed to handle classified information but never used it.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/revealed-state-dept-created-classified-email-account-for-hillary-but-she-never-used-it/#ixzz47uHf8gON

and certified mail.

She agreed to protect and manage it when she took the job.

Information about a source network (as an example) is classified by its very nature and it takes a vetting process to remove that.

as information that is "born classified" -- no matter how "obviously sensitive."

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

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

By Richard O. Lempert, Professor of Law, University of Michigan

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

SNIP

Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clinton’s server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such.

SNIP

How does a person know if information she has received is classified?
There are elaborate rules for marking and protecting information, depending on its level of classification. For example, a letter containing confidential information can be sent by ordinary mail. If it contained secret information it would have to be sent by certified mail, and if it contained top-secret information, except in special circumstances, a courier would have to deliver it rather than the U.S. mail. Secretary Clinton has claimed, so far without leaked contradiction, that no message she received or sent was marked so as to indicate that it was classified.

Similarly, the government has specially secure, and different, computer systems for transmitting or discussing secret or top-secret information, and high security locales, called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities or SCIFs, where secret and top-secret discussions can be held, and where an agency’s employees can access its secure computer systems. The key to knowing whether information is classified and at what level are markings to be attached to documents, whether paper or electronic. Secretary Clinton has claimed, so far without leaked contradiction, that no message she received or sent was marked so as to indicate that it was classified.

Shouldn’t Clinton have known that some of information in her emails must have been classified?
If the ?material she received was unmarked, the answer is most likely “no.” Some classified information, no matter how sensitive, may appear sensitive only to those aware of a larger context. A report that Iran had received a ton of apricots from Turkey might, for example, be classified as top secret not because there is anything sensitive about the apricot shipment but because if Iran knew we had this information, it would know we had found a way to penetrate a secret shipping network. Yet few but the report’s originator would have reason to think the information was classified. The government also has rules regarding classified information that strike many people as silly. Following the WikiLeaks and Snowden incidents, for example, references to documents containing top-secret information were the subject of television and press reports. But the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world knew the once closely held information did not change its classification status, as I was reminded in a memo sent to DHS employees, which went on to tell its recipients that they should avoid exposure to news referencing these documents.

SNIP

That is not a mitigating factor. It is another crime.

Marking means nothing.

If I read a secret document on a secure system and then regurgitate it on a non secure system, I've just violated security.

The non addition of the marking is just so meerkat that should have been there but wasn't.

Got anything else?

For cryin' out loud: March 20???

As an English teacher, I always look at the dates on the sources of my students' research papers. Tells me everything I need to know.


Cher

Get serious. Do you really think nothing has happened since then? Anyone paying attention reads volumes on this every day.

And do your own work. If you don't have anything more up to date than that, refrain from posting.


Cher

"She used a separate system for sending and receiving classified documents"

and it had already been set up in her home, for the former President Clinton. At her home the SCIF system that she used was guarded by the same Secret Service that guarded her and Bill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/02/07/the-technology-behind-hillary-clintons-email-scandal-explained/#2794ae1b78c9

In fact, government operates under the presumption that email messages will be intercepted, and uses two methods to keep sensitive information secret. The first, for the most highly secret material, involves hard copies of classified documents. These are not allowed to be copied or sent electronically and can only be transferred by a government courier.

The second method involves something called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), a facility which is used for electronically encrypted information. This is done by using large random numbers to scramble messages so that, even if they are intercepted, they can’t be read by anyone who doesn’t have the key. Truly secret information is never sent by regular email.

So, for the purposes of security, it really doesn’t matter whether Hillary Clinton was using a government issued email or her own personal server. To a large extent unencrypted email is unencrypted email, no matter where the server resides. And while it is true that Clinton used her own private server for unclassified business, she also regularly used a SCIF for secure communication (one was installed at her residence).

Such concern!

Last edited Wed May 4, 2016, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

indictment to save the election. I hope he isn't dragged down into the Clinton sewer.

deeper. The water is too cold and there are crocodiles in there.

Let the FBI determine whether there was a risk to the nation's national security or a crime involved. Until then, why don't you suspend your job cheer-leading for a Trump presidency?

sounds like you are doing what you accuse, if you are supporting putting a weak, polarizing candidate in the general election

And let me guess: Russia and China are sitting on... Mongolia?

Or at least you don't want to know squat.

and the FBI isn't saying one way or the other. I doubt if you do either.

It may be like saying because no fingerprints are found at a crime scene that means there couldn't have been a crime even though someone has already confessed to the crime.

mostly depends on 2 things:

The ability of the system guy to set up the server with proper security

AND

The ability of the hacker to navigate around that security.(very possible)

I know some folks that claim to be very good at both.

Guccifer has a lot less reason to lie about this than Her Majesty. As a matter of fact, he has more incentive to deny it ever occurred from a legal standpoint.

Face it, Hillary is dirty. The evidence is starting to mount up.

Why else would I insist, links and all, that FBI reviewed the logs provided by Pagliano and found no evidence of hacking?

It is clear that I am desperate to hide the obvious fact that Pagliano and the FBI have conspired to erase all evidence of Gucifer's hacks in their clumsy attempt to whitewash Hillary's lies!

Ironclad logic! I must admit, you totally outed me.

That you seem to think this means the server wasn't hacked shows that you don't know squat.

Also, I don't believe the FBI has said it found no evidence of hacking. An unnamed source "close to the investigation" said the logs showed no record of hacking. "Close to the investigation" does not equal FBI.

What seems indisputable is that FBI reviewed security logs and that sources close to investigation report they didn't find evidence of hacking.

On the other hand, we have a jailed hacker who says, with no corroboration whatsoever, that he hacked Hillary's server. His statement, as far as we know, was not reviewed by the FBI, and sources close to the investigation did not report that there is evidence of him hacking the server.

It is possible that the server was hacked. It is possible that it wasn't. But the reports by the sources close to the investigation appear more credible to me than the groundless boasting of a has-been celebrity hacker.

The lack of evidence on security logs is no different than lack of video evidence at a bank with security cameras that didn't film a thief because the thief cased the bank in advance and knew where the security cameras were aimed.

Good hackers leave no trace. There is no way to prove a system wasn't hacked. You can't prove a negative.

We have in Guccifer a thief who was known to be in the neighborhood casing the area, and who says from jail he broke into a specific house through an unlocked window.

He can't provide us with anything he may have taken from that house because he's in jail. The police have his stash and aren't talking specifics of what's in that stash.

So Guccifer may or may not have hacked into Clinton's server, but IT experts say his description of how he did it is plausible. He was able to gather information from Blumenthal's system that would enable him to "case" Clinton's system for vulnerabilities (unlocked windows) to exploit.

We don't know for sure if he did or not, but his not providing any emails is due to his being in jail, not due to his not having gotten any.

All you can talk about is what is "plausible".

Gucifer didn't provide any evidence of the alleged hack when he was free, which goes against his modus operandi. Part of his bragging rights was always to make evidence of his hacks public immediately after the fact. To take your analogy, Gucifer appears to be a known thief who claims he broke into a house to steal what he could, and took nothing from it. Furthermore, the investigation of the house doesn't appear to show signs of being broken into, or an open door.

You are saying, without any evidence to show for it, that Gucifer must have picked the lock to the house, walked in, didn't take anything, wiped out his footprints and fingerprints, walked out and locked the door behind him. Kind of defeats the purpose of being a thief.

I am saying that if you consider the sources close to the FBI investigation implausible, it goes double for Gucifer.

the strongest evidence against his having hacked her system. But there may be some reason why not...that remains to be seen.

As far as "no open doors" on Hillary's server -- you have got to be kidding. A home-brew set up that had zero security in its initial months of operation and was managed p/t by a single person who was not a security specialist and was moonlighting on the job was, practically by definition, a bunch of open doors, unlit hallways and video-free zones. That they found no "video" of a hacker doesn't mean that there weren't scores of pros wandering around and taking what they wanted, when they wanted.

Consider that it takes corporations with extensive security managed by full-time, 24x7x365 IT security teams months to discover hacks, when their brands, profits and stock values are at stake.

The fact that it's just Guccifer who claims to have HACKED into Hillary's server suggests that the door was by no means open and the setup was not so home-brewed.

The fact Guccifer has nothing to show for his toils suggests that arguably the most notorious hacker on this planet didn't hack that server either. To listen to you, he is a total moron who couldn't walk into an open door of the home-brewed setup that was managed p/t by a moonlighting amateur.