2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe question to ask yourself regarding the email brouhaha
How would I feel about this if it were a Republican SoS who had top secret information on an unsecured private server in their bathroom?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)Hillary. That does not mean they were not guilty of breaking the law.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage turned out to be Novak's source.
Libby was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. The perjury was telling the special prosecutor that he thought he learned of the info from Tim Russert while Russert denied ever telling him that. The obstruction of justice was refusing to tell the prosecutor something which has always been a question mark. Was he trying to cover for Cheney?
To me the biggest villain in the whole affair was Secretary of State Powell.
In October 2003 Armitage told his boss Powell that he was Novak's source for the story. Armitage was then told not to tell anyone by the special prosecutor. There was a famous photo op a few weeks later where the press asked Bush about the leaker. He said he wanted to know himself and urged all his aides to cooperate. In that room there was probably only one man who knew who the leaker was and that was Colin Powell who was told by the leaker himself a few weeks earlier.
Powell said nothing.
For the next two years dozens of government officials were dragged before the grand jury and soaked of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Meanwhile Armitage told the special prosecutor he was the one. Woodward had him on tape telling him too. Powell knew about it and said nothing, and a whole lot of people who didn't know anything got hurt.
needledriver
(836 posts)Anybody who is waving this flag is wasting my time.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Democrats must unite behind the anointed one.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I anticipate a massive shearing of the Democratic party after November as it is. Iconoclasm, ho!
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Do you have a link for that?
Response to Metric System (Reply #5)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)askew
(1,464 posts)He also did not have a non-secure server in his house that he failed to tell DHS about. He also did not have his top aides use private email addresses on that same server like Hillary did. He also did not use a device for handling government work that was expressly forbidden like Hillary did.
What Hillary did was much, much worse than what Powell did.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)It was not forbidden.
askew
(1,464 posts)She also failed to follow other regs regarding this server - alerting DHS. She also used an iPad against IT security protocol.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or at least, no one has provided any evidence he had classified in his other email account. He also turned over the emails when he left State, unlike Clinton.
earthside
(6,960 posts)If Powell wants to be commander-in-chief, then by all means let's go after him, too.
frylock
(34,825 posts)WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he kept two computers to send and receive emails while he was in the position.
During on an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Powell said he used one computer for sending sensitive material and a second for less important communications.
"I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department," he said.
<more>
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/09/07/Colin-Powell-said-he-had-two-computers-for-sending-emails-as-secretary-of-state/2481441631695/
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)To the point of calling for a "manhattan project" to make sure the government can break into everyone's iPhone?
Hmmm.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)...and we can't have that, can we?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Okay, fine, maybe not fighting terror per se, but certainly vital in our quest to put people in prison for smoking pot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And it doesn't bother me in the least. 30+ years of fake scandals and not one of them true. She did it for control over her content.
If it was legal for her to have the server I don't see the problem.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Does that not give you an answer?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)If I was an elected official and I could have my own private server I would insist. And I would not fault or assume the worst of one who did either.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Believe it or not. FOIA request? Your team has to provide it. Ironically, Jeb DID do a full data dump, and it contained sensitive info about residents, so yeah. It is what it is.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)junior military personnel get tossed in the brig, stripped of rank and pay, for simple unintentional mishandling of classified material. I'm not saying I agree with how they are punished, but why should Hillary get special treatment? What's good for the goose...
Patreus was ruined over stupid handling of classified material. Hillary willfully - even after the Obama administration requested she not - maintained the illicit home server, most likely so she and Bill could shake down corporations and foreign governments for their slush fund, and keep it off the government servers.
Hillary and Bill obviously care far more about getting rich than helping the poor and working class. That is why Sen. Bernie Sanders MUST be the Democratic Party nominee, and subsequently the 45th President of the United States. Fuck incrementalism. Fuck corporate greed. Fuck the party brass who want to force us to rubber-stamp the choice of fat cat donors, Wall Street and the mega-banks.
Vote Bernie. I'm tired of being lied to, and I'm sick and tired of the Clintons.
askew
(1,464 posts)Regulations. She was expressly told in emails that she could not use Apple products because they were not secure enough and used them anyway. She also was required to report her server to DHS and failed to do so.
So, I have a hard time saying what she did was acceptable. She definitely violated multiple guidelines that were put in place to keep our government's information secure.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)askew
(1,464 posts)I can't find the link for the email about the iPad's not being allowed. I think it was from Cheryl Mills or Huma's emails and not Hillary's.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)First, it was not legal for her to keep classified on the server.
Second, she was required to turn over all work emails to State when she stepped down. She did not. The existence of the server was only revealed due to a FOIA lawsuit after other emails had "@clintonemail.com" in them.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That doesn't originate from a conservative source, ideally.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Tell ya what. You link a legal analysis that shows no possible crime occurred here first.
840high
(17,196 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Where did you get that notion?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)before DOS subordinates stripped information out of them and sent that classified material to Madam Secretary's email box. She admits instructing her aide to do just that on at least one occasion.
There's a problem, Josh.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I'll look it up when I get online. I saw your post about her ability to classify. My suspicion is that it's nothing because if it was something they'd have her by now. They've been looking for something on the Clinton's forever.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure"
Comment Share Tweet Stumble Email
Last Updated Jan 8, 2016 11:47 PM EST
To comply with a court-ordered goal, the State Department made public about 3,000 pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's private server early Friday morning, including 66 messages that were later marked "classified" on some level.
On the campaign trail, the presidential candidate has insisted that no classified information was sent or received through her private email server.
But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.
Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."
VIDEO
Clinton: " I did not email any classified material"
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.
On Friday, the Clinton campaign's press secretary, Brian Fallon, denied that the information was classified.
"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," Fallon told CBS News' Nancy Cordes.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-info-above-top-secret-ig-n499886
Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG
by Ken Dilanian
Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.
In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community's internal watchdog says some of Clinton's emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.
askew
(1,464 posts)So, in addition to exercising poor judgment she is also a hypocrite.
Personally, I was appalled when W did it and I am appalled now. It shows a lack of judgment and a willingness to put herself above the law. Neither one of these are what we need in a president.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)So you know how many front page articles it got? Headline news? How many hours of coverage? Investigations by the FBI?
askew
(1,464 posts)I am not going to turn a blind eye to Hillary's poor judgment and possible illegal activity just because she is a Dem. And trying to say that's it is ok because W did it too just isn't going to fly with anyone who is not a Hillary diehard.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Hillary should have known that and not given them ammunition.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Couldn't be bothered to have two blackberries. Really.
What's pathetic is because it's Clinton people would still want the contents of her private email even if she used two like Powell did. There is never ever ever enough to placate the faux scandal machine.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I bet she was kicking the shit out of herself over her IWR vote in 2008.
Poor Bill.
There's a slogan "Hillary, no different than Republicans."
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,426 posts)Thanks for the thread, Fumesucker.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)But perhaps this whole issue explains all the
attacks on Bernie yesterday. I wondered
what was up.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... after the fact?
If so this is the sophistry that has people supporting HRC ignoring this crap as noise
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Take a moment to think about your request. It's very similar to demanding links to a meteor not striking Cleveland today.
Information is classified whether or not it is marked. This is drilled into everyone who gets access to classified. It's a large chunk of the training time.
And this has been explained to you, by me, at least three times now.
Also, you are using the same defense Karl Rove used for outing Plame. Was it acceptable when Rove did that?
Finally, you completely forgot about the FOIA problems - she was required by law to turn over her work-related emails when she stepped down. She did not. She only turned over the emails after a FOIA lawsuit compelled her.
frylock
(34,825 posts)WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he kept two computers to send and receive emails while he was in the position.
During on an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Powell said he used one computer for sending sensitive material and a second for less important communications.
"I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department," he said.
<more>
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/09/07/Colin-Powell-said-he-had-two-computers-for-sending-emails-as-secretary-of-state/2481441631695/
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I still oppose the practice on principle, regardless of the content of the emails themselves.
And I oppose it for the same reason DU unanimously opposed it when Bush was doing it: It displays a sneakiness and secrecy that is unsuitable for, and disrespectful to, public service.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I wish some folks around here would admit they just want the email deal to destroy Hillary, plain and simple
Doesnt matter if it wasnt really an issue until the cons made it one
jeff47
(26,549 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Is that it is an issue at all. A completely unforced error that ANYONE with even a minimum of mediocre judgement could have foreseen and avoided. Apparently, arrogance trumps even a minimum of mediocre judgement.
And this person wants me to help vote her into the most powerful job on the planet?
Not bloody likely.
840high
(17,196 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)or are you really uninformed about this story?
...
It was not clear whether those emails were written by Mrs. Clinton or, as has been more often the case with the thousands of emails released so far, were messages written by other State Department officials and forwarded by her closest aides.
Officials at the State Department have said that the upgrading of the classification of Mrs. Clintons emails has been routine. Mr. Kirby said on Friday that the classification review was focused on whether they need to be classified today.
...
We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Departments unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the departments unclassified system for years, Mr. Fallon said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html?hpw&rref=politics&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Would you care to answer it?
Or are insults all you have?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)You were not asking a question, you were starting a flame war.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Explain it to me like I'm six rather than sixtysomething.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)There is the question that was asked. I have no dog in this fight, all I'm saying is, a question was asked, now you deny a question was asked.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Having it unmarked is no excuse
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Was that acceptable then?
No markings does not mean it was not classified. As is stressed repeatedly in the training you receive when you get access to classified information.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)the Intelligence Agencies well after those emails were sent. Furthermore, though it is not yet determined, it is likely that those emails were sent to, not from, Clinton's email.
The article from the Times at the link is quite clear. There really is no story here. The emails were not classified at all at the time of their sending or receipt.
I know you'd like to turn this into Benghazi, but it will amount to nothing, just as that did.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)You can't "classify" private emails, so of course the classification is after the fact. You are claiming a smoking gun where there is none. ALL of the emails classifications are after the fact, which doesn't make them wrong. It makes the Sec. State someone who used poor judgement for not using the state.gov email she was assigned.
And, not this is not remotely like Benghazi, thank you. Peddle that shit elsewhere.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)These were emails cc'd to the Secretary of State on official business.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)in that they weren't sent on a government server.
gmail.com emails are private. state.gov emails are government.
So how do you note on your gmail account that you are sending "classified" information? Please explain as I am keen to learn.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I'm sorry you're having problems understanding things.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)You can't answer the question. So you change the subject. OK, I'm game.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Can you believe what has become of this place?!
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Primary season is always bad, but this is ridiculous. I've been here a lot over the past week and the vitriol is disgusting. OTOH, I think I sense a clear majority for Bernie & progressive values. That's somewhat heartening.
I also barely recognize anyone from the old days except for you, Lynnesin, and California Peggy.
And yes, cats!!!
The information was already classified. The emails were not properly marked with classification markings. State is now adding the appropriate classification markings.
The lack of markings does not mean the information was not classified. This is drilled into everyone who is granted access to classified information. Also, this was Karl Rove's defense for outing Plame. Was that acceptable?
This doesn't actually help much. Clinton was required to 1) Report that she had received classified information, 2) assist in the investigation of the leak, and 3) properly delete the information from the unclassified system. She did not do any of this.
Read the article again. The emails were not marked classified. Not marked classified is not the same as not being classified. But there's lots and lots of Clinton people attempting to conflate the two.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)channel of communications to and from the outside world. She knew the server was not secure but continued to operate it. She is responsible for exposing any classified or sensitive information to easy interception. That was a violation of felony statute.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)First, you put a classification marking in front of the subject. This indicates if the subject itself is classified. Then you put a classification marking after the subject, which indicates the overall classification of the email.
Then you start the email with the appropriate overall classification marking. You begin each paragraph of the email with the appropriate classification marking. Then you end the email with the appropriate classification marking.
For example:
To: you
From: me
Subject: (U) The information you requested (S)
Body:
SECRET
(U) Here is the information you requested.
(S) The secret information goes here.
(U) Looking forward to meeting you for lunch on Tuesday.
SECRET
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)It seems hard to get straight answers about this issue as many people just want to "take sides" instead. I don't think the answers are that simple.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... ignored by her supporters as more sophistry.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)That's for the underlings to take the responsibility..er...blame..for.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Will they exercise lawful due diligence or be good 'ol boys. Watch this space.
840high
(17,196 posts)thinking about that for a while.
Separation
(1,975 posts)So the question now is, when these classified email were actually classified. My question would be, seeing how she treated these emails as unclassified, would she have be fine with any of these email being shown on the front page of any news paper at the time of them being sent. I guess that is more of a question to her competence though, and shows clearly why she should never sit in the White House.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Make it so.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)with Valarie Plame's information?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)government emails for ALL government work. No exceptions for anyone, no matter how "special" they think they are.
Duval
(4,280 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)With Hillary I believe it was simply about control.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)more importantly, the lack thereof
shadowmayor
(1,325 posts)Condoleeeezzzzzaa was also SoS and her name never pops up in these discussions. Why?
What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow. But what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday.
Condoleezza Rice
Said by the woman who called lil' Bush her "husband"
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)his political enemies go through his .gov emails, and decide that they should be retroactively classified so he can be prosecuted for mishandling classified info?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The record shows that not to be the case, for one thing Sanders voted and spoke against the worst foreign policy disaster in American history while Clinton voted and spoke for it.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)When and how did they get access to the stuff on Clinton's server? I thought it was secure.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)her emails. I don't give a rip about them.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I'll put you down as having no problem with Republicans doing government business on their own insecure servers.
Good to know how much you trust Republicans.
marlakay
(11,498 posts)And did she know it? Thats what i would ask of anyone.
I am not a Hillary fan but if she got some emails that were not considered top secret then later were, what can she do about that? Other than delete them if told. If not told nothing she could do.
Personally though not a good idea to have your own work emails, does not let you cover your ass in case of stuff like this.
She should have known some senstive stuff would be sent and she did know she would be running for pres again. To me it just shows she is not careful enough. She doesnt think ahead like Bernie with Iraq vote.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)As for the second, if she really thinks something TS/SCI or in a SAP is unclassified, she's really, really unqualified to be president.
If we had the same classification system in the 1940s, the D-day invasion plans would be TS/SCI. The Manhattan Project would be a SAP.
You first report them, then you help with any investigation, then you delete them properly, so that they can not be recovered later.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I guess I'd consider it an error in judgement. And I'd forgive them for not being too adept at technology. I'd let the investigations or non/investigations run their course. And I'd figure that the US has myriad ways to protect itself from harm.
So, it would go back to whether the person recognized that it was an error, and then move on to policy matters. Like, who is or is not qualified to be president and commander in chief. Each current candidate has major strengths and flaws as well.
On the republican side I certainly don't want a republican president with a republican Congress. In fact that causes me great concern. And I would vote for O'Malley, Clinton or Sanders over any of the republican candidates.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)calls me naive. Hardly. But I guess I'll take the compliment Fumesucker. Hope you enjoy a great weekend.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)The government servers were more prone to viruses because more account users on same server would be more prone to individuals opening infected documents infecting the whole server.
I understand that Hillary's had the same protections in place as did the government servers. NOT "unsecured" as your question suggests.
The most sane review from DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511091962
Had Republicans had what you suggest, that would not be good.
Had Republicans had what Hillary had, that would be fine by me and as important as whether or not they wore an American flag on their lapel, i.e. not important at all.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)As Bernie pointed out.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)I guess that is good company under your bus.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)obviously. Unless they're hypocrites.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE