Obama: Clinton’s Email Server Did Not Jeopardize National Security

[still_one]

Source: Huffingtonpost/Reuters



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton never jeopardized national security in the handling of her emails as his secretary of state.

Obama, in an interview broadcast on Fox News Sunday, said Clinton has recognized a carelessness on the email issue in which she used a private server for Government business.

“But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective,” Obama said. “This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state, and did an outstanding job.”

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-clintons-email-server-did-not-jeopardize-national-security_us_570a59f9e4b0836057a17b40

[dchill]

1. Would he testify to that under oath?

I think not. By its existence, it jeopardized national security.

[cstanleytech]

4. I think you might be reaching just a bit there due to being biased towards Hillary.

If I am wrong about you being biased then I fully apologize but that is what your post sounds like to me atm.

[dchill]

6. I don't see how you got there.

[cstanleytech]

10. It was purely based on the tone of your post but like I said if you are not biased

towards her then I fully and completely apologize.

[dchill]

55. I am a 100% Bernie Sanders supporter.

No need to apologize, just don't see where you're coming from. I say that under oath, PBO could not say the server did not compromise national security. Because it did.

[cstanleytech]

58. Nothing wrong with being a Bernie supporter, I think both Hillary and Bernie would be

good Presidents in their own way for the country and either would be better than any of the Republicans.

[roguevalley]

45. I prefer to have the FBI and Justice Department come to that conclusion. Mr. Obama has a bias here.

He appointed her. He is ultimately responsible as the boss.

[cstanleytech]

57. No, I'm not refering to the investigation by the FBI and the DOJ. They will find whatever

they will find rather I was referring to the part where dchill said " By its existence, it jeopardized national security."
By the tone I took as being biased towards her, of course I could be wrong and I apologized already if I am but imo just because it was a potential problem doesn't mean it actually jeopardized national security, if simply existing was a problem then there is alot in the world that could fall under the umbrella of jeopardizing national security.

[CoffeeCat]

128. Well, here's the deal with Obama's opinion

If the FBI comes to the conclusion that she broke the law (and I really don't see how they can conclude otherwise), Obama's opinion isn't going to matter one whit. If the FBI lays out a strong case against her, and recommends indictment, that is enough for her campaign to be severely damaged. If the DOJ doesn't indict, that will only make the situation look like a travesty of justice (which makes it even worse for Clinton.

She sent and received classified information over an unsecured server that she had someone build for her--then she proceeded to conduct ALL of her State Department business off of that server. Are we really to believe that a Secretary of State NEVER talked about ANY topic at all--that was classified during her four year tenure?

When Hillary Clinton coyly says, "Well. I never sent anything that was MARKED classified," she is playing word games and she knows it.

There is a difference between something that is MARKED classified; and "born classified" information. "Born Classified" is correspondence (such as an email) that Hillary wrote herself. Of course, an email that she's writing herself isn't going to be "marked classified." Now is it? She's writing it and sending it.

The FBI has revealed that Hillary Clinton sent thousands of emails that were "classified" and some of them garnering the highest classification "Top Secret". So secret that the FBI couldn't release those emails.

Who knows what the FBI will recommend. Who knows if an indictment will happen. Who knows if there's any justice in this world.

[George II]

71. So you know more about this that President Obama?

[leveymg]

79. Unspoken context: the felony statute Sec 793 doesn't require intent or actual jeopardy

So, it doesn't matter what Obama says on Fox News.. HRC Is chargeable regardless. He'll probably end up pardoning her anyway, but she's not going to be the party's candidate.

[George II]

83. You're assuming quite a bit. Do you have any idea of what the FBI is really investigating?

It has nothing to do with felonies, charges against Hillary Clinton, or pardons.

Read up on this, you may be surprised.

[leveymg]

99. clues? links? anything?

[George II]

100. Well, you're the one who cited "felony statute Sec 793", so figured you knew.

[leveymg]

101. I only know the law and a bit of history. That tells me

that she's finished as candidate for President but will be pardoned, like CIA Director John Deutch.

[murielm99]

110. Pardoned?

Pardoned for what? What is she charged with?

[leveymg]

112. You don't have to be charged and convicted to be pardoned. You're confusing

pardoned with having a sentence commuted. The President has virtually unlimited power to do both.

[murielm99]

133. You are confused.

There is no criminal investigation of Clinton. There is nothing to pardon her for. Or did she sneeze? Many of you would consider it a crime if she sneezed.

[leveymg]

134. Obama characterized it as an "investigation" the other day. For many months, it has been referenced

by the FBI as an investigation of Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server while Secretary of State. Don't try to split hairs. You're not fooling anyone here except yourselves. We will see exactly how the FBI Director characterizes the probe soon enough.

[murielm99]

136. Google is your friend.

HRC is not under criminal investigation for emails or anything else.

[dchill]

107. Evidently. Don't you?

I mean, I'm sure he knows all there is to know. That doesn't mean he's using that knowledge to formulate his statement.

[notadmblnd]

2. Mr. President Please Explain How Hillary Merits Your Comment As Being "Outstanding" As...

Secretary of State?

For example Mr President, do you consider the Libya move "outstanding?"

Do you consider the management of Benghazi as acceptable, much less outstanding?

What about all of those meetings that she had with her benefactors while Secretary of State?

Or for that matter acting as an "emissary" for the Fracking Industry while Secretary of State?

You therefor consider these actions and judgements as outstanding Mr President?

Should we therefor reconsider.... ?

With thanks to CorporatistNation http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1697487


Any of you Hill Shills want to attempt to answer these questions for the President?

[Cassiopeia]

26. Obama stands behind fracking

promoting it as the cleaner replacement for coal.

Obama has worked with Republicans to get the TPP pushed through and Clinton was a huge advocate for TPP as well.

She's helped him where it really counts.

[hughee99]

150. You fell for his trap. He has you talking about

Her time as SoS and not security and servers. That's his 77 dimensional chess working on you.

[yallerdawg]

3. Perfect chance for a two-fer!

Get to bash Obama and Clinton at the same time!

Two Democrats!

You know, Democratic Underground is not a Fox News fan site, but the comments could sure fool you.

[Gman]

20. These are not Democrats here

I'd describe them as nihilists.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

47. Correct. But rather than nihilists...

...it seems from the tenor of their remarks here, that these people are frustrated old-guard communists.

Look, it's plainly obvious that all the white southern kids who grew up comfortably in the racist south in the 1960s, haven't all changed their minds. Rather, their views are just now outside of the Overton window. They can't be openly racist, so they use dog-whistle politics. And Trump is their guy.

Same thing for the old-guard communists. Sanders, who went down to Nicaragua and said that bread lines were a sign of economic health, openly siding with the Sandinista and Cuban dictatorships, and excusing (among other things) their practice of censoring the press, is their guy. I mean come on. What is this made up "Corporatist" epithet, other than a euphemism for "Capitalist pig dog"?

Cliven Bundy says "Let me tell you all about the Negro".
Far too many DUers, it's all "Let me tell you about the Corporatist."

Same degree of hate filled dehumanizing extremism, just a different flavor.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[keylargo]

115. Best comment ever concerning the...

obvious Hillary bias from the Sander supporters. Carry on...

[creon]

61. Nihilist fits.

It is an apt description.

[Surya Gayatri]

85. Double your pleasure, double you fun! LOL!

They can't help their vitriol. It boils up when they speak of anything DEMOCRATIC.

[titaniumsalute]

5. This is becoming right-wing underground I swear

[still_one]

11. Are you suggesting that news stories from outlets as Reuters should not be posted if you don't agree

Those who don't agree with the OP have voiced their disagreement, but NOT one suggested that posting a story from a legitimate news outlet was making DU a right wing outlet

A little perspective is in order

[titaniumsalute]

64. I was responding to post #3. Not your OP. There's your perspective.

[still_one]

68. no problem, however your post indicated you were responding to me

which is why I made the comment

"Response to still_one (Reply #11)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1409696

[titaniumsalute]

89. yup. Oops.

[still_one]

95. i have done it also, no biggie

Last edited Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

[leftyladyfrommo]

65. It is, isn't it.

The two real Democrats are constantly getting bashed. I don't read many of the political threads anymore. But I do like the eagle cams.

[Autumn]

7. However Obama said she was careless and didn't "Intentionally" put America in jeopardy

Words have meanings.
care·less
ˈkerləs/
adjective
not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors.
"she had been careless and had left the window unlocked"
synonyms: inattentive, incautious, negligent, absentminded, remiss; More
(of an action or its result) showing or caused by a lack of attention.
"he admitted to careless driving"
not concerned or worried about.

in·ten·tion·al·ly
inˈtenSH(ə nəlē/
adverb
deliberately; on purpose.
"I didn't do it intentionally"
synonyms: deliberately, on purpose, purposely, purposefully, by design, knowingly, wittingly, consciously; premeditatedly, calculatedly, in cold blood, willfully, wantonly; with malice aforethought
"she would never intentionally hurt anyone"

[tk2kewl]

16. if she didn't jeopardize national security...

it was nothing more than dumb luck

[UtahLib]

8. K&R. nt

[LuvLoogie]

9. Hear ye, hear ye. The Revolution's kangaroo court is now in session.

[FailureToCommunicate]

15. And here I thought DU was a place to comment and discuss stories of political import.

Your comment is unseemly, you may want to consider hitting the self delete button?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure a 'kangaroo court' implies that only one side is heard from.

[thesquanderer]

12. Of course, whether or not national security was jeopardized...

...is not necessarily the bar for whether or not the activities were legal.

In a sense, one could say that, even assuming it's true that national security was not jeopardized, that might only be the case through sheer luck. That is, if there was classified info, and it wasn't properly secured, then it is could be only luck that prevented national security from being jeopardized. It kind of depends on how you define "jeopardize."

[OnyxCollie]

13. Nice of the President to comment on an ongoing FBI investigation.

Guess they should wrap it up right now, on his say so.

Anwar Al-Awlaki must've gotten the same due process.

[leftofcool]

17. Why does he need to shut up?

[still_one]

18. Because he isn't entitled to an opinion if it doesn't agree with some of the group-think here

[AlbertCat]

25. Why does he need to shut up?

"It's supposed to be an independent investigation. "

and ongoing.

He's influencing it. I mean, you seem satisfied with his guess.

[NastyRiffraff]

28. Under the bus goes Obama!

Oh, I forgot...he's already there, put there by people who call themselves Democrats but are really Berniecrats.

President Obama has every right to speak on this or any other national issue. And telling him to "shut up" WTF

[rtw]

34. Actually he should be quiet.

In the same interview, to assure independence, he stated there is a strict line. He does NOT speak to the AG or the FBI about investigations. There is a very good reason for it and that is to keep it free from political influence. It was inappropriate for him to comment.

[Cary]

46. Actually do you have anything to support your implication of a criminal investigstion?

Other than Fox or Breitbart, of course.

[OnyxCollie]

51. How 'bout the FBI?

Or do you think they spend their resources investigating things that are not criminal?

(I hear their next investigation involves a money-laundering scheme in which empty soda bottles are exchanged for cash.)

[Cary]

63. Do I know the law?

Yes.

Their investigations are not necessarily criminal and basically you are as likely to be the target of a criminal investigation as is Hillary Clinton.

So your answer is you indeed have only Fox and Breitbart. Thanks.

[OnyxCollie]

67. Since you claim to know the law,

explain how the FBI's investigation of Clinton's email server is not necessarily criminal.

Please cite specific statutes and cases as evidence to support your claim. Thanks.

[Cary]

103. They don't announce these things so your "conservative" sources are garbage.

[OnyxCollie]

108. You got nothing.

As expected.

[Cary]

119. But off course that was my point

You have worse than nothing. You are mouthing "conservative" disinformation.

Worse than that you seem to be proud of yourself for that.

[OnyxCollie]

121. Why are you responding?

I asked you to prove your claim, "Do I know the law? Yes."

In response, you came up with jack-shit. You failed.

Why the fuck would I want to hear from you, Cary? It's clear you know absolutely nothing. Go away.

[Cary]

122. Ah yes, the ad hominem

So typical.

Right back at you. I am free to speak my mind. If you don't like it, you go away. My mind is that you're mouthing "conservative" talking points. You're the one asserting that HRC is under investigation when both the DOJ and FBI said that wasn't true. You're the one getting your information either directly or indirectly from Fox and Breitbart, because that's who is pushing this nonsense.

You aren't part of the solution. This is still Democratic Underground. "Conservative" smears aren't supposed to be welcomed here.

[OnyxCollie]

123. "My mind is..."

Oh, so this is only in your mind that I am mouthing "conservative" talking points. Just a delusion you hold (since you fail to provide any objective measures to support your claims.)

This is Democratic Underground, where in the past one would, at the least, provide a link to support their claims. Now it's overrun by know-nothing neophytes who expect others to accept the baseless claims they make, simply by repeating them over and over.

[Cary]

125. You are clearly mouthing "conservative" disinformation

And you're engaging in logical fallacies. I have no respect for either behavior. It's not necessary. It's not impressive. It's also not appropriate.

You're the one who made the claim, sport. You're claiming that HRC is under investigation. You want me to link to the fact that you can't possibly know this.

And, seriously, you need me to provide you with links to disprove FoxPAC disinformation? You're a poster here at DU, and you need me to link you to something that says that there is no evidence that HRC is the target of the FBI's investigation of her server? You claim to be a Democrat, and you need me to somehow persuade you?

Pfeh.

[OnyxCollie]

126. And you're spinning.

Actually do you have anything to support your implication of a criminal investigstion?

Other than Fox or Breitbart, of course.

Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

There's my evidence.

Do I know the law?

Yes.

Their investigations are not necessarily criminal and basically you are as likely to be the target of a criminal investigation as is Hillary Clinton.

You're a poster here at DU, and you need me to link you to something that says that there is no evidence that HRC is the target of the FBI's investigation of her server?

Yeah, why don't you do that? Based on your knowledge of the law, why don't you post a link to support the claim that you made? Put up or shut up, Cary.

[Cary]

130. Absolutely none of that supports your claim that she, personally, is under investigation

None. Not a word of it.

[OnyxCollie]

131. If you say so, it must be true!

Because reasons.

[Cary]

132. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I say.

The FBI has confirmed only that it is investigating circumstances around Hillary Clinton's e-mail server. That's it. That's the fact, and the only thing you know.

Attacking me personally doesn't change the facts. Insulting me doesn't change the facts.

Because that's the way it goes.

I confess, though, that I don't understand why your "conservative" propaganda is tolerated here.

[Cary]

135. The company you keep

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/11/republicans-know-hillary-clinton-is-not-going-to-be-indicted-they-just-cant-say-so/

(spits)

[Hortensis]

137. Hear, hear! Thanks for speaking to truth, Cary.

[Cary]

138. Thanks Hortensis

What can I say? They will have their comeuppance soon. I have no confidence that their "revolution" will survive.

We will prevail yet again, and move forward without them as we always do. They're burning a lot of bridges though. They can't keep behaving this way.

[Hortensis]

146. It is extremists' usual fate to be sidelined because

they will not admit that others also recognize the same problems and want much the same answers. They must be "the ones."

I confess, I get so irritated by their constant noise here (and their casual, extremely irresponsible and anti-democracy use of the word "revolution&quot that I have to keep reminding myself that elsewhere most of those who back Sanders are not intractable, destructive extremists, but reasonable people who simply chose to back the other Democratic Party candidate.

[rtw]

53. The FBI is making no secret of their involvement here. NT

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

37. Plenty of good people under that bus

[Surya Gayatri]

86. They've begun using this one now! LOL!

[RiverNoord]

35. I'm a Bernie supporter, but, seriously.

1) You think the President hasn't been thoroughly engaged with any and all known issues relating to the use of the server?

2) He's the President, and he's making a broad public statement about national security and what he describes as 'careless' behavior on the part of a former member of his cabinet. I think he's entitled to speak.

3) I'm in IT, and work with email servers among other things. What Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did was careless. It may have been arrogant, and it may have been some kind of 'branding' mechanism for self promotion. Her official emails, as well as those of several aides, came from the domain 'clintonemail.com.' And anyone sending her email sent it to, I understand, sent it to '[email protected].' Apart from the security issue, which I would consider potentially extremely serious, it improperly associated the Secretary of State of the United States with a name-branded domain. The head of the Department of State should be using a .state.gov email address. If the CEO of my company sent and received all his work email through a '<hisname>email.com' server, and refused to change after notice, I would resign.

So, it was careless, and I would consider it both incompetent and arrogant. I think it suggests a disregard for professionalism in the conduct of her duties. And these are all issues that should be examined thoroughly.

But I do believe that the President of the United States has every right to speak on the subject. If intercepted email had gotten someone killed or exposed critical information to adverse parties he would have hung her out to dry, and rightly so.

Now, in all probability, he knew early on, but didn't act on the matter. Of course the Secretary of State sent emails to the President, but whether he understood the implications or was effectively advised on the subject, well, we don't know. But the responsibility for addressing any careless activity of his cabinet members is his. President Obama is strong in some areas, maybe weak in some others, but I just don't see him 'covering up' something like this. So take his words for what they are.

If you believe that Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server for official State purposes is something that warrants careful scrutiny with respect to her suitability for the office of the President of the United States, as I do, consider the contrast between President Obama and his general professionalism and the very definite 'cover-up' mentality that has been demonstrated by Hillary Clinton and a significant number of aides.

But telling the President of the United States to shut up over something like this - not cool.

[gordianot]

59. President Obama gets leeway on several counts.

First he is responsible for the actions of his Secretary of State, since he addressed only intent he reinforces that his office did not see wrong doing other than engaging in careless activities of the Secretary of State.

Second on a political level this entire situation gives fodder to political enemies something the President and Clintons are very familiar with.

Third both the administration and former Secretary have to worry about other employees who may be in jeopardy. One employee has already been granted legal immunity.

Given that there is a high stakes election going on the President cannot be a happy person right now.

[RiverNoord]

69. Nice summary.

Not much I can follow up with there - well considered.

Thanks for the insights

[Cary]

140. Why not?

Nothing is going to come from this and like all "conservative" b.s. it will be a dead letter soon enough. When's the last time a "conservative" smear made any difference in anything? They've gone to this well too many times and proved, once again, the law of diminishing returns. I'd say their last success was Swiftboat Liars, but even that's debatable.

[gordianot]

141. Tell that to Don Siegelman.

[Cary]

142. So you're claiming that the same thing will happen to Hillary Clinton

Good luck on that.

[gordianot]

143. Of course not, but sometimes those B.S. right wing conspiracies bite.

As an attorney once told me when it goes to court or even worse a jury anything is possible. As to Hillary and her server this may well be an argument between the administration and other agencies one would expect the President to stand with one of his own. We are not privy as to the facts or the concerns.

[Cary]

144. I make a distinction between a frame up and a smear job

[gordianot]

145. Tell that to Bill Clinton and his intern.

It seems to me he got both a frame up and a smear and they impeached him on his testimony. All from one of the most morally corrupt legislatures in the history of the Republic who have a history of sexual indiscretions.

[Cary]

148. He wasn't framed

He lied on oath on a civil deposition. The impeachment was a joke and went nowhere

But Bill, an incredibly intelligent man, was stupid about it

[gordianot]

149. He lied always not a good choice.

Hope history does not repeat. Who cares about sexual indiscretions?

[TM99]

84. Obviously saying 'shut up'

got them the hide.

But he is right. The President should not be speaking out on an ongoing investigation especially of one of his own subordinates. It is highly inappropriate. It gives the impression that he is biased which then biases his DoJ when and if the FBI investigation leads to indictment.

Why people can't see this saddens me. As long as it is legal, fine. If it is unethical, inappropriate, or out of turn, nah, who gives a shit.

[beastie boy]

93. He wasn't speaking out on an ongoing investigation.

The FBI investigation is not into whether or not national security has been breached, it is into whether a crime has been committed and if so, by whom.

It is not the FBI's job to look into whether national security has been breached.

[TM99]

94. WTF?

Yes, it is an ongoing FBI investigation.

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday he does not see a need for urgency in completing the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server. But he did say that he is staying "close to this one to make sure we have the resources to do it competently," the Niagara-Gazette reported Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-probe/index.html

[beastie boy]

104. One more time, please

And let's not get distracted this time.

It is not within the competence of the FBI to determine whether national security has been jeopardized. At the very most, they can investigate whether national security protocols have been followed. But I see no reason why the NSA would ever delegate this task to the FBI. NSA is the expert on matters of national security, not FBI.There is just no reason for FBI to get involved in this, NSA is fully capable of determining this themselves.

What the FBI is investigating is whether a crime has been committed in the setup or operation of Hillary's server. Their investigation is not concerned with matters of national security.

And what Obama commented on is a matter of national security, not anything under the investigation by the FBI.

[RiverNoord]

109. Um... actually, that's incorrect.

The NSA's mission is signals intelligence. It's actually a military organization. The NSA can not legally snoop on cabinet-level officials' communications, although it can monitor such communications for signs of interception. It also has no direct investigative or law enforcement functions. It passes information to organizations such as the CIA, FBI, or other branches of the military for investigation or action.

The FBI has always had a major role in counterintelligence and counterespionage. Historically, the boundaries between the CIA and FBI were simple - the FBI handled domestic counterintelligence and counterespionage and the CIA handled foreign intelligence gathering, development of 'assets,' and counterespionage. The lines are definitely blurred these days, but...

the Federal Bureau of Investigation is precisely the organization that would make determinations such as whether 'national security' has been jeopardized by a particular use of technology physically located in the United States, by an American government official. It would probably make requests of the NSA for any indication that hackers, foreign or domestic, had engaged in cyber-espionage targeted at Sec. Clinton's emails. It might also seek information from the CIA concerning whether any operations or assets were compromised.

But in the end, the job is the FBI's.

[beastie boy]

120. You're right, I concede

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb

[RiverNoord]

124. No need to 'concede' :-)

I'm always happy when someone substantively points out to me errors in my assumptions or arguments. Nobody's perfect - if we all knew everything there wouldn't be much of a point in discussing anything.

Cheers

[Cary]

139. It's nice to see a Sanders' supporter being reasonable

I know most Sanders' supporters are, but it's nice to see.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

36. Okay

Why don't you write or e-mail and tell him so?

[tabasco]

19. How does he know?

I thought there was an investigation going on to either confirm or deny breaches of national security.

[beastie boy]

87. The investigation is into whether a crime has even been committed, and if so, by whom.

Whether or not the FBI finds any evidence of a crime, they have no authority in determining if national security was breached.

[mcar]

21. K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Republicans consider Obama to be a threat to national security.

[mr clean]

23. Obama, in an interview broadcast on Fox News Sunday...

[mcar]

24. And...?

[riversedge]

105. your point??

[revbones]

27. Where in the article you referenced does it say that her email server didn't jeopardize security?

Please provide the quote you're referenced for your headline there.

[Hekate]

70. This is LBN, where the subject line MUST match the article title. To wit....

Obama: Clinton's Email Server Did Not Jeopardize National Security

There, see how easy that is? IT'S THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES FOR THIS FORUM.

[revbones]

72. Thanks for replying so nicely. Really shows the positivity of the Hillary followers.

Oh wait, it was snide...

[Trust Buster]

29. The President is correct again. He knows it's just about politics. I don't care about emails.

[RiverNoord]

41. Just about everyone in IT who works with email servers does.

That the Secretary of State had a personal email server put in place to handle all of her official email communications is really difficult to comprehend to those of use who manage our companies' network security, web servers, email, etc.

It's bizarre, and has been universally panned by every security expert who has publicly discussed the issue. And, to me, it's not 'political,' it's both a question of responsibility and, on a professional level, a really strange example of 'how not to manage potentially sensitive email.'

That being said, Department of State IT and security personnel really should have prevented it. The issue of 'what if your boss does (x) and, after being informed of the risks, that it violates company policy, etc., keeps on doing it, what do you do?' is a regular issue in IT, and there are some generally accepted practices for managing such a situation, including, if all else fails, resigning. I consider the DoS IT/security personnel more to blame than Clinton, as they should have have strenuously objected and escalated the issue, but they don't seem to have done much at all.

[treestar]

117. Why wasn't it a problem with Powell and Rice?

[RiverNoord]

129. It is a problem with them also. It suggests a very sloppy attitude toward email security in

the State Department.

However, neither of them actually implemented their own private email server or used an outside email account exclusively. Or (which naturally follows) had accounts on such a server that additional State Department personnel also used exclusively.

Apparently, Rice was very limited in her use of email during her time as SoS.

And Powell actually implemented a major 'modernization' of DoS IT in general. By the time of Hillary Clinton's assumption of the office, the technological capability for secure communications existed in the DoS infrastructure.

With a much more secure infrastructure in place than could be implemented with a private email server (at least, without a substantial security staff actively managing it), Sec. Clinton implemented a private email server and used it exclusively for official communications. That requires significant planning, effort, and money (unless nobody's actually minding the store). It had to be a distinct, conscious decision, paid for privately. That's what is what differentiates the situations. It makes no sense from an IT perspective.

[nichomachus]

30. As far as he knows

At least not "intentionally." Just sheer carelessness. Bad trait in a commander in chief.

[INdemo]

31. Obama is all in for Clinton because he wants to make sure his

TPP is solidly approved and not tampered with..

[shenmue]

32. Yes

[Schema Thing]

33. This is somebody who has served his country for decades in the military, and

...did an outstanding job.".


Speaking of course, of General David Petraeus.

[jalan48]

38. What else would we expect from the man that backs DWS in her Congressional race?

Third Way baby!

[bvf]

39. What in the hell do you *expect* him to say?

"I hired her and it looks like she really screwed the pooch with this. My bad." ?

GMAFB

[Hydra]

42. As I predicted, He has to go all in for her

Which damages his credibility and his legacy, all in the hopes of preserving it. Irony.

[bvf]

62. Yep. Talk about your millstones. n/t

[Hiraeth]

40. wonder why he is feeling the need to say anything at all.

[Hydra]

43. New York, aka Waterloo

If Clinton loses, he loses the narrative he's worked so hard to build.

[Hiraeth]

44. Love me some Obama but ... I can't wait for NY !!!

[PatrynXX]

49. pretty much expecting an even split . So

it seems we could easily end up with a contested election. Unless she starts pulling big Delegate wins it's gonna be as close as 2008.

[Hiraeth]

50. makes for an interesting convention.

[Lars39]

106. Obligatory saving face move.

Clintons are leaning on him, and he can't/doesn't want to let on to the world to what extent intel may have been swiped.

[PatrynXX]

48. Right. and I'm the Easter Bunny

He's also basically defending the Bush admin before him by doing so. I say it did, but I don't entirely fault her for it. I fault her more for the Libya mess but not the B word. that one wasn't really thought out and yes I thought it rocked at the time we got him but I don't think we wanted him dead. Kadaffi .

[Bradical79]

56. Yeah... it's not like President Obama knows

Being President doesn't make him all that credible of a source on information security :-P His actual experts on that sort of thing seem to be investigating still, and most other experts seem to think it was a big security issue.

[tenderfoot]

54. I often wonder what's to secure that people should be so concerned...

a crumbling infrastructure? no healthcare? Lead laden water? Contaminated meat? Underfunded schools?

I'm sure every rogue nation on Earth is itching at the bit to git us! Despite the cost to them of keeping up their conquest. Bugga bugga!

[creon]

60. PBO is correct.

Documents and state secrets are not transmitted by standard e mail.
State secrets are transmitted by other means.
People will not know what is in those messages for many years; if they are disclosed they will be found by historians of a later generation.

[onehandle]

66. Only the 'Not Hillary' Party and Republicans care about this.

Two peas in a pod.

Nobody else gives a shit.

I stand with our current Democratic President and Madame Next Democratic President.

[beastie boy]

73. Actually, it did. But not in the way the right wingers and Sandernistas will have you believe.

We have a congressional investigation going that was supposed to address national security in the case of the Benghazi 9/11 attack.

Instead, we have a years' long partisan witch hunt using Hillary's server as an excuse to continue baseless attacks on Hillary at the expense of investigating matters critical to national security.

[riversedge]

74. REC. and Thank you.

[Surya Gayatri]

75. Enormous K & R.

[rock]

76. K&R

+1

[liberal N proud]

77. K&R

[ismnotwasm]

78. K&R

[fleabiscuit]

80. Kick

[Kingofalldems]

81. Never thought I'd see some Democrats become allies with right wing

Last edited Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

republicans---until this election.

K & R.

[winstars]

111. You can see it here every fucking day... fucking horrible...

[Surya Gayatri]

82. Kicking for visibility.

[SharonClark]

88. K&R

[ish of the hammer]

90. there he is......misspeaking again!

he fought a hell of a lot harder for TPP than he did for single payer!

[HillareeeHillaraah]

91. K&R

[Cha]

92. Thank you, stillone!

[2naSalit]

96. K&R

[DesertRat]

97. kick

[Kingofalldems]

98. Kicked, rec'd and tweeted.

[Matt_in_STL]

102. Glad he completed his investigation and cleared her

Oh wait, he didn't conduct an investigation and therefore has no idea about the outcome of the actual investigation?

Well, shit.

[Major Hogwash]

113. "As far as I know . . ."

Man, is he in for a shock!

[RAAVAN]

114. Or did she use the Govt. server for private Business?

Hillary to be the next American President for sure.

Gaad Bless America

[Laser102]

116. I think the fact that he talked about it means it's not a big deal. Nothing will come of this.

Good on Obama for putting this in context. If the President is speaking on your behalf it tells me this is over. Move on. I'm sure there's another bad thing on the horizon some can pin their hopes on.

[Gothmog]

118. There will be no indictment of Hillary Clinton due to the silly e-mail claims

[EdwardBernays]

127. way to undermine national security obama...

and through an active investigation under the bus, for purely political reasons...

pretty disgusting behavior...

and ironic that by vouching for her not damaging national security he has...

[Kingofalldems]

147. Well isn't this special:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1276856

RW tripe justly hidden. I get where you are coming from.