Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:10 PM May 2016

A lot of stuff about the e-mail issue.

I’ve been made a little dizzy by the attacks on Hillary re e-mail and didn’t always have responses at the tip of my tongue. So I’ve done some research. Here’s what I’ve found.

1 – Hillary compromised national security.

The State Department OIG investigation does not address classified information. Clinton’s personal e-mail was for un-classified information only. The FBI investigation is the one looking into handling of classified information. The OIG report does not contain any information about breaches of Clinton’s e-mail, although it does mention some e-mails questioning certain messages. In fact, according to some experts, her e-mail was more secure than the Dept of State’s system for non-classified information. For one thing, it was formerly used by President Bill Clinton, and for another, it benefited from the physical security supplied by the secret service, much like the classified system at the state department.

“As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. So it could be the Clinton arrangement didn’t follow the security procedures laid out in the federal regulations—the inspector general did not reach a conclusion as to whether it did or not—but, as often happens, private security contractors did a better job than the government.”

Hillary Clinton did not send e-mails including any information that was classified at the time, with the exception of responding to/forwarding e-mails sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal, a private citizen. These contained classified information which Blumenthal had obtained from public sources. She did not originate them nor was she responsible for their being made publicly available. She pointed out the absurdity of assigning her responsibility for this breach in either a debate, but probably in a town hall meeting, since I can’t find it in debate transcripts.

2 – She violated State Department policies.

The State Department had not promulgated any policy prohibiting the use of private e-mail servers. That was clarified in legislation in 2014, after Clinton had left office.

The State Department required people using personal e-mail to make hardcopies of all of their e-mails to comply with the federal requirement that all communications be preserved.

- Clinton had electronic backup, a much more appropriate approach in 2008-2012, and turned over 55,000 pages on paper -- just as the 1950's law required. She did not make the paper copies until after she left, which was a technical violation.
Here is an excellent description of what the real world of working with the State Department’s antiquated systems was like.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

3 – She is a liar.

- She’s been saying that a private server was allowed, but now she’s saying she thought it was allowed.

At the time the server was installed there were no state department regulations applying to personal servers. In response to the OIG investigation State Department IT staff said that if she had asked, she would have been told it wasn’t allowed. We don’t know when they made this decision, but in the face of a changing set of circumstances (State Dept now claims it wouldn’t have allowed it), she adjusts her response in a rational way.

- She said, "I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime” but the report said she declined to be interviewed by the OIG.

OK. So in the heat of a debate or an interview she said something she wanted to back away from later in the face of new circumstances. I don’t claim to know the details, but I do understand that total consistency is never found in political campaigns. To assume that someone was lying everytime they have to change their position in the face of new circumstances is a very grim way of relating to ones fellow human beings indeed.

- She said that personal e-mail was allowed.

It was. The State Department even specified different ways for preserving copies than the ways used for state.gov.

- She said the State Department approved of her use of private e-mail/server. CLINTON: "What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that." - AP interview, September 2015
In this case I expect early on someone had, indeed, sometime before Sept 2015, told her it was "OK," since personal e-mails were definitely OK and private servers hadn't been addressed. Of course people who are convinced Hillary is “a liar” won’t be persuaded by this, but imagine yourself trying to explain a system like this in sound bites.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A lot of stuff about the e-mail issue. (Original Post) LAS14 May 2016 OP
These are all provably untrue bobbobbins01 May 2016 #1
Citations? Or even just specifics in your own words????? LAS14 May 2016 #6
Its all in here. Your OP is more than debunked Arazi May 2016 #8
Here you go: bobbobbins01 May 2016 #9
Yup. I saw that. LAS14 May 2016 #10
You didn't see what I posted then. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #11
Yes, I saw your link. Examine it more carefully. She only... LAS14 May 2016 #12
Which means she lost control of classified info and gave it to a person nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #14
It was already in the public domain. Control had been lost long before. LAS14 May 2016 #15
Perhaps you do not understand this nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #17
It doesn't matter whether it came from State or Wikileaks. LAS14 May 2016 #18
that series of emails containted information that was SAP classified nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #19
Yes, Blumenthal got it from somebody. Not from Hillary. OK, bye. No future in this. LAS14 May 2016 #21
So at least you are admitting there is something here. nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #22
And where's the spillage report for those Sid emails? NWCorona May 2016 #16
YOu are talking fancy language they do not undersatand nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #20
It obviously was allowed... scscholar May 2016 #2
Good post. Everyone who understands the issue knows there isn't any substance to the YouDig May 2016 #3
Yup. I've several times posted... LAS14 May 2016 #7
4 - It was unethical - Oops, it was and she knew it. Hubris got her here and she owns it. nt Live and Learn May 2016 #4
3 possible consequential ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #5
Another internet poster that thinks (s)he... 99Forever May 2016 #13
Kick for a new day. LAS14 May 2016 #23

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
1. These are all provably untrue
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:17 PM
May 2016

And have been debunked in numerous other threads. Please educate yourself.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
10. Yup. I saw that.
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:28 PM
May 2016

...with the exception of responding to/forwarding e-mails sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal, a private citizen. These contained classified information which Blumenthal had obtained from public sources. She did not originate them nor was she responsible for their being made publicly available. She pointed out the absurdity of assigning her responsibility for this breach in either a debate, but probably in a town hall meeting, since I can’t find it in debate transcripts.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
11. You didn't see what I posted then.
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:36 PM
May 2016

It originated from her, and contained information about foreign dignitaries, which was then redacted before being released. It was not from public sources, and it didn't originate from Blumenthal, it was from her directly.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
14. Which means she lost control of classified info and gave it to a person
Mon May 30, 2016, 05:07 PM
May 2016

without a clearance. A private citizen as you said.

I don't expect you to get it. I really don't

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
15. It was already in the public domain. Control had been lost long before.
Mon May 30, 2016, 05:38 PM
May 2016

I didn't say she forwarded it TO a private citizen. I said she received it FROM a private citizen. Control had been lost already.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
17. Perhaps you do not understand this
Mon May 30, 2016, 06:06 PM
May 2016

but the wikileaks package that people linked from here, came from the release from the Department of State.


Theirs is just easier to search for, the State department Dbase is not precisely that well organized. Hell, my own personal collection is not that well organized.

She lost control. That is actually not a nothing burger. She gave access to a CIVILIAN without a clearance. Those are hte facts jack.

I don't expect you to get it. Not even after this completely goes off the rails. It is just starting... Well, if your party decides to commit suicide by nominating a weak, not natural politician (her words) who now is getting pounded legally, and might have a major legal exposure. let me hand you the gun. It is already cocked. Go ahead.

But do not blame the people who tried to warn you. At this point it is your choice, and for the record, some in YOUR PARTY are starting to get it, this is more than a nothing burger and are starting to get nervous.

Oh and don't Sanders me. I don't care who you fucking nominate. I know what I will do in June 7 and in November, pretend to vote. Because who I vote for does not count anyway... it matters who counts it. So I will pretend to vote for whoever the central tabulator decided I voted for. I don't count on this being my intent. But that is a different, though related discussion.

You nominate her, your choice, you will contribute indirectly to the election of a fascist. It will be on your party.

But here is the gun. It is cocked, the round is in the chamber. Your party insists in committing suicide, go for it. just don't blame us for your lack of judgement, and don't voter me either. Just remember, Nixon won in '72 by an extremely large landslide.

I will just enjoy how the reality of the scandal starts to finally enter thick skulls... but at the same time, I know it will be very painful. So my sympathies, but that is what happens when you get so much entwined with a candidate. I don't for the record, Last time I "fell in love" was 2008. These days it is policy baby, not personalities.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
18. It doesn't matter whether it came from State or Wikileaks.
Mon May 30, 2016, 07:02 PM
May 2016

It does not show Hillary originating an e-mail containing classified data. Blumenthal originated it. I think you're the one that doesn't understand.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
19. that series of emails containted information that was SAP classified
Mon May 30, 2016, 07:08 PM
May 2016

it was not public. So Blumenthal got it from somebody. You can go search, since you have the WIKI leak linl and search for the whole collection. By the way the Special Access Program came from Intel people, like the NSA

here

http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/

As I said, go ahead commit suicide, I am not going to stop you, But I will not take the blame either. .

YouDig

(2,280 posts)
3. Good post. Everyone who understands the issue knows there isn't any substance to the
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:25 PM
May 2016

"scandal", but unfortunately that doesn't prevent dishonest people from using it for political gain. Just ask John Kerry about that.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
7. Yup. I've several times posted...
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:50 PM
May 2016

... that E-mail is like Whitewater is like Travelgate is like Vince Foster is like Benghazi. I was going to tell you that I'd add "is like Swift Boating," but I won't because that worked. Hopefully the Hillary campaign has learned how to fight back better from that experience.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
5. 3 possible consequential
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:45 PM
May 2016

mistakes Hillary may have made:
(1) compromising national security -- no evidence so far, pending an FBI inquiry report.
(2) seriously compromising transparency by hiding misrepresentations about sending American troops in harm's way, risking nuclear war, etc: No evidence of anything like that in 55,000 emails Hillary has turned over to courts and archives. However, Colin Powell turned over ZERO emails, including communications covering known Bush administration lies about WMD in Iraq.
(3) compromising IT security. NO evidence HRC's server was hacked. Romanian celebrity hacker Guccifer CLAIMED to have hacked HRC, but refused to provide any evidence that his amateurish hacks actually worked. He seems to have parlayed his unproven claims about hacking Hillary into extremely lenient punishment for documented penetrations of Nicole Kidman, Leo DiCaprio, Robert Redford, etc.

Billions of words have been written about Hillary's communications, but RELEVANT facts remain fairly obscure.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
13. Another internet poster that thinks (s)he...
Mon May 30, 2016, 05:00 PM
May 2016

... is a Federal Judge hearing this case.

News Flash: You aren't. Your personal opinions mean nothing.

Only the relevant Federal Statutes and the actual Federal Judge's interpretation of them has any real force of law.

Let us know when you get that appointment, confirmation, and this case before you and we promise to listen to you then.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»A lot of stuff about the ...