danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Decent beer certainly helped us get through the Bush II years...

I have had a few since Obama came into office. Never drank during Clinton's reign.

Pretty sure the best thing to do back in Billy's day was smoke. And inhale...

Good one!

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Decent beer certainly helped us get through the Bush II years...

I have had a few since Obama came into office. Never drank during Clinton's reign.

If I needed a mood-altering substance for the last 7-plus years, I would not have waited for beer to take effect. Whiskey? Maybe.

So, nothing to worry about???

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us ... ort.com%2F

Read the whole thing and tell me she has nothing to fear. #youllbelying

Fate

Read the whole thing and tell me she has nothing to fear

Why don't you cut and paste the things it says that are supposed to be making her quake? Because i think you read differently than the authors wrote...

Is this an important paragraph?

Federal law makes it a crime to mishandle classified information outside secure government channels when someone does so “knowingly” or — more seriously — permits it through “gross negligence.” Mrs. Clinton has correctly pointed out that none of the emails on her server were marked as classified at the time.

I said before that this is a systemic problem.... Here's confirmation. (Was this important to you Fate?)

Last week Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of United States District Court in Washington allowed the questioning after a hearing in which he criticized the State Department’s “constant drip” of revelations about emails from the server and said there were many unanswered questions about who authorized its use.
“It just boggles the mind that the State Department allowed this circumstance to arise in the first place,” said Judge Sullivan, who was appointed to the District Court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton and to lower courts by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. “It’s just very, very, very troubling

.”

So what you've got are agencies who are responsible for cyber security allowing the use of private servers. Now, Fate, you'll say Clinton should have known better. But I can't see how she is personally supposed to be a expert on cyber security.... She'd rely on the government expertise.
Just as Colin Powell did.
Now, if Hillary over rid security agencies that told her NOT to use a private server.... She has a big problem. But so far....that's not even been hinted at....

rickyp wrote:Fate

Read the whole thing and tell me she has nothing to fear

Why don't you cut and paste the things it says that are supposed to be making her quake? Because i think you read differently than the authors wrote...

Nope, I think you're just so biased that you would not believe it if Hillary herself told you she violated the law.

Is this an important paragraph?

Federal law makes it a crime to mishandle classified information outside secure government channels when someone does so “knowingly” or — more seriously — permits it through “gross negligence.” Mrs. Clinton has correctly pointed out that none of the emails on her server were marked as classified at the time.

"Gross negligence" is (at least) what she is guilty of. She treated classified info as if it was freely available on the Internet. What would you call putting classified info on an UNSECURED server? That's the very definition of "gross negligence."

And, she actually WROTE 104 emails with classified info and sent them over an UNSECURED server.

But how many of them was Clinton personally responsible for creating or editing and hitting the Send button?

The WaPo has done the digging for us this time and the answer comes up to 104.

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence…

In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions…

The Post analysis is based on an examination of the 2,093 chains of Clinton’s email correspondence that the State Department decided contained classified information. The agency released 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process but blocked the sensitive information from public view. The Post identified the author of each email that contained such redactions.

The analysis raises difficult questions about how the government treats sensitive information. It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels — or some combination of the two.

What’s missing from this analysis is the status of the 22 Top Secret emails which will almost surely never see the light of day.

As the Post takes great pains to point out, these 104 documents shoot holes in Clinton’s repeated claims that she never put any classified material on the server herself, but simply received it from others. That shouldn’t make any difference at all, since she was responsible for the existence of the server in the first place and was the owner of the contents. Further, the analysis repeats Clinton’s long discredited claim that the material wasn’t classified at the time it was originally sent, with those labels being attached later. This too carries no weight in the discussion, since every intelligence official who has been asked about the subject agrees that it is the content of the communications which are classified whether it has a label or not. Further, federal law states that it’s the responsibility of the creator or owner to ensure that any such material is properly labeled and stored.

I said before that this is a systemic problem.... Here's confirmation. (Was this important to you Fate?)

Last week Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of United States District Court in Washington allowed the questioning after a hearing in which he criticized the State Department’s “constant drip” of revelations about emails from the server and said there were many unanswered questions about who authorized its use.
“It just boggles the mind that the State Department allowed this circumstance to arise in the first place,” said Judge Sullivan, who was appointed to the District Court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton and to lower courts by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. “It’s just very, very, very troubling

.”

So what you've got are agencies who are responsible for cyber security allowing the use of private servers. Now, Fate, you'll say Clinton should have known better. But I can't see how she is personally supposed to be a expert on cyber security.... She'd rely on the government expertise.
Just as Colin Powell did.

You are either completely bereft of IQ or the very definition of "dishonest."

For the record, Colin Powell did not have a private server in his home. Any other immaterial comparisons you care to make?

Let's see . . . who authorized the use of a private server? Oh, it was the person who had it installed by a former campaign aide in HER HOME??? Duh. She did it! She doesn't have to be an expert on cybersecurity, all she had to do was follow protocol and use a State Department address.

No one told her, "That's a fine thing to do," she just did it. You claim otherwise, please tell me . . WHO AUTHORIZED her server? Did the President? Anyone at State?

Did she ask for a cyber expert at State to install it for her? If she did, that would be exonerating, but she did not. She went "off the books." Why do that if it was all legitimate?

And, what you purposely leave out is she told us why she did it--for her convenience. She wanted to be able to control the information. She didn't want to risk her illicit activity being subject to FOIA requests.

Oh, and it's not a matter of my opinion that she should have known better. Clinton signed an agreement when she became Secretary of State that spelled out what she was responsible for. She violated that.

Now, if Hillary over rid security agencies that told her NOT to use a private server.... She has a big problem. But so far....that's not even been hinted at....

Please point to ANY law that requires the government to warn her NOT to use a private server. Go ahead.

Otherwise, I'll stick to the law as written. She treated classified info as having no value.

rickyp

Why don't you cut and paste the things it says that are supposed to be making her quake? Because i think you read differently than the authors wrote.

..

Fate

Nope

Not up to the challenge?
And then you go and cut and paste lots of things. But none from the article that are what you think are "on point" to make her quake. You do read things with a very closed mind.

Fate

She treated classified info as if it was freely available on the Internet. What would you call putting classified info on an UNSECURED server? That's the very definition of "gross negligence

."
From your article.

The analysis raises difficult questions about how the government treats sensitive information. It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels — or some combination of the two.

You'll note that Colin Powell said this about classification of material

That office told the State Department on Wednesday that it found 12 emails containing classified information sent to Rice's aides or Powell, according to Cummings, who is the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Oversight Committee.
In a statement, Powell said the two emails he received were not judged to contain confidential information at the time they were sent to him by American ambassadors.
"I wish they would release them," Powell told NBC News, "so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, 'What's the issue?'"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clint ... SKCN0VD2EQ


Fate

For the record, Colin Powell did not have a private server in his home

So what?
Where the server is located is almost totally immaterial to whether or not it could be breached by a remote hacker. (And he was on AOL, for crying out loud)
The question is not, why did Clinton use a private server, the question is, why would the law allow any government business on any private server...
And of course then the problem becomes one of how the Internet actually works. Once any outside organization or person is involved in any communication that information goes out of the walled garden of the government network. And sometimes that's before something is classified later.

Fate

Let's see . . . who authorized the use of a private server?

Yes, Who?
You know who installed the server, and maintained the server. You know the law allowed it. But as Sullivan says ...

“It just boggles the mind that the State Department allowed this circumstance to arise in the first place,” said Judge Sullivan, who was appointed to the District Court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton and to lower courts by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. “It’s just very, very, very troubling

So who did, or should have, either authorized it or stopped its use? Still don't know do we?

Fate

She went "off the books."

What books? What law?
If Judge Sullivan can't comprehend how the circumstance allowed this to happen ...please explain how you can put it all on her. Its very doubtful that hers' is the only private server that is carrying around supposedly classified information since ...from your source:

or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels

Fate

Please point to ANY law that requires the government to warn her NOT to use a private server

That would be a good law. Best practice would be that the NSA and FBI cyber security people got their act together and eliminated the use of private servers...
As Sullivan asks, why wasn't this best practice followed?
And how many other potential instances of improper handling of classified material may have resulted throughout the government as a result of the inability of both the law and the agencies to keep abreast of technology?

There is a big problem here Fate. But not for Hillary in the end. She did what she was allowed to do.
There's no genuine security breech indicated by anything.
And the whole system of classifications and Internet use ... is a mess.
From your source.

federal law states that it’s the responsibility of the creator or owner to ensure that any such material is properly labeled and stored.

If someone sends an email are they the creator and owner?
If someone receives an email are they the owner?
If someone responds to an unclassified email that maybe should have been classified are they sending unclassified information. Or classified? Are they then the creator or is the act of passing on the information simply sharing that which was created?
There's a lot going on here that law isn't up to speed on...which the security agencies haven't dealt with and which won't come down in Clinton .

rickyp wrote:If someone sends an email are they the creator and owner?
If someone receives an email are they the owner?
If someone responds to an unclassified email that maybe should have been classified are they sending unclassified information. Or classified? Are they then the creator or is the act of passing on the information simply sharing that which was created?
There's a lot going on here that law isn't up to speed on...which the security agencies haven't dealt with and which won't come down in Clinton .

Are you going to listen if I answer you? I think I have more knowledge here than you.

bbauska

Are you going to listen if I answer you? I think I have more knowledge here than you

If you link a source for what ever claim you are making, of course.
If you want me to believe you the same way Donald Trump asserts things.... I'll certainly discount it.

If the content of her emails was classified after they were sent, then she would only be guilty if you apply retroactively.

Which tends to be frowned on in liberal democratic states with thinking judiciaries.

And if Powell did the same thing essentially - pass on information that became classified - and was not prosecuted, why would anyone else be prosecuted?

Also, it seems small beer compared to the original intent of scouring Hillary's output - to get her blamed for the deaths in Benghazi. That appears to have petered out.

As the information is now classified, we cannot see what it was and whether it was really sensitive or just stuff governments don't want known.

http://www.dhra.mil/perserec/osg/s1class/handling.htm

Handling Classified Information

As an approved custodian or user of classified information, you are personally responsible for the protection and control of this information. You must safeguard this information at all times to prevent loss or compromise and unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, or duplication. Unauthorized disclosure of classified material is punishable under the Federal Criminal Statutes or organizational policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

Specialized computer operating systems known as trusted operating systems are available for processing classified information. These enforce the classification and labeling rules described above in software. However, as of 2005, they are not considered secure enough to allow uncleared users to share computers with classified activities. So if one creates an unclassified document on a secret device, the resultant data is classified secret until it can be manually reviewed. Computer networks for sharing classified information are segregated by the highest sensitivity level they are allowed to transmit, for example, SIPRNet (Secret) and JWICS (Top Secret-SCI).

Please note the underlined portion

It does not matter who said it was OK to have an unsecured server. But it does bring an interesting question. Who said it was OK?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88403.pdf

c. You must use, hold, process, or store classified material in data and word
processing systems, to include magnetic storage media, only under
conditions that will prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access.
The Office of Cybersecurity (DS/SI/CS) establishes requirements for the
protection of classified information resident on automated information
systems (AIS).

Please note this is a State department form.

g. Do not store classified material at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience. To store classified material, a post must demonstrate to the regional security officer
(RSO) a legitimate need to have material at a given location and provide a justification for the level of classified material to be stored.


12 FAM 534.2
-
2 Reporting Infractions
(CT:DS-229; 02-25-2015)
(Uniform State, USAID, OPIC, TDP)
An infraction of the regulations discovered by an employee designated to conduct the closing security check is not to be construed as a security violation in itself. It should not be reported on Form OF-117, Notice of a Security Incident, unless higher administrative authority determines otherwise or the closing hours security check is, in fact, the final inspection where U.S. citizen guards or Marine security guards are not on duty.

Where is Form OF-117?

That should be enough of a start for you to chew on. In summary I am looking for answers with links (as you asked for, btw) on these questions...

Was Mrs. Clinton an authorized user of classified materials?
Was there unclassified material used on a classified server at State?
Was there classified material used on the server at home?
Who authorized the external use of a server (violating protocol and procedure). NAMES!
Were unclassified documents sent form the server than contained classified materials, and were they marked with the highest classification on that server until authorized unclassified, and who authorized that declassification? NAMES!
Who was the RSO authorized external use?
Where is the Form OF-117?

To Danivon (cross-posting, Sorry)
If Powell did the same thing in violation, he should be indicted as well. This should have nothing to do with Benghazi. Her alleged mis-handling of classified material came to light from the investigation, but the two are separate issues.

You assume bbauska that the defence department's human resources activity information for use of classified documents and secured computers and is the same throughout the US government.
Is it? I doubt that the DOD procedures are the same as otehr departments in government.

It doesn't appear to be uniform even within the DOD.
From your source:

Email and the Internet create many opportunities for inadvertent disclosure of classified information. Before sending an email, posting to a bulletin board, publishing anything on the Internet, or adding to an existing Web page, you must be absolutely certain none of the information is classified or sensitive unclassified information. Be familiar with your organization's policy for use of the Internet. Many organizations require prior review of ANY information put on the Internet.

bbauska

It does not matter who said it was OK to have an unsecured server.

Yes it does.
As the law specifically allowed it, and her predecessors used private email servers.

Just reading the regulations you think apply there is a lot of military bafflegab. There is no rference to the State department. Do they actually have

Computer networks for sharing classified information are segregated by the highest sensitivity level they are allowed to transmit,

Apparently not....

One could answer your questions
Was Mrs. Clinton an authorized user of classified materials? Sure

Was there unclassified material used on a classified server at State?
Probably all the time. Such is the nature of communication among diplomats. Perhaps the rules of communication of the State department is very different then the rules of the DOD. I would not be surprised.

Was there classified material used on the server at home?
Depends. Was the material classified AFTER it had been sent?
Was if classified by a department of the government but used as unclassified in other departments? Was it classified even though it was already available through public sources?
Was it classified even though there was no good reason for it to be classified? (see Powell).
Was it marked classified at any point?
If it wasn't marked classified, but might have contained stuff that was classified, but the original sender had no idea those parts were or should have been classified....


bbauska

Who authorized the external use of a server (violating protocol and procedure)

Who indeed. And were there actual protocols and procedures in the State Department.Since Powell and Rice had private email servers, apparently not...
If the security of the server was down to the Secretary, I'd say that's a pretty big flaw in the cyber security system. Wouldn't you?

Internet usage is not classified material. However, if she were to be posting classified information (i.e. Snowden) that would be a violation.

Names?
RSO?

Don't ask questions without answering other people's.

Rude...

She is not going to be indicted for receiving on unclassified email networks information not identified as classified but later reclassified. The criminal intent mens rea element of a crime is lacking. I posted this before but it seems necessary to post this legal analysis again.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis ... d=36626499

As usual with Republican attempts to get the Clintons "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. "

I like Shakespeare. Always have. However, the Gross Negligence is a listed reason for it to be a crime. Intent is NOT needed for some of the charges.

I struggle to comprehend how this thread can now be running to 70 pages and still be no further advanced than it was at the beginning.

I can't help feeling that you're all somewhat missing the point. The issue with Hillary is that we all have concerns about her character, and by extension her suitability for high office. The concern with the emails thing is surely not that she may have inadvertently put classified material at risk but that she felt the need to bypass normal procedures in the first place, which suggested that she was trying to hide something or that she was seeking to bypass freedom of information requests in some fashion. That's still a concern which hasn't really gone away and still potentially says unflattering things about her character, but since the emails have now been read and don't appear to have revealed anything particularly sinister then we can only conclude that this is, if not exactly a storm in a teacup, not a major scandal. We can still hold to the view that she behaved arrogantly in a way that she shouldn't have done, but the idea that this is some kind of smoking gun that renders her the 'biggest crook to ever run for President', as DF put it, strikes me as being wide of the mark.

Frankly, I can think of any number of other reasons to think that Hillary Clinton is unsuitable to be President, all of which are far more serious than this one. I just don't get why any of you care so much about it.