rickyp wrote:Fate
Are you disputing she used an unauthorized server?
What is an "authorized server". WHo (and please be specific) is supposed to "authorize a server?
ALL of her business email was supposed to be conducted on a government email address. If she had done that, we would not be having this discussion.
Fate
Nope, that's not evidence--and it's dated in December.
Storing SAP-level data on a non-secured server--is that legal?
The date isn't important... The law was the law.
The date is important because we didn't know the level of information on her server. SAP is above Top Secret.
Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office
Okay, except it doesn't allow classified material to be sent/received/stored. She is required to know this and to know what is/is not permissible. That was her job.
Fate
They asked; she refused. She has said it was for her "convenience."
If they perceived an actual security issue, they should have insisted.
From your link:
During Clinton's news conference last month, she was asked if she was aware of the security implications of using her own email. Clinton answered this way:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."
What's remarkable about that answer is that she wasn't asked in the preceding question specifically about classified emails, but offered that answer anyway. There's a reason for that. It would be illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server.
The day after Clinton's news conference, the New York Times reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely" that Clinton didn't email at least something classified.
"A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that although it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton's staff identified as involving government business.
" 'I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,' said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. 'Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine.' "
The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law.
We now know at least 22 of them had highly-classified info. Several of them could not be redacted enough to be released in ANY form!
Homeland Security is incompetent. That's really the issue for anyone concerned about institutional security.
No, Hillary is incompetent. She was/is far more concerned with her convenience and her ability to dodge FOIA than she is with national security.
A politician shouldn't be expected to know what the state of the art is in Internet Security. That's for a Homeland Security department who, from everything I've read, should be able to trump any politicians "convenience".
How does someone substantially below the Secretary of State force her to do what she doesn't want to do?
Read it and weep:Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have operated in violation of what the White House said Tuesday was “very specific guidance” that members of the Obama administration use government e-mail accounts to carry out official business.
Clinton did not have a government account at the State Department but instead used her personal e-mail account. That was permissible only if all e-mails relating to government business were turned over and archived by the State Department, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said at his daily briefing.
“Very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees in the Obama administration should use their official e-mail accounts when they’re conducting official government business,” Earnest said. “However, when there are situations where personal e-mail accounts are used, it is important for those records to be preserved, consistent with the Federal Records Act.”
Earnest said the administration would have to rely on Clinton’s assurances that she met the fallback requirement of sending along the pertinent e-mails to be archived.
In Clinton’s case, that happened only after the State Department requested records from her and other former secretaries last fall, around the time the records law was updated.
Fate
Some information, like negotiations with foreign nations, is classified by default--even if it's not stamped. It would subsequently be marked. As Secretary of State, she is supposed to KNOW what is/is not top secret and above. She has an obligation to report anything that is not marked but should be
Yes. But apparently Homeland Security had no issues with the use of private server to secure these kinds of messages. Or they would have insisted that she use a government server. No one did.
Do you have a source for this, or is it your opinion?
Fate
They do this. She declined
I get that.
Why was she allowed to decline?Politicians shouldn't be allowed to risk security if the Homeland Department thinks there is genuine risk. Either they didn't assess the risk at the time, or they failed in their duty.
Wow. Your logic is . . . illogical. She violated rules. To you that means some underling should have ratted her out. Sure,. because losing his/her job would be so worth it!
01 Feb 2016, 11:50 pm 
