bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Where's the email discussing Treadstone or Blackbriar, that's what I want to know...

Do you really want to know about everything, or are you just being biased and partisan?

I would love to see information about Treadstone and Blackbriar also.

My bad. Good one, Freeman. You got me.

bbauska wrote:

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Where's the email discussing Treadstone or Blackbriar, that's what I want to know...

Do you really want to know about everything, or are you just being biased and partisan?

I would love to see information about Treadstone and Blackbriar also.

My bad. Good one, Freeman. You got me.

Not me. Ludlum ftw!

bbauska

So let me get this straight...
If someone does something wrong, say robbing a bank; and the police do not stop the criminal act, it is the police who are in the wrong? Is the bank robber culpable at all? That is if the bank robber knows that robbing banks is an illegal act.
It makes it much worse if the bank robber is responsible to know that robbing banks is illegal due to his/her job position held

.

First, Hillary didn`t do anything wrong according to the law. She was allowed to have a private server.
So your painfully weak analogy falls apart immediately.
Second: In the rush to condemn Hillary, no one has asked why the law was written the way it was...when its application could result in a security problem.

Was it unreasonable to assume that having a private server would be as secure as a government server? Perhaps. But if this was so, then the law should have been changed. At the very least a government agency responsible for security should have intervened.

Ray

Now we are getting somewhere. Anyone have a chain saw that I can borrow.

Whats your point.

rickyp the national security expert wrote:
First, Hillary didn`t do anything wrong according to the law. She was allowed to have a private server.

So true! We should all have private servers!

Now, since you are the national security expert, was she allowed to have highly-classified material on her private server?

Second: In the rush to condemn Hillary, no one has asked why the law was written the way it was...when its application could result in a security problem.

Good question. Maybe they thought no one was stupid enough to risk jail time? What's your answer?

Was it unreasonable to assume that having a private server would be as secure as a government server? Perhaps. But if this was so, then the law should have been changed. At the very least a government agency responsible for security should have intervened.

Maybe a little Waco-style raid in Chappaqua? Is Janet Reno available? Yee-ha!

Since you have this all wired, why not just cite the relevant statutes and explain how Hillary never violated them. Thanks, Mr. National Security Expert!

18 USC1924 says having classified information in your possession without authorization is a crime.

Who authorized her possession of the classified information on the server? It would have to be someone above her in the "chain of command".

Who?

Ricky:

Ray

Now we are getting somewhere. Anyone have a chain saw that I can borrow.

Whats your point.

You are the champion of government who was writing about all sorts of government people who aren't doing their jobs. I was joking that we should cut government waste.

Fate

Good question. Maybe they thought no one was stupid enough to risk jail time? What's your answer?

It is the role of those in charge of security to think of all the possibilities and prevent them.
Remember

I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile

Condi said this even though something similar was in a very popular Jack Ryan novel published 3 years before the event.
You can't excuse a dumb ass security regimen which allows the use of vulnerable servers for personal use. You can't excuse the legal regimen which doesn't respond to technology fast enough to consider all security implications.
You can't excuse security agencies that didn't intervene with Clinton and disavow her of her contractors advice...
All of them are culpable in the potential security breech. (Potential because its also apparent there was no actual breech, since no one has any evidence that anyone actually unauthorized to see the classified information did... )

bbauska

18 USC1924 says having classified information in your possession without authorization is a crime

Actually it says

“Whoever, being an officer… of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

IF documents were sent to her her and unmarked...she didn't "knowingly"
If documents were sent and the information became classified after they were sent she didn't "knowingly".
If she never opened documents she would not know their contents..
The law is written the way it is because ALL the words are important Bbauska. (That they aren't all quoted on right wing blogs is because its inconvenient to the narrative...)

The law allowed her to have a private server. As long as she transferred government communications before 20 days. That also implies the use of a private server is "authorized". At least for 20 days. And considering the actual technology ...the time limit is moot. (Permanentley erasing all data is very difficult.)
She is also presumably "authorized" to receive documents that she has received. If not, then the person sending it to her is liable and not her.

The issue is ONLY the server.
Has anyone introduced legislation to change the law on personal use of servers? Or is the issue actually security or is it just smearing Clinton?
Until and unless someone shows that any of the documents were actually exposed, and that's something no one has claimed, the issue is nothing.
Its just innuendo built around a technicality based upon a stupid law, a lax security regimen, and poor advice on technology from a private contractor.

RayJay

You are the champion of government who was writing about all sorts of government people who aren't doing their jobs. I was joking that we should cut government waste.

Ah. Now I'm laughing.
Although actually I'm the champion of efficient and effective government.

This, Clinton server fiasco, is an example of an ineffective security operation ....
I think you'd be right to take a chain saw to much of the homeland security budget and much of the military budget. Start with whoever is really in charge of cyber security ...
I think you'd also be right to take a chain saw to the Congressional committee overseeing security since they maintained the law allowing private servers...

rickyp wrote:Fate

Good question. Maybe they thought no one was stupid enough to risk jail time? What's your answer?

It is the role of those in charge of security to think of all the possibilities and prevent them.

That is so funny! So, the security folks needed to "Hillary-proof" the system? In spite of the NDA she signed telling her it was her job to report violations of security?

Okay, what kind of system would prevent someone from leaving security material in a public place? Would that be the security team's fault or the person who did it?

Remember

I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile

Condi said this even though something similar was in a very popular Jack Ryan novel published 3 years before the event.

Worst comparison ever.

You can't excuse a dumb ass security regimen which allows the use of vulnerable servers for personal use. You can't excuse the legal regimen which doesn't respond to technology fast enough to consider all security implications.
You can't excuse security agencies that didn't intervene with Clinton and disavow her of her contractors advice...

So, the woman who would be President has no culpability? She is a victim of the incompetence of her underlings? I hope you're managing her campaign. She won't even carry Massachusetts.

Today we learn that seven additional emails on her server had info too high to release in any form.

“They do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets,” he said during an appearance on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom” earlier in the day.

Now, really, she's not responsible for knowing this kind of thing can't be on her private server? You're holding her to a lower standard than I had as an enlisted man in the Army. If I didn't report non-secured classified material, I would be disciplined. She was the Secretary of State! Most of what she does is classified. Come on man!

One can only imagine the damage she'll do from the Oval Office.

RickyP,
You are right. ALL words matter. The knowingly brings in some questions.

Why were classified materials not classified on her server?
Who removed classifications (if any)?
Who authorized her to have this server?
Who is responsible to classify information in the State Department?
Why is she not opening documents sent to her?
Where are the documents sent to the government within 20 days?
Why was the security violation of sending "unmarked" documents not reported?
Who sent the "unmarked" documents?

No, the issue is not only the server. It is her violations at worst, and inability to control secure information and even identify what should be secure or not at best. That is incompetence at the base level.

BTW, it was MY link of 18 USC. I did read it. Mrs. Clinton should have known what is classified.

bbauska wrote: Mrs. Clinton should have known what is classified.

That is part of the job. If she couldn't handle it as Secretary of State, why would anyone want her to be President?

Here is what Hillary Clinton says on the email issue on her campaign website.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing ... ail-facts/

freeman3 wrote:Here is what Hillary Clinton says on the email issue on her campaign website.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing ... ail-facts/

I could tear it all apart, but I'll just leave it at this:

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

That is NOT the standard! If she received unmarked email that was clearly classified because of the nature of the information, it doesn't matter if it's marked or not.

This is all carefully-worded nonsense.

Obviously, anything on her website is going to be self-serving but I thought it was informative and whatever one's views it is good to see what her own explanations are. I am still not exactly clear that she had a email address anywhere someone could send a classified email to her. Her website reverts to the third person in saying the State Department has a closed email system for classified material . She did not have a .gov email address but I presume that would have been for non- classified material anyway . On this classified system did she have an email address or would email have to be sent to her aides ? It would be nice to have the full picture.

freeman3 wrote:Obviously, anything on her website is going to be self-serving but I thought it was informative and whatever one's views it is good to see what her own explanations are. I am still not exactly clear that she had a email address anywhere someone could send a classified email to her. Her website reverts to the third person in saying the State Department has a closed email system for classified material . She did not have a .gov email address but I presume that would have been for non- classified material anyway . On this classified system did she have an email address or would email have to be sent to her aides ? It would be nice to have the full picture.

Exactly.

Self-serving. Would have been nice to get the whole picture.

I would love to have this issue go away. She handled the issue deceptively (IMO), and that has made things worse. If Mrs. Clinton had just used a government server/email, this would not even be an issue. If she would have turned over ALL emails immediately, and gave the server w/o it being cleaned (scrubbed), and if she wouldn't have used a flippant comment about washing the outside with a rag, there would be less uproar.

Do you think Mrs. Clinton has handled this well?