Question for you: Did the issue in the UK result in changes to government policies and actions?

Yes. Did it matter when Bush "lied"? Apparently it mattered back then.

Sassenach wrote:I must admit I'm finding this whole 'Hillary's emails' thing to be increasingly tedious. I have a genuine question for the people involved in this thread - does this actually matter ? I agree that Hillary is a flawed candidate with a great many faults who in an ideal world you wouldn't want to see as the President, but when it comes right down to it is what she did here actually such an egregious act as to warrant a thread that runs to over 50 pages already with no end in sight ? What it indicates to me is poor judgement and a certain degree of arrogance in the assumption that the rules don't apply to somebody as important as herself. At worst it might suggest a desire to cover up her actions from scrutiny, but since the emails in question have now been read and nothing seems to have come out of it that's probably a slightly paranoid interpretation. So we're left with poor judgement and arrogance, a description that could apply to almost anybody in public life if we're honest. I genuinely don't get it. We had a similar 'scandal' in the UK when a senior government minister was discovered to have been communicating through personal email and it was a storm in a teacup story that blew over in a matter of days. Yes, what he did was against the rules and wrong, just like what Hillary did, but nobody was terribly bothered and it certainly didn't dominate the airwaves for months upon end.

First, the fact that others have violated a law does not make other violations hunky-dory. Even these instances would be actionable, as rare as they obviously were for Powell and for Rice’s senior aides. This excuse sounds much like what parents of teenagers here when catching their progeny in some level of rule-breaking. Everybody does it!

More specifically, NBC’s report contains a critical distinction, emphasis mine:

None of the messages were marked classified when originally sent, and none were determined to include information from the intelligence community, Linick said in the document.

The Secretary of State has significant authority to declassify information that originates within the State Department. The office does not have plenary authority, as some communications — such as those relating to foreign diplomatic exchanges — are classified by presidential executive order. However, even that information over which SecStates have that authority has to be specifically declassified, not just propagated in the open under the assumption that its status has changed.

Secretaries of State and their aides have no authority to change classification on information originating in other agencies, however. Executive orders stretching back at least to the Bill Clinton administration make that clear, as well as the formal process available to challenge classifications. Unless the originating agency declassifies the material or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office and/or White House does so over the originating agency’s objections, the information stays classified. And anyone accessing it is bound by federal statute to handle it in the proper manner, or face criminal penalties for unauthorized retention and exposure. And the information in Hillary’s case was classified by intelligence agencies, not the State Department

Let’s compare the situations of the three Secretaries of State. All three served four years; Powell and Rice to a lesser extent served at a time when State’s e-mail systems were in flux. Yet the IG can only find two instances of spillage involving Powell’s private e-mail account, and none involving Rice (all ten involved her aides). Hillary didn’t bother getting an official State Department account, but instead hid her communications from Congress and the courts for more than five years to thwart legitimate, constitutional oversight on State. The system she owned and kept at her house was used to retain and transmit classified information on more than one thousand, three hundred occasions. And most importantly, the information that got exposed in this system was intelligence data derived from other agencies, some of which was classified at the highest levels and put sources, methods, and agents at risk.

This story is nothing more than an attempt to misdirect Americans from the egregiously corrupt and likely criminal activities of Hillary Clinton in her efforts to cover up her activities at State.

rickyp wrote:Republicans are convinced they have to bring Hillary down with scandal. Or do whatever they can to damage her elect ability.

Thats why they has 13 useless hearing on BenGhazi...

Because she is a strong candidate that can defeat anything on offer from the Republicans.

And despite the constant smearing, she's still in that position.

The email issue, is an issue because there is no perspective possible in the over heated American media and political environment. It comes from having elections constantly instead of every 4 years or so. From having a constant state of campaign rather than 5 weeks and time for governance.

They have succeeded in damaging her image as she now has to deal with a question of honesty.

And in part she's at fault herself for how she's handled things.

But in the end if the election is fought on actual issues, and policies, and the ability to communicate them.... she's likely to over come anything on offer.

freeman3 wrote:I'm sorry Sass...but I see several issues with your "claim" that we spend too much time on Hillary: (1) without Obama and Hillary to complain about what exactly would DF do?,

Sassenach wrote:DF, my point is that what Powell and Rice did isn't all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things either. Yes, any breach of the rules is significant and ought not to happen, but ultimately it's just a minor infringement. There's nothing to suggest that any of these SoS or their staff deliberately set out to endanger state secrets.

what I find amazing is that she knew she would be under the public microscope, and she probably was itching to run again in 2016 all along. What's her thinking process to blatantly disregard these requirements? She has said that there is a right wing conspiracy for more than 20 years now. Why doesn't she take precautions against it? It's both dishonesty and bad judgment

Actually, if I thought the electorate were sane, I would relish her as the Democratic nominee

freeman3 wrote:Well, I think we have think about why she got a private server and why Colin Powell used his private email account. It's almost certainly due to the FOIA. Hillary assumed that Conservative groups would gain access to any email on a state department account--with her private server she got to determine what was private and what was business related. She deleted what 30,000 emails? She could not have deleted any of the state department emails. So she gained control over information. I am sure she was concerned about conservatives poring through her emails for any impropriety without having any control over the process.

So her main concern was over that issue and I just don't think she thought about the need to carefully scrutinize all of her emails that she received to make sure there was no information that conceivably be considered as classified (even though not marked as such). A lot of times a person can get overly concerned about one thing and another thing bites them.

rickyp wrote:She took the advice of one consultant...

If the security of computers was a prime concern of Homeland Security, or the Secret Service, she would never have been allowed o make this mistake. Because security would have trumped her personal choice.

Fate

Actually, if I thought the electorate were sane, I would relish her as the Democratic nominee

So you think everyone else is crazy...
Sure.

What's the consultant's name? What did she ask him? What is his authority?

Please demonstrate that Homeland Security or the Secret Service have authority over the Secretary of State.

To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization of the United States government, responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes – a discipline known as signals intelligence (SIGINT). NSA is concurrently charged with protection of U.S. government communications and information systems against penetration and network warfare.[

Please demonstrate that she obeyed the NDA she signed

I don't know about you but when i have a problem, the first person I talk to when i have a problem who knows more than I is an expert. Even if he isn't. I think she's done much the same thing.
Its like that Seth Rogen quote when asked what happened to a file of porn. "I don't know. Its in the Cloud. No one understands the Cloud!"
She took the advice of one consultan

rickyp wrote:fate

What's the consultant's name? What did she ask him? What is his authority?

Bryan Pagliano. She asked him stuff about computers.,..
He has no authority, but the law allowed her to use a private server, so he needed none. And no one in a government agency responsible for security exercised authority over him...so?
I don't think that makes sense, do you?

Pagliano — who worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, then followed her to the State Department — has refused to discuss Clinton's email arrangement or his role in it, invoking his right against self-incrimination before the House Benghazi Committee earlier this fall.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/h ... z3zJOLiF4l

Fate

Please demonstrate that Homeland Security or the Secret Service have authority over the Secretary of State.

To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.

So, would documents be included in "property"?

Or maybe its the NSA

The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization of the United States government, responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes – a discipline known as signals intelligence (SIGINT). NSA is concurrently charged with protection of U.S. government communications and information systems against penetration and network warfare.[

I'll go with the NSA....
Don't you think they have both the expertise and authority? Or do you think a private contractor named Bryan Pagliano shouldn't have had to listen to them either?

Fate

Please demonstrate that she obeyed the NDA she signed

I think it is incumbent to prove she didn't... And that hasn't happened.
Whats been disclosed that wasn't approved for disclosure? To whom?

As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.