Clinton Surrendering Email Server/Data To Feds After Top Secret Mail Found 676
An anonymous reader writes: Hillary Clinton's lawyer has surrendered three thumb drives with copies of emails from her server to the Justice Department, which is also where the controversial Clinton personal email server is destined as well. The FBI determined that Clinton's lawyer could no longer retain the thumb drives after two emails from a small sample were found to contain information classified as "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information," which would also taint the server. There is no evidence that encryption was used to protect the emails. From the limited reviews to date, Secretary Clinton and her aides exchanged emails containing classified information with at least six people with private email addresses. So far four of Clinton's top aides have turned over emails to the State Department, and there are demands that six more do so. The State Department's inspector general has stated that his office is reviewing "the use of personal communications hardware and software by five secretaries of state and their immediate staffs." Current U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has stated, "it is very likely" that China and Russia are reading his emails.
What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The summary is very misleading. It intentionally leaves out a critical detail: none of these emails was classified at the time she sent/received it. These are documents that later were marked as top secret. That's why the FBI now wants to secure them: because they're now considered secret documents, and they need to make sure all copies are secure. But at the time she emailed them, all of them were unclassified.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Informative)
That's not what the Office of Inspector General spokesperson says [cnn.com]: the emails were "were classified when they were sent and are classified now."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Informative)
Before or after they were retro-actively declared classified.....
That's not how it works. You are expected/required to be able to recognize classified information that is not marked as such and mark it yourself.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Funny)
Repetition of DNC talking point noted.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Interesting)
The 'retroactively classified' was simply a pr lie Hillary's team has been pushing from the beginning.
2 IG's reviewed a small handful of her emails and found information that was always considered classified by various intelligence agencies. These latest emails supposedly contained the type of information that goes beyond general classification of 'top secret' to the point that only people officially 'read in' are allowed to view it.
Re: (Score:3)
Information itself is classified, but a consequence of that is that copies of the information are supposed to be labeled as such, so that people who aren't experts in why particular things are classified (almost everyone), can know how to properly handle it. It is not claimed that she generated or sent copies of marked classified information. She received copies of information that was NOT marked as classified, and in the opinion of later investigators should have been. This has nothing whatsoever to do wit
Re: (Score:3)
*Markings* do not make something classified; the content does. The markings are just to make it easier to handle the content appropriately. If you've never worked with classified information, then kindly either educate yourself or refrain from posting misinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
be mad at Obama instead. He likely disclosed a spectacular amount of classified information on the Bin Laden raid, both in terms of the actual raid specifics, seal team operation protocols, and CIA surveillance capabilities. Then he used presidential discretion to justify and declassify it.
My understanding is that as commander in chief he has the ability to decide when to declassify information he deems appropriate.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Informative)
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent.
False on the face of. Enough so that there's no explanation for you saying that other than you know you're deliberately lying.
The inspectors looked at a tiny sample of the mail she cherry-picked, and in just a few dozen, found material that was already graded "Top Secret," and would have been obviously such to anyone with any experience - let alone the person who is the nation's top appointed diplomat and the executive in charge of all of our foreign affairs, someone who is briefed daily on highly sensitive material. We're talking about emails with satellite imagery, etc. Your "retroactive" meme is the worst sort of BS because even you know it's not true, but you're repeating it anyway.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Funny)
that would effectively end her campaign.
You don't depose the queen just because a few peasant get hunted for sport.
She can (and will if necessary) run the U.S. from inside federal prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a particularly big fan of Obama, but he is definitely not the biggest user of executive orders:
The list*, as an average by number of executive orders per year:
1) Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - 290.6
2) Herbert Hoover (R) - 242
3) Woodrow Wilson (D) - 225.4
4) Warren G Harding (R) - 216.6
5) Calvin Coolidge (R) - 215.2
.
.
.
20) George W. Bush (R) - 36.4
20) Benjamin Harrison (R) - 35.8
21) Grover Cleveland (D) - 35
22) Barack Obama (D) - 33.6
(Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat... [fivethirtyeight.com])
*The numbers for Barack Obama
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Informative)
Well, SORT of true. He's been abusing Presidential Memorandums [usatoday.com] ...which carry basically the same weight, but allow him to say "I'm not using as many EO's as the previous guys have.".
Add the memos and the EO's together...and that changes the number a bit.
Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like you read "How to Lie with Statistics", since the sheer number of EO's means nothing compared with the contents.
When the next president has "only" 33 but they are packed with hated directives, I'm sure you will be similarly sanguine...
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiot. The emails were "unmarked." That means not stamped with a classification. More, they reached her on an unclassified network. Clinton had every reason to believe they contained no classified information. Indeed, the claim that they do contain classified information remains unsubstantiated.
WHY THE FUCK WAS SHE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS ON A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!
Re: What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Informative)
She didn't want to carry around a second device because it's just so inconvenient. Literally her excuse. Just pathetic.
Re: What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Insightful)
She didn't want to carry around a second device because it's just so inconvenient. Literally her excuse. Just pathetic.
If people would think about this for 2 seconds, she should be laughed out of the race. It is easier to set up your own exchange email server than set up two email addresses on their phone?? Really?
Re: What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
If carrying 2 phones to support national security is too much work, being president really isn't for you.
Re: What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when you have a team of assistants following you around carrying all your stuff for you anyway.
Re: What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Interesting)
The point of the Clinton server was to shield the Clintons from Freedom of Information Act requests. It was intentionally set up to prevent both the government and the people from ever prying into their communications. Her office had a duty to secure and store those communications for posterity for the National Archives, and she rebuffed it.
This was not an accident, nor something set up on a whim to make life more convenient. It was deliberate -- and her office was warned multiple times that it was not acceptable before and during its use. Hillary's own office sent out e-mails to her staff advising them not to use their own private e-mail WHILE she was using her own private e-mail against the advice of the State Dept.'s own security experts.
She's only now sending the server to the feds -- since it's verified she crossed a line with top secret info on it that's been sent unencrypted over the internet to others. I would not be surprised if that server has been scrubbed top to bottom with any incriminating evidence purged and over-written with excuses galore over why data is missing or not retained (and unrecoverable).
Still, slap her with a fine and send her on her way -- and make it an impeachable offense for future Secretaries of State to ever do this again. Worse case scenario, they charge her with intentionally divulging top secret info and give her a suspended sentence.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theguardian.com/glo... [theguardian.com]
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary isn't ignorant, she knows exactly what she is doing. Hillary is calculating, corrupt, and evil.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, indeed, the question. Basically, she ignored all the rules, because a Clinton is above the rules.
Seems that Teflon Bill has a better coat of Teflon than Hillary has. Some of that shit is finally beginning to stick to her.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Informative)
WHY THE FUCK WAS SHE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS ON A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!
Because state department servers are not secure. The Clinton family learned from experience that their political opponents have free access to dig through anything that's stored on official servers.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
This has got to be the most stupid fucking response I have ever seen regarding this whole email thing.
So she avoided official servers because they are subject to FOIA requests and Congressional Subpoenas. That's exactly what you dumb shits have been saying is NOT the case.
Re: (Score:3)
The Clinton family learned from experience that their political opponents have free access to dig through anything that's stored on official servers.
If she only did state business on state assets than her opponents would have nothing to find unless she was breaking the law. Being a public official is the one case where the "if you are not guilty than you have nothing to hide" argument actually holds at least regarding your official business.
The problems with Clinton are that it was not 1999 anymore. The security or lack of in inter domain email was well known even to lay people. People had been likening it to a post card for quite some time, e-mail i
Re: (Score:3)
Idiot. The emails were "unmarked." That means not stamped with a classification. More, they reached her on an unclassified network. Clinton had every reason to believe they contained no classified information. Indeed, the claim that they do contain classified information remains unsubstantiated.
WHY THE FUCK WAS SHE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS ON A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!
Yes, exactly, thank you. From a government records standpoint it is completely improper. Who had secured the server? Was it backed up? How was the backup secured? The State Department has protocols for this, however flawed they may be. But we don't know how Clinton was dealing with this server.
I also could have sworn that we were told that the emails on the server had been deleted, along with the backups, after she chose which emails to release. I guess that story is no longer operational...
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
This implies there is something there she is desparate to hide. If she is not hiding something, why all the lies?
Even if there is nothing there except highly classified material, then she has broken the law and lied about it repeatedly. Does that make her a qualified Presidential candidate, or a criminal?
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Insightful)
And still legions will support her because she promises to keep the Federal spigot on full.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not true. Legions will support her because she has a "D" after her name. Seriously, a hen could be running and get 30% of the vote if it had a "D" after it's name. Same is true for the republicans and an "R" after there name.
The problem is we are voting for PARTY above the PERSON. Biggest flipping mistake a human can make in selecting leaders.
Party loyalty is a huge problem ... (Score:3)
That's not true. Legions will support her because she has a "D" after her name. Seriously, a hen could be running and get 30% of the vote if it had a "D" after it's name. Same is true for the republicans and an "R" after there name. The problem is we are voting for PARTY above the PERSON. Biggest flipping mistake a human can make in selecting leaders.
Few people understand how bad party loyalty is.
... well to
If a person is loyal to a party then all parties consider that person irrelevant. Their party may ignore them because they already have their vote. Other parties may ignore them because they can not get their vote.
Party loyalty encourages political corruption. Contrary to popular belief the 99% are in control, it is still a one person one vote system. In such a system votes are the true currency of politics. The voters simply spend their votes
Re:Party loyalty is a huge problem ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The 99% are not in control. They simply get to choose between the options left after the 1% has chosen which candidates the 99% get to pick from. You cannot possibly believe that the 20 or so candidates for president are the best out of a pool of millions of Americans that could do the job. How did we get THESE candidates? Money. Only rich people or those backed by rich people can afford to run a presidential campaign. Recently, Rick Perry ran out of cash and his people are working for free while his SuperPAC takes over the advertising. I doubt he'll be in the race much longer as his funding has dried up.
When you have a 2 party system where both candidates are bought by special interests and 1%'ers, your choices are between a rock and a hard place. The Party is indeed what matters most -- because the funding for those candidates came from party supporters who have agendas to push for that party. I would vote for a chicken with a D on it before I'd vote for most Republicans in the race (Maybe Bush as the exception.. he seems more sane on immigration, gay rights, and healthcare than the rest).
If we had a sane voting system where a vote for one candidate was not the same as a vote against all other candidates, we might be able to support a multi-party system -- or even multiple candidates for the same party all the way up to the general election. Say, a Likert scale -- each candidate gets a vote from 1 to 10, we average out all the votes and the one that gets the highest score wins. 3rd parties wouldn't steal votes... and we'd have more room for moderates.
Re:Party loyalty is a huge problem ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Insightful)
But yet, the TEA party, which stands on the platform of shrinking the federal government is labeled as wackos by the media. It makes you wonder what they think will be the logical conclusion of a constantly growing federal government.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
She told those lies so that by the time the real story came out, her followers would already be deep in the belief that this is all a Republican conspiracy. There is also a large portion that will be bored by the story by the time the truth comes out and wonder why we haven't moved past this. Attention spans run quite brief nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Funny)
"Does that make her a qualified Presidential candidate, or a criminal?"
Is there a difference?
Re: (Score:3)
"I'ts perfectly excusable that she did this massively stupid thing, because the worst president in recent history also did the same stupid thing" isn't exactly a glowing vindication of her actions.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Informative)
It is ABSOLUTELY against federal records law for a civil servant to carry on federal business over a non-federal system. Just business, not classified business, or top secret business, ANY business.
All e-mails containing governmental decisions need to be maintained and controlled by the government entity responsible for them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true. There are multiple rules and regulations governing the use of E-mail. Some of those came into force after she left office, but others were in force throughout her tenure.
In addition, in her position, she was responsible for setting sensible policies for the department, and even if she had complied with all regulations, her use of a private E-mail server was a major policy screwup on her part.
maybe (Score:3)
are you saying that the Secretary of State, of the United States of America, could not be the source of any classified information?
i do not think you understand how classification works.
trust me, it's a real PITA. which is why i'll never deal with classified information again.
Re: (Score:3)
It is the responsibility of people in her position to recognize and appropriately classify information. That's part of her job and she evidently failed miserably.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Informative)
the correct term is duty which carries more weight than responsibility. You can shirk responsibility, but you better not shirk your duty.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Ignorance is not an excuse. FURTHER she was briefed by the FBI before taking office that it was her DUTY to make sure information remained secured. So, between the "I didn't know" and "it was her duty", she appears to have serious violations of laws, ethics and whatever else might apply.
I can't believe this is even debatable.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Funny)
I'll waste a little more bandwidth, and ask, name three things that Hillary has ever done. Just three accomplishments. You can't name three. You'll have to stretch hard to even try it.
- She made $100k in cattle futures from $1k seed money in a very short time. - She was anointed Senator - She was secretary of state and at least avoided selling out our allies to terrorist states.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Funny)
- She made $100k in cattle futures from $1k seed money in a very short time.
- She was anointed Senator
- She was secretary of state and at least avoided selling out our allies to terrorist states.
Why the fuck do you anoint your senators? Aren't they slippery enough already?
Re:What a cluster**** (Score:4, Informative)
Traitor politician Hillary Clinton brought TATA into Buffalo, NY, on the guise of "creating jobs for NYS." Sure, TATA has a FANTASTIC (sarcasm) track record when it comes to creating jobs in the U.S.! They almost exclusively employ Indian nationals on temporary worker visas OR they ship the work offshore to India.
http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI... [nriinternet.com]
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Funny)
Umm, lets see
1) Marry Bill
2) Destroy Monica Lewinsky
3) Misspell "reset"
Oh, wait, you mean three positive accomplishments...
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
If I don't have clearance, if I don't have any reasonable access to classified/secret documents, if I don't have any reason to suspect that the document I am in possession of is classified/secret, and if there is no reasonable suspicion that I have illegally attempted to obtain such documents, then there is little reason to go after me.
Clinton had clearance, access to classified/secret documents, and promoted the use of her personal server for storing those items instead of one that was provided for the purpose of handling secure information. Plus, there is suspicion that she did this in order to hide political information for a future run for office.
Big difference.
Re:What a clusterfuck (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike you or me, Sec of State has a DUTY (briefed by the FBI) to keep national secrets safe. Ignorance is not an excuse, and trying to invoke it here is pretty short sighted. But let me just give you a bit of advice, next time a (R) gets caught, and says "I didn't know", you need to go full on defensive for them. Otherwise, you're just a partisan hack.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: classification markings (Score:5, Informative)
Having served as a Security Manager in the United States Navy, I can with clarity and proper knowledge clearly state that when creating any document, the drafter of the document is responsible for taking appropriate steps to properly classify said document. There is no excuse for not knowing because to gain assess to classified information, you must acknowlede in writing after completing training that you are aware of the above. There is no excuse. Anyone else would already be in jail.
Re: classification markings (Score:5, Insightful)
She's not anyone else. She's Hillary. Laws are for little people.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how classification works. Stamp or no, if the information contained within is considered classified, the format that it exists in is classified. ...
Back in the 1980s (or maybe late 1970s), there was a really fun example of this that appeared in lots of news sources. It seems that the DoD got curious about what could be learned about the US military forces from publicly-available sources. So they gave a grant to a couple of college profs to run a study of the topic. They (or rather, their grad students ;-) dug through lots of local newspapers and other public info sources for mentions of the US military, and after some months, submitted their report
Re: (Score:3)
Well...to be fair. As far as the mis-handling of classified materials as far as storing them improperly, etc. They DID go pretty hard after Gen. Petraus (sp?) just a couple of years ago. He had physical documents in a desk...not on the intern
Re:Alternative to Clinton? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump's popularity is a mile wide and an inch deep - it's all name recognition. Once people start to hear some of the other candidates, you're going to see that lead erode, and fast.
Re:Alternative to Clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I would love to see Trump vs Sanders. And perhaps a good showing from a Libertarian Candidate to really screw up the Electoral College.
I call bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
That's bullshit too. Do you think a case officer's notes of a meeting with an agent aren't classified just because the case officer doesn't carry around a big red "CLASSIFIED" stamp? Information is classified based on the information and source, not the markings. Classified information not so marked isn't unclassified information, it's misidentified information and anyone with a security classification is trained to recognize and address that issue.
Re:I call bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think a case officer's notes of a meeting with an agent aren't classified just because the case officer doesn't carry around a big red "CLASSIFIED" stamp?
Actually yes. The case officer is responsible for classifying and labelling any document they write before it's distributed.
move along, nothing to see (Score:5, Funny)
What's a cyber? (Score:5, Funny)
I have a cyber? Where is my cyber? What does my cyber look like? How would I go about finding my cyber? Sounds like it could be fun. I wanna play with my cyber. But I have to protect my cyber so other people can't spy on my cyber. My cyber is private. Only my doctor can touch my cyber. No means no.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, what a cute little pink cyber! Just what I always wanted. My own little cyber. I will name it George, and I will hug it and pet it and squeeze it...and pat it and pet it...and rub it and caress it and...
I would expect to be arrested if I did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting as AC for some degree of anonymity. Knowing what a clearance like a TS/SCI entails, her responding to, and handling classified mails, in her private mail system shows either a complete ignorance of what she took an oath to protect, or complete disregard for her oath. Either is just so troubling.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting as AC for some degree of anonymity. Knowing what a clearance like a TS/SCI entails, her responding to, and handling classified mails, in her private mail system shows either a complete ignorance of what she took an oath to protect, or complete disregard for her oath. Either is just so troubling.
Her ignorance, lack of good judgement, and carelesness are ecxusable because it is not clear if laws were broken.
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, though, someone at that level of authority in the Government, and who has decades of experience of at least protocol (in the 90's, for instance, you knew perfectly well that you didn't bring your work home with you if it even had the potential to contain classified information because there wasn't a lot of e-mailing back then), should not be that careless or lack such good judgment.
If it were an intern that had little experience with aggregate classifications, sure.
The head of the State Department
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and ALL of them should have been prosecuted for this nonsense.
There "is" no classified material on her server. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even about the risky, lazy handling of her official government documents, or the years she waited before turning her cherry-picked selection (no official emails sent for two months while dealing with Libya, really?) from her collection over to State as she was required to - at the very latest - as she left her office. It's about how dumb she's trying to pretend everyone is, and how phony her attempt to dismiss this is - it's about as sincere as the on-demand phony southern accent (or her Urban Church-y dialect) she uses depending how how she assesses the audience she thinks she's talking to that moment. The condescension would be galling if it weren't so transparent and (you'd think!) embarrassing. But she's so impervious to embarrassment over hypocrisy or being caught lying that it really doesn't matter at this point - she's been working on not letting that bother her since before she started putting up with Bill's abuses in Arkansas.
I'm not sure what the DoJ thinks they're going to find on an Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind wiped server, though.Those drives are cleaner by now than the day they were manufactured.
I'm ready for Hillary... (Score:2)
I thought she said she destroyed it? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the IRS email thing all over again... "oh you can't have the email because I destroyed it"... *click* I will blow your fucking brains out if you don't hand it over... I am not fucking around. "Oh THAT email... why didn't you ask... it was right up my cunt... here you go."
Seriously... liar liar pants suit on fire.
Re:I thought she said she destroyed it? (Score:5, Informative)
You'll notice that they handed over flash drives with copies, not the original storage. Because the remapped sectors on the original storage probably contains the evidence the prosecutor is looking for.
But that's OK - Hillary is a bona fide member of the protected spook/bankster class; she need not fear consequences, only maintain the charade well enough for the narrative to continue.
Re:I thought she said she destroyed it? (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's OK - Hillary is a bona fide member of the protected spook/bankster class; she need not fear consequences, only maintain the charade well enough for the narrative to continue.
She doesn't even need to maintain the charade. She just has to stall long enough to employ the strategy that many politicians (including her husband) have used to great success in the past.
Step 1: Deny. "I didn't do it. I did nothing wrong."
Step 2: Stonewall. Delay. Wait.
Step 3: As evidence trickles out slowly, provide some kind of perfunctory defense. It doesn't have to be a strong defense, and actually shouldn't be a very good one. It should be just good enough that the people who want to support you can maintain their state of denial.
Step 4: When enough evidence, come clean, but underplay the importance. "Well yes, I did it, but so what? This is old news, and people have been after me for years about this stuff, and nobody cared. Sure, I said I didn't do it before, but all my lies and my attempts to defend myself were so stupid, you must have known I was lying, and you didn't care. If you didn't care then, why would you care now?"
Somehow we're all so stupid that we fall for this kind of thing all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] describes how storage devices can remap failing sectors, which cannot be erased by normal OS means but could possibly be recovered forensically. The OS cannot erase the contents as the drive firmware opaquely performs the mapping.
It MUST be in there! (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, it's all there. We'll see 'em all soon, for sure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Convenient (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if there was suspected classified information on anyone else's mail server, would the government wait for proof or seize the server, look through it, and then say "My bad!" and give it back to you.
This was all done to make sure she had time to clean that server up and make it presentable, so no Clintons end in jail.
I blame you people (Score:2)
Why has encrypted email not become an easy to use standard in all our mail programs and webmail services?
Because you web/email/network administrators have dropped the ball, that's why.
Re: (Score:3)
We apologize for the fault in the emails. Those responsible have been sacked.
Security Clearance Revocation (Score:5, Insightful)
Any normal person would have their security clearance revoked after a breech of much lesser magnitude, which interestingly makes you unable to perform a job that requires handling classified material, it's one of the few ways to actually get fired from a government job.
Just another facet of our societies aristocracy, they are above the rules. (note this has nothing to do with party, both side get far too many free passes)
Re:Security Clearance Revocation (Score:4, Interesting)
Any normal person would have their security clearance revoked after a breech of much lesser magnitude, which interestingly makes you unable to perform a job that requires handling classified material, it's one of the few ways to actually get fired from a government job.
This is an interesting dilemma. Suppose someone is elected by the people and their office requires the handling of classified material. Then suppose their background investigation reveals problems that, if they were an ordinary bureaucrat or contractor, they would not be issued a clearance. Or suppose they had previously mishandled classified information and had too many black marks on their record.
What can you do in that situation? The law and constitution outline specific circumstances where you can remove someone from office, and I don't think "not approved by clearance investigator" is one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
What can you do in that situation?
Not provide them information above the clearance for which they are qualified, leaving them to resign or be removed from office by one of the usual means?
For Unclassified is Fed IT diff from Corp IT? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Federal employee and I work in "Corporate America" and I know that if I told people to not use my bob@corporateemail.com but instead send it to bob@gmail.com or bob@myprivateserver.com, I would be terminated pretty fast. Regardless if the content I was reading was marked as public, classified or highly classified. Even when we have new employees who do not yet have a corp ID/email address yet and want to use their own laptop for the first week, we cannot send them email to their personal accounts.
How did she get away with this basic violation regardless if there are classified or non-classified emails.
How did she get people to send email to her personal server? Did she just set up her federal account to forward it to her automatically or did she start also telling people (lots of people), "Please send it to hillary@clintonemail.com?
Kerry's Email? (Score:3)
She's not alone. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news:
- Donald Trump has been sending all of his email to a server in Mexico because it's cheaper than handling it in the USA.
- Chris Christie is still using Hotmail, and last week he had the entire service shut down for four days to spite everyone who hasn't endorsed him in the primaries.
- Ted Cruz was using the email address "tcruz@bell.ca" up until 2014. He insists he had no way of knowing it was Canadian.
- Jeb Bush has technically never received an email in his life. He has an intern print each item in his inbox and read it out loud to him. Sometimes he asks for pictures to go with it.
- Carly Fiorina also had her email printed for her, but she removed all of the printers from her office in 2004 as a cost-cutting measure.
- Rand Paul supports the abolition of mail servers entirely, and believes that each individual email should make its own decision as to how it is going to be delivered.
- Rick Santorum last received email in 2003 when his last name started being blocked by profanity filters.
On Experts (Score:3)
Many of you chide conservatives for not listening to experts on climate change, yet you became an Instant Expert on email and secrecy law here. What gives?
Elephant in the room (Score:4, Interesting)
Everybody seems to be ignoring the most important questions:
1. What kind of server was it?
2. What OS?
3. Which MTA?
I mean, if she rescued some old Sun pizza box from the dumpster, installed Gentoo and a heavily patched Qmail, then she gets my vote for sure! If it was a Dell running Windows Server and Exchange ... well ... that bitch can go straight to hell.
Slashdot mods beware (Score:3)
Too stupid occupy positions of power (Score:3)
These are not serious people that take their jobs seriously. They're status seeking climbers that have long ago surpassed their competency.
Neither Hillary nor Kerry are sharp or serious enough to hold these jobs. They have no concept of the responsibility they're assuming or the fundamental adjustments in attitude they require.
A birthday clown does not have the same mentality as a general commanding an invasion into hostile territory. A guy flipping burgers does not have the same mentality as a guy preforming open heart surgery.
I'm not talking about education or experience but how seriously you're taking what you're doing. You have to understand that if you fuck up people die. That if you fuck up a war could start and it will be your fault even if no one ever fingers you with the blame.
Who here thinks Hillary was a competent head of state? Kerry? They're birthday clowns.
I feel comfortable with them doing something that isn't life or death. I think Hillary was fine in the US Senate for example... same with Kerry. I think the Senate is a great place for people like that if they have to be in government... you could die in that job and who would even notice? Your ability to do real harm in the Senate is limited by the other forces that will control that sort of behavior.
But as the head of the state department? what the fuck is Obama thinking putting these morons in charge of that? What is the game?
I don't know... I want to believe Obama is a mysterious genius but the more I see nonsense like this the more I think he's in over his head as well.
Could I do a better job? it sounds like the height of arrogance. But I wouldn't put career politicians with no real track record of competence besides loyalty to a political faction into positions of that much power. I'd pick people that lived and breathed foreign policy. Someone that perhaps was an expert in the region that was most problematic. I would be very happy to grab someone that was relatively low status but high intelligence/competence and just put them in that seat.
We have this ossifying political structure where only people that were previously powerful can be accepted to other powerful positions. That's the old kings and nobles system. Fuck that. Grab no bodies that are most competent and put them in the seat.
The only place I want to see these two idiots is with their faces painted making balloon animals.
Re: (Score:2)
And, conversely, one can try to spin this as a Democrat or Republican thing.
I think that's pointless bullshit.
I think we've entered an era where all politicians, and probably most corporations, are blatantly doing things to avoid oversight, ignore the rules, or pretend it didn't happen.
I'm pretty much of the opinion they're all crooked lying bastards, they're all gaming the system, and they're all actively doing stuff slightly off the books.
And they're all using national secrecy and presidential decrees and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it is every federal member's job to ensure the protection of classified information. That includes self-identifying if the information is classified or not and reporting it immediately. Secret level information can be sometimes confused with FOUO or even full out unclassified, but TS/SCI is awfully easy to spot (would the release of this information cause substantial damage to the United States).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mostly right.
It is an intrinsic part of any security clearance that you make every effort to ensure that documents are classified correctly before they leave your possession regardless of what if any classification they had when they were delivered to you. If a contractor with basic Secret clearance forwarded something to a gmail account that contained secret information but was unlabelled, they'd be stripped of clearance and prosecuted.
On top of that debate, last I checked, willfully refusing to comply wi
Re:Smoke meet fire (Score:4, Interesting)
Not its not her job. However the security of the Nation is and so she should still be aware when handling sensitive information. She should better than most be in a position to recognize when something that is unclassified perhaps ought to be and care about that. She could enough about operational security to care a second cell phone for personal/family matters if that is what it takes.
I don't really care what happens to Hillary in her personal life, if she gets fined/goes to jail/is given a president medal of freedom for her service, none of that matters to me!
I do care if she is elected president after she had demonstrated reckless behavior that many of us would have lost our jobs over. She isn't fit to serve and this is proof of that much. The standard of being suitable to lead the free world ought to be a little higher than "well technically she isn't a felon".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)