State Dept. Releases 5,500 Hillary Clinton Emails, 275 Retroactively Classified (nbcnews.com) 261
An anonymous reader sends this report from NBC News:
The State Department on Thursday released 5,500 more pages of Hillary Clinton's emails, but fell short of meeting a court-ordered target of making 82 percent of the former secretary of state's messages public by the end of 2015. The email dump is the latest release from the private server Clinton used during her time as America's top diplomat. The State Department said it failed to meet the court's goal because of "the large number of documents involved and the holiday schedule." Portions of 275 documents in the batch were upgraded to classified, though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email, according to the State Department. In total, 1,274 of her emails were retroactively classified by the government before their release.
State doing the CYA thing (Score:5, Insightful)
"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"
Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
These sort of things are too complicated for the public and press to understand, which is why the State Department and Clintons keep saying them. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be aware of, say, the rules behind classified information.
If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.
Yeah, for you. Too bad your last name isn't "Clinton", eh?
Re:WHY WAS SHE USING HER PERSONAL MAIL SERVER? (Score:5, Insightful)
On a side note, its really interesting when the oligarchic-controlled news media and political "pundits" crap their pants over they way Donald Trump has verbally thrashed her recently.
What they fail to understand is that Big Media and "pundits" crapping their pants over his statements only increases his popularity with people, who see through the years and decades of lies and BS.
If the oligarchic-controlled Big Media and all the "pundits" were such great guardians and watchers of our democracy, how the hell did it become this effed up and broken?
And now we're supposed to be concerned when they crap their pants because someone insults one of the foremost, lying hypocrites [youtu.be]?
*slow clap* (Score:3, Insightful)
What they fail to understand is that Big Media and "pundits" crapping their pants over his statements only increases his popularity with people, who see through the years and decades of lies and BS.
Hum. Look a bit closer. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is broadcasting said crapping of pants?
I really don't want to play the IRL version of Fallout 4. Hint: it won't be Trump that causes it. Why do you think Jeb! isn't polling so well despite being a well-reasoned man who might have some interesting debates with Sanders?
Clinton. That isn't the candidate you're looking for. Move along.
One more thing. Why... exactly why did Trump switch from being a Democrat, to independent, to Republican once the [B
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1) Avoiding sabotage by her frenemies elsewhere in the Obama administration.
2) Allowed certain toadies access to information which they otherwise couldn't access (due to it being illegal and all).
3) Allows her to evade FOIA requests, congressional investigations, and destroy evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.
When my father got his Top Secret Squirrel clearance, he was a Canadian citizen. Part of the deal was that he needed to become an American citizen. The spooks told him that this was necessary, because if he gave any secrets to the Ruskies, they wanted to be able to hang him. As a Canadian citizen, this would not be possible . . . but as an American citizen, they could.
He never told me his whole life what he worked on. Only after he died recently, my mother told me, that he helped create the DEW line .
Re: (Score:2)
Only after he died recently, my mother told me, that he helped create the DEW line . . . if anyone is old enough to know what that was.
Distant Early Warning, a line of radars above the arctic circle to look for Soviet bombers.
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.
I held a secret clearance for 20 years, as a military officer, and while working on defense contracts. The spooks would hold security sweeps about once a month, checking desk drawers, file cabinets, computer drives. The ALWAYS found violations, and the worst consequences were verbal reprimands and mandatory remedial training. No one was ever fired or demoted or paid a fine. Certainly no one went to federal prison.
Re: (Score:2)
No one was ever fired or demoted or paid a fine.
I have seen people fired for simple mistakes that did not result in disclosure. Perhaps where the spooks would hold security sweeps was an open secret container -- and therefore not as sever.
I voted for Hillary in 2008. I won't be voting for her again.
Re: (Score:2)
Were any of the violations you saw as serious as setting up a personal server for all email? (Thank you for adding some perspective to this regardless)
Re: (Score:2)
The ALWAYS found violations
How serious were these violations again? What again would have been a punishment for setting up your own private email server out of the office, bypassing a huge amount of security in the process, and funneling classified information to that server? Would it have been a reprimand or something a bit more serious like huge fines and serious prison time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the State Department gives you explicit permission to do as she did. Which they did. Until they didn't.
I'm sorry. You're either being a partisan shell or you don't understand the issue. No one can give you permission to hold classified information on an unclassified server.
Frankly, I think the problem runs deeper. How does an unsecured server end up on the same network as classified information?
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure some might even be prosecuted, but those rules are focused not on the person that screws up, particularly if that person is otherwise executing due diligence
Ah, there's the rub. She wasn't performing due diligence. As soon as you know that you have classified information on your unclassified system, you are required to immediately disconnect it from the network and contact the facility security officer. You are not supposed to make additional copies. You are not to give them to your uncleared lawyer. You are not to have uncleared personnel peruse it looking for personal information to delete.
I voted for Hillary in 2008. I won't be voting for her again.
Re: (Score:2)
So in this world of modern politics is negotiating a bribe, personal communications or public communications. After all there were a whole raft of donations to a particular politicians foundation from corrupt foreign governments who have actively supported Daesh, a mass terrorist movement, supported also in part by the US and Israeli governments. Secretary of State or Secretary of her own pocket book, because the cash really flowed, millions upon millions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
> Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.
> You are lying, clueless, or an idiot.
You are clearly projecting.
The entire 2 sentences he posted were succinct, accurate, and reasonable. You throw around generalities and vitrol as if you're making some kind of point beyond "I'm a frothing nutjob". How is this kind of mental vomit modded up?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[pro-Clinton ranting redacted] the official state department system had the exact same security classification level of her personal server, that is none.[shilling removed]
Well, that shows that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, now doesn't it?
"the official state department system"?
WHICH ONE, YOU FUCKING CLOWN?!?!?
Because State has more than one. And some of those are highly classified and connected to, say, CIA and NGA, the sources of several of the TOP SECRET emails found on Clinton's illegal basement server.
Whoever copied the email to the outside committed a felony.
And if Hillary! didn't recognize that intelligence data as TOP SECRET, she's not qualified t
Re: State doing the CYA thing (Score:5, Informative)
Tell us how Hillary! can see intelligence data from CIA or NGA, not recognize it as TOP SECRET (and more because it's probably SCI also) and still be qualified to be President.
There's no "probably" involved. Hillary sent at least two emails which were redacted as Talent Keyhole. Talent Keyhole is an SCI program involving a specific imaging satellite or set of imaging satellites. All Talent Keyhole images are SCI because we don't want the enemy to know the capabilities of the satellite. (On the other hand, the fact that "NGA has a super cool spy satellite named Talent Keyhole" isn't classified and shows up in the press. Just the images are classified.)
TLDR: The State Department has admitted that Hillary's server was used to send spy satellite images that are more classified than TOP SECRET.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is even more mundane than that.
ANY report on communication with a foreign agent, i.e. minister, diplomat, government worker, is considered classified. Not like Keyhole, but still classified.
So if anything like "The Canadian Ambassador expressed his concern about the Keystone pipeline..." is born classified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All through out your rants, pretty much all you say is, "Yes, Hillary is an idiot and did stupid things, but she's my idiot, so I don't care".
Re: (Score:3)
So... Yellow Dog Democrat?
In case you are unfamiliar with the term:
Yellow Dog Democrats was a political term applied to voters in the Southern United States who voted solely for candidates who represented the Democratic Party. The term originated in the late 19th century. These voters would allegedly "vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican".
Not derogatory, unless you consider having a closed mind politically to be derogatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. However, if the information in those messages wasn't classified when it was sent or when she read them, she wasn't breaking any laws by leaving them on her server. And, to be fair, she wouldn't have had any reason to clear them off the server unless she learned later that somebody had decided that the information should be classified. I'm no fan of hers, and can't imagine any circumstances that would make me want to vote for her but I'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if the information in those messages wasn't classified when it was sent or when she read them, she wasn't breaking any laws by leaving them on her server. And, to be fair, she wouldn't have had any reason to clear them off the server unless she learned later that somebody had decided that the information should be classified. I'm no fan of hers, and can't imagine any circumstances that would make me want to vote for her but I'm not going to blame her for this. If you want a scapegoat, look at whoever sent those emails and didn't bother to let her know about the change in status.
Of course she was breaking the laws. Who do you think classifies information? She was not some Joe off the street she was the Secretary of State. She was in a position to know how to classify information and she should have known better AND she should have classified them herself. So 1,274 retroactively classified emails tells me 1,274 times the country was put at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do YOU think classifies information?
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think classifies information?
Usually some asshole who did something to embarrass himself and doesn't want anyone to know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
So 1,274 retroactively classified emails tells me 1,274 times the country was put at risk.
Have you ever had a clearance? 99% of classified material is stuff that was in the newspapers two weeks earlier or other silly nonsense. I remember getting a document once a week that was an English translation done by the CIA of a Ukrainian newspaper. Despite being openly published information, it was always classified "secret". The only reason that I can see, was to make the translator feel like he was doing something important.
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:5, Informative)
I posted this link elsewhere but:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... [whitehouse.gov]
The whole thing is interesting and relevent, but in particular:
"(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable."
Rarely or not, she should have had annual training, and to dodge this is to say that a person who reaches that level of government has no responsibility to uphold the more "mundane" things of their job.
A person who dodges this responsibility is not fit to lead others who are held to the same responsibility (the entire Executive branch)
Re: (Score:2)
but it's rather rare for somebody at her level to do so; either you trust your subordinates' judgment or you replace them because you've got too much to do every day to have time for that kind of micromanagement.
Well, since her subordinates were apparently untrustworthy (because they kept emailing classified information through her private server that she used for graft) and she didn't replace them, perhaps Hillary Clinton's managerial skills are suspect. It might not be the wisest choice to put her in charge of people if shes's a bad judge of her subordinates' abilities to prevent themselves from committing felonies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That is irrelevant. Each individual who has access to classified information is not allowed to make such decisions without going through the process of declassifying the information.
It appears that you believe a crime that doesn't actually harm anyone should not be prosecuted. If someone that dislikes you shoots at you every time you leave your home to go to work or the market, as long as they miss (and t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Had the messages been contained on a secure server, subsequent classification could occur while the entire cache of message was still contained. Residing on a hard drive makes the that a bit difficult.
Classifying something retroactively seems a bit odd though. If they were on her personal server, not the "official" one, then the messages were already "out in the wild" with no chain of custody. Then again, a previously non-classified message could have been printed and distributed to someone who wouldn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes indeed. My best guess is that whoever went through that email looking for classified stuff ran across things that should have been classified all along and did the retroactive classification bit to keep them from getting out.
info is classified at creation. Marked on discover (Score:2)
The headline is misleading. Obviously, reading a document aloud or taking a picture of it doesn't make the information no longer classified. Why? Because it's the INFORMATION that's classified, not the document in it is in. The document may be MARKED "contains classified information ", but it's the information that's secret.
Most (but not all) classified information is classified based on its source. For example, all photos from spy satellites are classified, so the classification is decided before a part
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:4, Informative)
You do not understand how classified etc works. It's not about the markings it's about the content. If you can legitimately mark it as classified later it always was classified and she was instructed how to understand this. The corner case is something that seems entirely unrelated to anything and then turns out to be part of a state secret, as in you need other knowledge to know that this is classified. All the markings do it make it entirely unambiguous.
It realy does not matter if they were or were not classified, 2009 Federal Records Act requires all emails that are part of official business be preserved by the federal government. The Classified not classified bit is political spin to keep the discussion on that not the much broader law she violated.
Re: (Score:3)
I beg to differ. Back when I was in the USN, I had a Secret clearance, and if it's been pulled, I've never been notified. (It certainly should have been by now, as I got out in early '73.) I never had access to the type of classified information we're talking about here, but I do know that for most people, if a document isn't marked as Classified, the default assumption is that it isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
You do not understand how classified etc works. It's not about the markings it's about the content.
I beg to differ. Back when I was in the USN, I had a Secret clearance, and if it's been pulled, I've never been notified. (It certainly should have been by now, as I got out in early '73.) I never had access to the type of classified information we're talking about here, but I do know that for most people, if a document isn't marked as Classified, the default assumption is that it isn't.
If you had a Secret clearance back then, it was changed to "inactive" when you left the service. There's almost certainly a piece of paper that you signed when you got out. It's possible to reinstate that clearance within 24 months, but after that time lapses without an active clearance, you have to be re-cleared.
Most people may believe that part about "if it wasn't marked, it's not classified," but it's a false assumption, and when they gave you the initial briefings for that clearance way back when, they
Re: (Score:2)
Good. I may have known that back then, but I recycled those neurons decades ago. And, some of that Secret material was automatically declassified after (I think.) seven years, meaning long enough for everybody who knew it to have forgotten the details.
More to the point, a lot of the information in the Clinton emails was initially classified and marked as such - but someone took the markings off when they s
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about the early 70's but in the mid 90's when I no longer had a need for clearance I no longer had it and had to sign a bunch of paperwork to that effect.
That clown would be her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What if Trump is her opponent?
Then I think the Libertarians and the Greens will get a lot of votes.
Re: (Score:3)
Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
So was the content classified when the emails were originally sent, or was the content later re-categorized as classified? By "content" I mean the information conveyed by the text, not the specific text itself.
I have not idea what the answer is, but I believe it is the question that should be asked and reported on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a good question. But it's irrelevant, in that we've already seen examples of email she kept on her server that DID have born-classified payloads at the time she received it. Never mind that she let her personally employed foundation subordinates sift through it later, or that she put copies of it on thumb drives for her not-cleared lawyer to also keep in his own offices. Truly, any other person would be out of a job and looking for an easy-going thing to confess to, months or years ago.
Technically, she is out of a job, but that doesn't matter when foreign governments and rich people give you millions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly, any other person would be out of a job and looking for an easy-going thing to confess to, months or years ago.
Except, maybe, Colin Powell, but, well, you know... that's different
If Powell had classified information on his private e-mail server, he too should be prosecuted.
Were you hoping for if they break they law, I get to break the law?
Re: (Score:2)
*whaddya gonna do?*
In the primary, vote for Sanders. In the general, who knows. I voted for Hillary in 2008. I won't vote for her again.
Re: (Score:2)
If you save the kiddie porn for your personal use, Yes you should go to prison too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what was asked.
What was asked was ignorant deflection.
Re: (Score:2)
Over and over and over again, we see she was receiving documents on her personal email. How is that breaking the law?
Once you receive classified information on an unclassified system, you have minimal amount of time to respond. Your response is to immediately contact the facility security officer. Failure to do so is a crime punishable by large fines and prison -- just as if you sent the e-mail to an unclassified server.
With security, as soon as you know something is amiss, if you immediately reported it to your facility security officer, there are minimal repercussions. Just like Watergate, the real issue is the cover
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
Unless the item has been, you know, de-classified.
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:4, Insightful)
"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"
My company's policy on email is crystal clear: Company business is done on company systems. It doesn't matter if I am just ordering pencils . . . everything work related has to be able to audit. Same for government stuff . . . if Hilary claims she didn't know that, she lies like a rug. She purposely used a private server, so no one could ever really see what hanky panky she was really up to.
If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.
I would be nailed by my scrotum on the wall. And a Roman soldier would come by to rub vinegar on my lips and poke me in the ribs with a spear.
However, as in the words of the Pledge to the Flag: "One Nation, under God, with Freedom and Justice for the rich . . .
Re: (Score:2)
However, as in the words of the Pledge to the Flag: "One Nation, under God, with Freedom and Justice for the rich . . .
However, as in the words of the Pledge to the Flag: "One Nation, under God, with Freedom and Mercy for the rich . . .
Fixed it for you. Justice would be great. I'm all for justice for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
After my company switched to Microsoft Office 365 I had to use an outside email server to access my email because Office365 was so broken. IMAP didn't work at all. 99% of the time I got authentication failures due to problems on their end both for sending and receiving email. This problem lasted for almost a year. I ended up setting up Office365 to forward my email because otherwise I just couldn't access it at all. Eventually my work set me up with a Google account in addition to the Office 365 one.
Office3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
But there were no classified markings to strip originally.
The whole retroactive classification thing is tricky and can lead to some major problems. People with clearances are prohibited from accessing classified information. Technically, even if they pick up the New York Times and read some of Edward Snowden's data dump, they can be violating rules. Even though the presence of that information is already in a public forum and its presence isn't their doing. Now, retroactively classify something and expect
Re: (Score:2)
"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"
Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
The article says that the classification was upgraded later, not that it was stripped from the version she received in her email? Your comments regarding classification and markings are interesting but are they really relevant in this case? Maybe I'm missing something but if the information was not classified, and was subsequently released into a public domain, then the information is retroactively upgraded... it's too late, all originator controls are gone? How could someone be held accountable for some
Re: (Score:2)
True.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. The whole issue revolves around incompetent IT management in government that enabled Mrs.Clinton's setup in the first place. While her competence can also be clearly called into question it's certain that she's not alone getting outed in the casual treatment of this type of information - Petreus comes to mind - and that her position, rather than her person, is what provides the most immunity.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone gets it. Also, as an Original Classification Authority (In fact, the first Department head mentioned in the Executive Order that defines who OCAs are (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority) ), she should have had specific training and a very good understanding of this stuff. ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... [whitehouse.gov] )
Fron the second link:
"((d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the av
Re: (Score:2)
"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"
Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
These sort of things are too complicated for the public and press to understand, which is why the State Department and Clintons keep saying them. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be aware of, say, the rules behind classified information.
If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.
There are over 50 million documents classified every year. And who classifies documents? Unelected bureaucrats with absolutely zero accountability.
I would say most classification doesn't depend on markings or content. It depends on horseshit.
If cablegate and Wikileaks have taught us anything, it's that there is too goddamn much being kept secret for absolutely no good reason. Classified documents are the government's way of pr
Re: (Score:2)
Not if it wasn't classified at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people who violated handling requirements were (and are) top-level aides to Hillary Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Until someone scrubs the hard drive.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like with a towel or something?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
General Patraeus knowingly gave top secret information away. Secretary Clinton unknowingly received it on her unclassified email system. If you can't understand the difference, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unknowingly receiving is one thing. Not doing anything to correct the problem (as the Secretary of State should be MORE than well-versed in what constitutes classified information) is the thing that's really irking people.
Re: (Score:3)
Clinton knowingly had classified information on a server that was not secured. If you can't understand that, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.
As SecState, she should be highly aware of what was classified and what wasn't...markings notwithstanding.
Just because you don't understand the rules doesn't make what she did OK.
Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton knowingly had classified information on a server that was not secured. If you can't understand that, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.
Clinton's private email server was set up to receive mail from the State Department's UNCLASSIFIED email system. That State Department network was: 1) Not encrypted, 2) Had been hacked multiple times (including during the 1990s when Bush was in office), and 3) Not supposed to have classified information on it in any way.
There actually is a scandal here, but it's not the one morons like you think it is. The scandal is how so much classified information was being put onto the unclassified State Department servers in the first place, long before it got copied to clintonemail.com, and the lax attitude that many State Department employees had in regards to handling such classified information.
So in short, if you want to bash Secretary Clinton for failing to recognize that the Department of State had a serious cultural attitude problem in properly handling classified information, and failing to fix it by directing her staff to find the people who were putting classified information onto the unclassified State Department server system - well, be my guest. That's a fair critique. (Though one, Secretary Powell would also have to cop to, and he was a general, so my assumption is that he should have been more aware of this than Clinton.)
If, on the other hand, you want to act like some sort of typical hyperpartisan loon and try to accuse her of some sort of crime, by making up complete bullshit about the system or her private server, well then I can't exactly stop you - I can only laugh at your idiocy, as common as it is. I understand that we're fully into silly season by now, with basically half the country acting sounding like the Cobert Report's Steven Colbert, except actually being serious about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not accusing her of a crime. I'm accusing her of either incompetence or horrible judgement, given her position as one of the few Original Classification Authorities in the executive branch ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... [whitehouse.gov] SecState is the first Department mentioned. ). She should have known better. Maybe she did know better, but chose not to do better - that'd be worse.
Further, she was expected (one could even say "ordered by the President") to take Classification Training annually: https://www.white [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be fine if someone else had set up the unclassified email system, and she happened to use it because she didn't know better. That would make her the innocent victim you're trying to cast her as.
But she directed the (illegal) unclassified email system to be made. She was in charge of making sure that even though it was skirting the law, it would be set up in such a way that at least the spirit of the law was fulfill
Re: (Score:2)
Did Clinton unknowingly had a private server? If that could be proved, then someone can claim that all emails are received unknowingly, dear Clinton philes.
For most people, but not all, this is a clear cut question. For those who think it is debatable, there is one way to classify: their love for Clinton is to large to have a clear thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
She was trained to identify classified information by it's very nature - like, as the most glaring example, satellite recon photos - which were among the "unclassified" emails she kept on her server. Satellite recon photos are *always* Top Secret, not only is the image in the photos secre
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She get any emails from that Ben Gozzi guy?!
She got 600 emails that last night from "Ben Gozzi"; she never replied to them.
Trump to the rescue! (Score:5, Funny)
He's there to scare people into voting for her anyway. *Think of the alternative!* is working out to be a neat trick.
Re:Trump to the rescue! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we should make the election like an SAT multiple choice test. There should be an choice "none of the above" . . . no Clinton, no Trump.
This could toss back both mainstream political parties to come up with some better, more palatable candidates. Hell, maybe even a fringe party might get a chance to squeeze someone reasonable in . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should make the election like an SAT multiple choice test. There should be an choice "none of the above" . . . no Clinton, no Trump.
They would just take advantage of that to make Obama a king that never gets moved out of office.
Re: (Score:2)
He's there to scare people into voting for her anyway. *Think of the alternative!* is working out to be a neat trick.
Trump is running the most successful false-flag operation in the history of American politics.
Re:Trump to the rescue! (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump is running the most successful false-flag operation in the history of American politics.
He's also running one of the most successful campaigns this season.
I just read an article [huffingtonpost.com] where the polls show that Bernie would have a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.
The Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate, and the Democrats don't want Bernie.
We could very easily have an election where no one wants *either* candidate!
This is turning out to be a most hilarious election season.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who cares what you think? No one does really. You should be more concerned with your vanishing cultures.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. We should crack out the bratwurst instead of the popcorn.
But seriously, the last elections were already awesome. Like some super hero confrontation. 2008, the magical negro against the mummy. Then 2012 another round of the colorful saviour, this time against the religious nut.
Well, to be honest, 2012 was a bit of a letdown. We hoped that the nut wins and turn the US into a religious madhouse. Kinda like a Bizarro-Iran. To watch Obama win another term was kinda sad 'cause we knew it would be boring. He
Re: (Score:2)
Elections have been for the longest time not choosing the better candidate but the lesser evil.
But why does the lesser evil have to be so huge?
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't see a lesser evil this time. They're both equally horrible and unfit as leaders. Seriously. Put Donald Duck in command, it can't be worse.
Make government public. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think all new politicians should be issued a body camera the day they swear in, and the camera also functions as an RSA-token like authentication mechanism for email, access to state offices, official phone use, etc. No camera, no access for official dealings. Additionally, the camera has no power switch.
This way everything they do is "on the record", and the camera is downloaded daily to some webserver for the citizenry to access.
Ops team "converted" secure emails to insecure (Score:3)
The real problem, which gets far too little discussion, is that Hillary Clinton seems to have set up a system where state department employees (from the "ops" team) would read classified emails on the secure email system, and then type up a summary and send the summary to her personal (non-secure) email system.
http://www.nationalreview.com/classified-rules-hillarys-disregard-for-them [nationalreview.com]
Naturally, when ops "converted" the emails, they didn't copy over any classification markings, allowing Hillary Clinton to truthfully say she never received any emails marked as classified.
It is partisan spin to use the word "retroactively" to describe these emails being newly marked with classification markings. If the information in the emails was classified, the emails were classified all along; it doesn't matter whether the emails were marked as classified or not... and Hillary Clinton, who is not dumb and is a lawyer, knows this.
This process of "converting" emails from secure to insecure is go-to-prison stuff. It's truly amazing that Hillary Clinton thought she could get away with doing this.
Unless the information in this article is fabricated or otherwise untrue, she is going to be in very big trouble:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/will-hillary-clinton-s-emails-burn-the-white-house.html [thedailybeast.com]
Link Broken (Score:2)
Talk about a lame troll. The domain expired long ago.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Please, be serious. Do you really think anyone has to take your gun away to oppress you? Do you really think that gun you have keeps you "free"?
Aww. That's adorably cute. He thinks his boom-boom stick means jack shit against the biggest army on the planet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple years ago a rancher, Cliven Bundy, had a dispute with the Feds. A lot of "supporters" showed up armed and the feds backed down when it looked like they would have to start shooting civilians to get their way. I hadn't seen any evidence Cliven was in the right, but the rules the feds were using seemed unethical.
So, yea, that boom-boom stick can mean something to the feds. I suspect that kind of thing will happen more if they keep doing crap to the "little people" with boom-boom sticks.
Re:What about the IRS bitch? Anyone get her emails (Score:4, Interesting)
The DoJ has done a lot of "deciding it wouldn't be worth their time" to prosecute Obama cronies though. One of Hillary's top aides, Huma Abdelin, got caught claiming to be at the office (for pay purposes) while she was on vacation and other types of leave, to the tune of a few hundred thousand. Plenty of VA corruption (whistleblower retaliation and bonus fraud) also went unpunished. (Keep in mind, the relevant Inspectors General recommended that the DoJ pursue jail time in the cases on my list.)
Re: (Score:2)
Punishment is only for us nobodies (Score:2)
Washington insiders slyly wink at each other.
If you, or I, tried to have a server wiped, after it was subpoenaed, we would be charged with obstructing justice.
Hillary will easily walk away, just as she has from multiple other scams.