Will the Hillary Email Scandal Blow Over?

[NobleSavage]

Diane Rehm was talking about it today. https://thedianerehmshow.org/

 

[dismal]

Diane Rehm was talking about it today. https://thedianerehmshow.org/

Well, I've been suspicious she's a Republican ever since she told Bernie Sanders he's on her secret list of jews.

 

[maxparrish]

While Mrs. Clinton continues to rely on closed loop lies (endless repeats of known falsehoods), developments elsewhere in the Obamaland continue to confirm that aside from the FBI, the lackey nomenklatura will fight knowledge of their misdoings tooth and nail. Even Judge Sullivan (a Clinton appointee) seems to be getting fed up with government obstructionism.

So a hearing has been scheduled at the request of Judicial Watch, because the State Department told the judge that they were not required to check Clinton’s private server for government records created by the former secretary and her top aides such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. “The Department does not believe that a reasonable search for records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request requires a search of former Secretary Clinton’s server,”,

Meaning that just because their former Secretary of State absconded with 100 percent of the State Departments federal records of her communications, why they should actually search for them where they were known to reside?

LOL...you can't make this stuff up.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...il-scandal-judge-foia-lawsuits-judicial-watch

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Do YOU actually know where your local mail server is? Who runs it, what it looks like? I sure as hell don't. I doubt Hillary Clinton does either; I doubt it's something that even crossed her mind as a thing that a human being would ever need to know about.

I've got 3. One for work, one Gmail, and my private one. Yes, I know where the private one is and I run it myself.

Hillary said it was done for "convenience". There is nothing convenient about it. You do it for 100% control or because you are a geek. Connivance would have been a much better word.

And I don't believe for an instant that Hillary Clinton actually knows how to do that, nor do I believe she would have bothered to do it herself if she had known. It's a lot more likely she asked one of her tech staffers to come up with a solution, described what she wanted to be able to do, and the staffer set up a server for her with the necessary features, at which point she said "Ah, thanks, that's perfect. Take the rest of the day off."

 

[NobleSavage]

I've got 3. One for work, one Gmail, and my private one. Yes, I know where the private one is and I run it myself.

Hillary said it was done for "convenience". There is nothing convenient about it. You do it for 100% control or because you are a geek. Connivance would have been a much better word.

And I don't believe for an instant that Hillary Clinton actually knows how to do that, nor do I believe she would have bothered to do it herself if she had known. It's a lot more likely she asked one of her tech staffers to come up with a solution, described what she wanted to be able to do, and the staffer set up a server for her with the necessary features, at which point she said "Ah, thanks, that's perfect. Take the rest of the day off."

I said somewhere above that she didn't hire The Three Stooges. If she talked to a tech at the State Department I have a feeling they would explain what could be done with the government system. I'm guessing she talked to her political people to figure out the best way to keep her stuff secret first and convenient second.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And I don't believe for an instant that Hillary Clinton actually knows how to do that, nor do I believe she would have bothered to do it herself if she had known. It's a lot more likely she asked one of her tech staffers to come up with a solution, described what she wanted to be able to do, and the staffer set up a server for her with the necessary features, at which point she said "Ah, thanks, that's perfect. Take the rest of the day off."

I said somewhere above that she didn't hire The Three Stooges. If she talked to a tech at the State Department I have a feeling they would explain what could be done with the government system. I'm guessing she talked to her political people to figure out the best way to keep her stuff secret first and convenient second.

That's my assumption too. It's just that I don't think Hillary was personally aware of how the system was set up for her and wouldn't have bothered to find out.

I realize, though, that this is because I've been working in IT for so long that my assumptions about how upper management deals with information technology may be biased. But my experience has been that "top level" people ask their technicians for solutions and generally go out of their way to avoid hearing an explanation as to what that solution actually is.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I just read the two emails FOXNews holds up as breaching security. They did not originate from Hillary and do not contain anything that could be considered controversial.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I just read the two emails FOXNews holds up as breaching security. They did not originate from Hillary and do not contain anything that could be considered controversial.

You say that like it counts as a reason that we shouldn't strip Clinton of her US citizenship and burn her alive in the name of freedom.

 

[NobleSavage]

I just read the two emails FOXNews holds up as breaching security. They did not originate from Hillary and do not contain anything that could be considered controversial.

Link please?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just read the two emails FOXNews holds up as breaching security. They did not originate from Hillary and do not contain anything that could be considered controversial.

You can't always tell what is classified.

Totally mundane details can be very highly classified because of how they were obtained.

Suppose you have a fact: Putin likes pancakes for breakfast. (I'm not saying he does, this is just a scenario.) Classified? Certainly TS/SCI. The fact that he likes them is of no importance, the fact that we know it shows we have an agent in a position to note what he eats for breakfast and that's something very important.

 

[RavenSky]

No one should criticize Hillary for breaking laws because republicans have done bad things too!

Partisan logic FTW.

I am still curious as to what law she broke?

 

[RavenSky]

I just read the two emails FOXNews holds up as breaching security. They did not originate from Hillary and do not contain anything that could be considered controversial.

You can't always tell what is classified.

Totally mundane details can be very highly classified because of how they were obtained.

Suppose you have a fact: Putin likes pancakes for breakfast. (I'm not saying he does, this is just a scenario.) Classified? Certainly TS/SCI. The fact that he likes them is of no importance, the fact that we know it shows we have an agent in a position to note what he eats for breakfast and that's something very important.

And then there is the fact that stuff gets deemed "classified" after the fact. So on top of the fact that no one has yet come up with any sort of email from Hillary Clinton supposedly spilling state secrets, there is also a complete lack of evidence for anyone emailing TO her with material that was classified at the time it was sent. Moreover, there is still no evidence that ANY of the emails are classified now.

 

[laughing dog]

You can't always tell what is classified.

Totally mundane details can be very highly classified because of how they were obtained.

Suppose you have a fact: Putin likes pancakes for breakfast. (I'm not saying he does, this is just a scenario.) Classified? Certainly TS/SCI. The fact that he likes them is of no importance, the fact that we know it shows we have an agent in a position to note what he eats for breakfast and that's something very important.

And then there is the fact that stuff gets deemed "classified" after the fact. So on top of the fact that no one has yet come up with any sort of email from Hillary Clinton supposedly spilling state secrets, there is also a complete lack of evidence for anyone emailing TO her with material that was classified at the time it was sent. Moreover, there is still no evidence that ANY of the emails are classified now.

Would you please stop dragging in reality to the discussion? The partisan witch hunt is driven by assumptions and "scenarios" (maxparrish's posts contain representative samples) not facts at this point. Given the amount of resources and ballyho devoted to this crusade by partisans, any substantive faux pas or wrongdoing (assuming there is any) that comes out will be tainted by the overt public partisanship by this process. Which would be a shame.

Personally, I am more interested in the potential conflict of interests from massive donations to the Clinton foundations and decisions taken by the State department than this seemingly minor transgression.

 

[dismal]

I just read the two emails FOXNews holds up as breaching security. They did not originate from Hillary and do not contain anything that could be considered controversial.

You can't always tell what is classified.

I do enjoy the "she's too stupid or ignorant to know what is and isn't classified so let's make her President" argument.

It does however once again raise the question: if it's hard to tell what's classified, why not just use the government servers?

- - - Updated - - -

You can't always tell what is classified.

Totally mundane details can be very highly classified because of how they were obtained.

Suppose you have a fact: Putin likes pancakes for breakfast. (I'm not saying he does, this is just a scenario.) Classified? Certainly TS/SCI. The fact that he likes them is of no importance, the fact that we know it shows we have an agent in a position to note what he eats for breakfast and that's something very important.

And then there is the fact that stuff gets deemed "classified" after the fact. So on top of the fact that no one has yet come up with any sort of email from Hillary Clinton supposedly spilling state secrets, there is also a complete lack of evidence for anyone emailing TO her with material that was classified at the time it was sent. Moreover, there is still no evidence that ANY of the emails are classified now.

Hmm, that's quite a challenge you bring up. Sounds like the answer is to use the government servers.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Diane Rehm was talking about it today. https://thedianerehmshow.org/

I want to listen, but listening to Diane Rehm is like listening to a human being slowly feeding into a wood chipper.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't always tell what is classified.

I do enjoy the "she's too stupid or ignorant to know what is and isn't classified so let's make her President" argument.

You =====>
<==== the point.

You're setting an impossible burden. Often what causes classification is the means of obtaining the data. Without either knowing the means or seeing the classification rating on the material it's likely impossible to identify such stuff.

It does however once again raise the question: if it's hard to tell what's classified, why not just use the government servers?

I have heard bad things about the government e-mail, especially in times past. Want a 500mb mailbox? You have to save everything, you don't have the space to save everything, that's your problem to fix. (Which is why you see a lot of lost e-mail. Faced with the impossible people copy the stuff to their local drive and they aren't IT guys--inadequate or nonexistent backups.)

 

[dismal]

I do enjoy the "she's too stupid or ignorant to know what is and isn't classified so let's make her President" argument.

You =====>
<==== the point.

You're setting an impossible burden. Often what causes classification is the means of obtaining the data. Without either knowing the means or seeing the classification rating on the material it's likely impossible to identify such stuff.

But it seems reasonable to assume that the Secretary of State would receive some classified material, right?

So it would careless and irresponsible to operate a system not taking that into account?

 

[maxparrish]

No one should criticize Hillary for breaking laws because republicans have done bad things too!

Partisan logic FTW.

I am still curious as to what law she broke?

Perhaps you could point out what part of 44 US Code Section 3101, §1236.20, §1236.22, and 18 U.S. Code § 2071 (Concealment, removal, or mutilation) that confuses you? Recall that these laws have been quoted and explained in more than one thread.

Moreover, it is now increasingly likely other laws in the handling of classified material have been violated by either Clinton and/or her top aide, Huma.

By retaining classified and sensitive material on a home server (similar to those convicted for doing so in a desk drawer or on home computer) is also a violation of federal law.

And finally, as has been pointed out, the controversy is over far more than her violation of law; it is over her exceptionally disreputable conduct (repeated lying, smearing, obstruction, and arrogance that the rules do not apply her).

Both as an agency head and as an employee she ignored the law and did so for the purposes of concealment. No way to spin that away. Add in the mishandling of classified material, it is then likely that a sentence of at least a year in prison and an ankle bracelet after release is warranted.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wouldn't the question of whether or not what she did is against the law be based on the definition of the word "is"?

 

[Nexus]

No one should criticize Hillary for breaking laws because republicans have done bad things too!

Partisan logic FTW.

That strawman died a long time ago in this thread. People aren't defending Clinton, just asking why all of a sudden security / email security seems so important.

Its not a strawman you've been deflecting for her the entire thread. The only correct response is to say if she broke the law she needs to be accountable. And if her predecessors also broke the law they need to be held accountable too but that's a separate topic. Some people aren't as affected by the capital D or R next to a politician's name as you.