Hilarys emails

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, considering I’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh...so it wasn't that hillary was careless or stupid..it was the system(protocols).....that's so weak

Lester Holt and Lincoln Chaffee are/were(republicans)...she wasn't prosecuted because she is hillary...anyone else would have been prosecuted...which protocol is that derived from?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh...so it wasn't that hillary was careless or stupid..it was the system(protocols).....that's so weak

Lester Holt and Lincoln Chaffee are/were(republicans)...she wasn't prosecuted because she is hillary...anyone else would have been prosecuted...which protocol is that derived from?

For what crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, considering IGreenwal’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

I didn't "intend" to deal with the notion. I said that I would like to see it--which was inspired by your "not sure what he's thinking" comment re Greenwald's article. He knows more about the subject than you do.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He cited two cases where there was no evidence of intent to distribute the info, and there was a case afterwards of the young submarine sailor who was prosecuted for taking photos of his ship even though there was no evidence that he intended to harm the U.S.

In all cases, there was the mishandling of classified information. Intent to distribute or harm was not necessary for prosecution. Those would be the motivation for mishandling. The negligent mishandling was the common thread. And it was all that was necessary for conviction.

Clinton dangerously mishandled classified information. Her motivation or intent were irrelevant. She put the U.S. in far greater danger than the two Naval officers that Greenwald cited, and than the young submarine sailor. And who were all convicted for their inappropriate handling of information and who had no "intent" to distribute it in any way that would harm the country.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

He cited two cases where there was no evidence of intent to distribute the info, and there was a case afterwards of the young submarine sailor who was prosecuted for taking photos of his ship even though there was no evidence that he intended to harm the U.S.

In all cases, there was the mishandling of classified information. Intent to distribute or harm was not necessary for prosecution. Those would be the motivation for mishandling. The negligent mishandling was the common thread. And it was all that was necessary for conviction.

Clinton dangerously mishandled classified information. Her motivation or intent were irrelevant. She put the U.S. in far greater danger than the two Naval officers that Greenwald cited, and than the young submarine sailor. And who were all convicted for their inappropriate handling of information and who had no "intent" to distribute it in any way that would harm the country.

In those cases you have people with access for intentionally stealing sensitive information under suspicious circumstances and in the case of the submariner obstructing justice. Again very different from some info bleeding into a non Gov system. As the FBI said they couldn’t find a single example of anyone being charged for similar.

Maybe Greenwald is just a hater?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

To hell with Hillary - she's done anyway. She'll never be eligible to get any kind of position that requires a security clearance so her gov career is over. Out to pasture for her and Bill.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

For what crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not safeguarding classified information.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In those cases you have people with access for intentionally stealing sensitive information under suspicious circumstances and in the case of the submariner obstructing justice. Again very different from some info bleeding into a non Gov system. As the FBI said they couldn’t find a single example of anyone being charged for similar.

Maybe Greenwald is just a hater?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was no evidence in those cases of intent to harm the US.

Hillary's use of a private unsecured server was a very suspicious circumstance, very unnecessary, very against regulations. Having her subpoenaed emails destroyed was very suspicious and an obstruction of justice. Claiming that there was no classified info in any of those emails and that they were all personal in nature suspiciously resembled an attempt to cover up her negligence.

Since when did it become required that an infraction only counted if there was a previous one that was similar. Either it was a violation or it wasn't. The similarity to others, if needed, was the negligent mishandling of classified information. And her unnecessary and willful negligence put classified information more easily available in cyberspace which no less put the US in danger than those other cases.

As for hating, there is a lot of that going on now in government, in the media, on this forum, in society in general. I don't see Greenwald hating any more than what is now becoming the norm. He seems to hate hypocrisy, such as Hillary's. As a Progressive, he seems, by a lot of his other articles, to hate a lot of the things you do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Not safeguarding classified information.

Did she even know any classified information was on her server? I'm not sure she did...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hillary's use of a private unsecured server was a very suspicious circumstance, very unnecessary, very against regulations. Having her subpoenaed emails destroyed was very suspicious and an obstruction of justice. Claiming that there was no classified info in any of those emails and that they were all personal in nature suspiciously resembled an attempt to cover up her negligence.

I still don't see how if her use of a private server was for any nefarious means why would she EVER communicate with other government workers on government servers? If she was trying to be secretive she didn't do a good job of it.

As for the deleted emails, that was shown in the investigation to be an oops on the part of IT, had nothing to do with obstruction.

Since when did it become required that an infraction only counted if there was a previous one that was similar. Either it was a violation or it wasn't. The similarity to others, if needed, was the negligent mishandling of classified information. And her unnecessary and willful negligence put classified information more easily available in cyberspace which no less put the US in danger than those other cases.

The government handles cases of improper handling of sensitive information all the time. Clinton dealt with classified information all the time, using secure systems. What they say was classified on her server is mostly a bunch of fluff...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Did she even know any classified information was on her server? I'm not sure she did...

If she didn’t, then she’s a moron.....or she’s a liar so which is it?

As Sec State you don’t get to “Play Dumb” with classified material.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If she didn’t, then she’s a moron.....or she’s a liar so which is it?

As Sec State you don’t get to “Play Dumb” with classified material.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So when someone emails you a NYT article about a drone strike you’re supposed to know another department gathered the same info through a sensitive channel? How many emails are in your account you’ve even read through fully?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

So when someone emails you a NYT article about a drone strike you’re supposed to know another department gathered the same info through a sensitive channel? How many emails are in your account you’ve even read through fully?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have every email ever sent to me for the past 9 years.

Not a single one contains any classified material....because my email is on an unclass system. It actually takes some added effort to put classified info onto an unclass system, which anybody who works with classified systems knows. It just doesn’t “bleed” over like you like to think happens.

There ARE no excuses for negligence. I hope nobody trusts you with classified systems, because you obviously don’t take it seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Hmmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I have every email ever sent to me for the past 9 years.

That's because you're an IT g33k. Probably have hundreds of DAT tapes with faded markings down cellar.

Not a single one contains any classified material....because my email is on an unclass system. It actually takes some added effort to put classified info onto an unclass system, which anybody who works with classified systems knows. It just doesn’t “bleed” over like you like to think happens.

Of the emails in question the vast majority were classified retroactively. The most sensitive info was about drone strikes that had already been talked about in the NYTimes but was considered SAP by another group.

Your archives could be loaded with classified information if you could find a working drive to read the tapes

[spence]

Can someone delete this thread and bad Jim from talking about Clinton's emails again...I see his OP went viral in the mainstream media

[wdmso]

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I just cannot state strongly enough how totally dishonest much of the Media is. Truth doesn’t matter to them, they only have their hatred & agenda. This includes fake books, which come out about me all the time, always anonymous sources, and are pure fiction. Enemy of the People!

7:11 AM - Aug 30, 2018
126K
84.8K people are talking about this


and some here are still worried about her e mails while the POTUS is attacking any department or persons all while promoting false narratives and make believe enemies... all to build an argument So that HE Trump can shut those critics down . while the GOP looks the other way

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Of the emails in question the vast majority were classified retroactively. The most sensitive info was about drone strikes that had already been talked about in the NYTimes but was considered SAP by another group.

Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

And should someone's opinion on the degree of sensitivity of info reduce the culpability of one who has failed to protect it.

And things being "talked about" in the NY Times is not an impressive or convincing reference.

You spoke a lot of weasel words in your little paragraph.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

Are you saying that Hillary's server was just as secure as the government's servers? Why would she even apologize for using hers if that were so? If she had used State's servers, no investigation of her would have been needed.

And you dodged my question.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Did she even know any classified information was on her server? I'm not sure she did...

First of all, I bet she did - she just did not care. This kind of traffic does not BELONG on unclass systems.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I have every email ever sent to me for the past 9 years.

Not a single one contains any classified material....because my email is on an unclass system. It actually takes some added effort to put classified info onto an unclass system, which anybody who works with classified systems knows. It just doesn’t “bleed” over like you like to think happens.

There ARE no excuses for negligence. I hope nobody trusts you with classified systems, because you obviously don’t take it seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^

Originally Posted by spence

Can someone delete this thread and bad Jim from talking about Clinton's emails again...I see his OP went viral in the mainstream media

Nope

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

Yep - this is reason #2 why NO EFFING BODY runs their own server. Some stupid people *might* use Gmail or something online (which is less susceptible to compromise than Hillary's Server).

Reason #1 is it EFFING ILLEGAL.

Originally Posted by detbuch

And things being "talked about" in the NY Times is not an impressive or convincing reference.

There are new revelations of wiping Yoga and Wedding plans ? Like with a cloth?

Originally Posted by spence

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

Process:
Rice used a State.gov email account. Condi did not have her email on Hillary's server.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you saying that Hillary's server was just as secure as the government's servers? Why would she even apologize for using hers if that were so? If she had used State's servers, no investigation of her would have been needed.

And you dodged my question.

I meant secure as in a classified system. My understanding is that State has operated primarily on regular gov email up until recently.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I meant secure as in a classified system. My understanding is that State has operated primarily on regular gov email up until recently.

Does anyone know what he is trying to say here?

And you dodged my question again (you do that a lot).
But that's OK, JohnR answered it very well. Retroactive classification is a reason to use a secure server, not a reason to excuse transmitting it before it is classified.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Does anyone know what he is trying to say here?

probably something like "The increase in the price of the gigawatt units to run the Flux capacitors is driving up the costs of the manufacturing of widgets"

...or even he doesnt even know what he's saying

I'd go with option B

[scottw]

"My understanding is".........

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I meant secure as in a classified system. My understanding is that State has operated primarily on regular gov email up until recently.

State did not let me come in and expect their systems back then, BUT, they would have had (at minimum) standards for securing systems and experience in running less secure systems securely. They likely have had duplicate secure messaging running on a secure network for classified information that is heavily regulated. Yes, running these extra measures makes it more of a pain in the ass but it is done for a reason.

It can also be recalled, determined where stuff was sent (in event of gaining a classification status), archived, meet Guv retention standards, and yes, even be determined what different IT systems it can talk to or receive info from.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Does anyone know what he is trying to say here?

And you dodged my question again (you do that a lot).
But that's OK, JohnR answered it very well. Retroactive classification is a reason to use a secure server, not a reason to excuse transmitting it before it is classified.

He is trying to cover for his girl, as usual ; )

I was reiterating a lot of what Kevin said

[PaulS]

Bump just to give people the same people a chance to criticize Trump. LOL

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Bump just to give people the same people a chance to criticize Trump. LOL

Trump broke the rules and should
be held accountable and should never run for office again.

fair enough?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trump broke the rules and should
be held accountable and should never run for office again.

fair enough?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's it? How many posts and threads did you make about Hillary but that is it for Trump even though what he did appears to be far worse?

And let's see all the people who commented if they come back and comment on Trump?

Bruce, TDF, John, SD, DZ, Scott.

It is Hillarius.

[The Dad Fisherman]

If he illegally moved classified material, he should be held accountable under the full extent of the law, up to and including prison time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]