२४ जुलै, २०१५
"Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account."
That's the NYT headline, which Politico notes got changed from the original "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
If each email is a violation, I wonder how many life sentences that adds up to under the federal sentencing guidelines.
Which do you think will happen first:
An investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email account
or
The people who conducted an undercover sting on Planned Parenthood?
Gahrie said...
Which do you think will happen first:
An investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email account
or
The people who conducted an undercover sting on Planned Parenthood?
7/24/15, 12:51 PM
Oh, oh, oh, I know! Pick me, I know!
As we discussed in this forum when the private email server imbroglio was first made public, Clinton's abuse of Fed. security protocols was truly egregious.
The Inspectors General could not return any other recommendation & still look at themselves in the mirror.
Prevarication
This is a bombshell. It's not a congressional investigation so it can't be pushed off as a partisan witch hunt. And they take a long time so it's likely to still be going on when the primaries start.
If each email is a violation, I wonder how many life sentences that adds up to under the federal sentencing guidelines.
If Patreus' unauthorized release of classified material is any indicator, it all adds up to no jail time.
This is a bombshell.
Not really. The emails apparently had some classified information but it was not identified as such (which of course is the responsibility of the sender not to send over unsecured email). The government has an entirely separate computer system for classified information. Emails should never be transferred from one to the other. If she did, that would be a serious breach. But so far I don't think anyone has claimed that.
The New York Times changed its headline because it is inaccurate. The IG did not ask for a criminal probe.
"The New York Times changed its headline because it is inaccurate."
No. They changed it because they were pressured by the Clinton campaign to change it. This change in wording has already been reported by other news organizations. It may well have been an "inaccurate" headline but that wasn't why it was changed.
As we discussed in this forum when the private email server imbroglio was first made public, Clinton's abuse of Fed. security protocols was truly egregious.
You really don't have the vaguest idea about how the government handles classified information, do you?
They changed it because they were pressured by the Clinton campaign to change it.
And you expect the Clinton campaign to let the NY Times slide when it publishes a incorrect headline?
Rick said...
This is a bombshell. It's not a congressional investigation so it can't be pushed off as a partisan witch hunt. And they take a long time so it's likely to still be going on when the primaries start.
Have you considered that this approach gives a pass to State, the WH and to a certain extent Clinton? All DoJ needs to do is slow roll this.
all the parties except Congress don't want any discovery or leaks. Now all three can say: "We don't comment when there is an ongoing criminal Investigation. Any release of info to Congress would jeopardize the DoJ investigation."
The government has an entirely separate computer system for classified information. Emails should never be transferred from one to the other. If she did, that would be a serious breach. But so far I don't think anyone has claimed that.
Hillary didn't use the government computer system. She set up a router and used a private email address. For everything.
Freder Frederson said...
Not really. The emails apparently had some classified information but it was not identified as such (which of course is the responsibility of the sender not to send over unsecured email)
I think this misses the mark. Plenty of information is not known to be classified at the time of creation, but is only determined to be so later. Once it is determined to be classified, IT can then search the email archives and have any such information removed and/or transferred to a secure system. By setting up her own email server, Hillary Clinton made this impossible. Thus, she bears responsibility for improperly storing classified information if it was determined to be classified after she received it.
Freder: Is info categorized as officially Classified the only info we should worry about protecting? Do you think the Sec State deals with confidential/important info that's not officially Classified that should nevertheless be kept out of the hands of, you know, everyone else?
I get that people are conflating confidential and classified, but I don't think it's true that only officially-classified info has to be protected (either in a positive sense or in the sense of what federal law requires).
"The emails apparently had some classified information but it was not identified as such (which of course is the responsibility of the sender not to send over unsecured email)"
-- Actually, it is on the sender AND receiver to ensure there is no spillage. It is why you can't look at Wikileaks on a government computer, for example. If Clinton received an email that was labeled or that she believed should have been classified, it was on her to contact people to clean up the leak.
But, she didn't care about the government's secrets.
Which is the real problem with this, isn't it?
She wants us to trust her with the top job, but she has shown that, in lower jobs, she couldn't handle the responsibilities we asked of her. We asked her to keep her documents in one manner, but she acted as though she were thinking, "I'm smarter than them. I don't need to follow the rules. They'll probably never find out, anyway, if I break them."
I'm not sure WHAT her thought process was that lead to disrespecting the citizenry by trying to hide her government files from us. But, that's not what anyone should want in a president.
Hillary didn't use the government computer system. She set up a router and used a private email address. For everything.
You don't know this and you are almost certainly incorrect. She would have had (at least) two computer systems. One for general business and one for classified correspondence. As far as I know, there is no allegation that she was using her private router for classified correspondence.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
I think this misses the mark. Plenty of information is not known to be classified at the time of creation, but is only determined to be so later. Once it is determined to be classified, IT can then search the email archives and have any such information removed and/or transferred to a secure system. By setting up her own email server, Hillary Clinton made this impossible. Thus, she bears responsibility for improperly storing classified information if it was determined to be classified after she received it.
(S) Material that has been marked as classified has markings at the paragraph level...I seriously doubt that anybody was stupid enough to take marked sections off the classified email server and transcribe them into an email on the unclass side and just pull the markings. So perhaps they have the paper trail of aides doing that or trying that by transcribing some edited version without markings.
More to the point. almost everything substantive that the Sec State would say in emails about a diplomatic topic would normally under State security guidelines be marked classified. In this case, she sent them without the origination markings.
Freder, why are you making excuses for a politician?
Freder Frederson said...
The New York Times changed its headline because it is inaccurate. The IG did not ask for a criminal probe.
According to Politico, the change was from:
Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.
to:
Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.
The change had nothing to do with whether or not a criminal probe was requested. It had to do with avoiding clearly identifying whose actions were being investigated.
"You don't know this and you are almost certainly incorrect. She would have had (at least) two computer systems. One for general business and one for classified correspondence."
-- I don't understand why she gets the benefit of the doubt when she is actively obscuring the truth. In any other setting but a Democrat protecting themselves politically, we are normally allowed to assume the worst.
You don't know this and you are almost certainly incorrect. She would have had (at least) two computer systems. One for general business and one for classified correspondence.
She may have cabled classified information, but her email was her private account through her private server. That's how classified information (later determined to be classified) ended up being sent to/from her private account.
I'm reading TalkLeft, and Big Tent Dem is calling anyone who thinks her private email might have been a bad idea is getting called (by him) out for giving the Trey Gowdy perspective.
As if this was all just dandy!
Freder, why are you making excuses for a politician?
I am not making excuses for anyone. (For the record I think Clinton using a private server and email account was foolish and wrong).
"The IG did not ask for a criminal probe."
Says the expert on Hillary and her e-mail server.
I think this is a way for Obama to keep her on the reservation re: Iran. If she looks like she is moving toward attacking the deal, "Nice little campaign you have there..." See Menendez for clarification. Pour Encourager Les Autres
You don't know this and you are almost certainly incorrect. She would have had (at least) two computer systems. One for general business and one for classified correspondence. As far as I know, there is no allegation that she was using her private router for classified correspondence.
Well, I think that most of us would be surprised if a second email system surfaced. Remember, she had her people delete all the emails that her attorneys thought might not be sensitive, classified, or otherwise relevant. These apparently included recipes, discussions with her daughter, husband, girl friend (though many of those were likely work related, and said girlfriend had her own Clinton email account). So, we know that some of the information on her server was ultimately classified, and we know that she claimed that many of the emails her people deleted were personal.
From The Wall Street Journal: An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.
Frederson: As far as I know, there is no allegation that she was using her private router for classified correspondence.
Willful ignorance is a tactic of desperation.
I don't see this going anywhere. As someone above pointed out, the DoJ is likely to slow roll this, running out the clock, until Obama leaves office. And, maybe by then, Hillary! will be President, and can pardon herself - something that most wouldn't do, but well within the level of Clinton brazenness. And, if she loses, likely won't get prosecuted anyway since that would make the Republicans look like sore winners. Unless she has somehow really pissed off Obama, which means that he has this hold over her for the next year and a third.
@Freder,
You really don't have the vaguest idea about how the government handles classified information, do you?
Considering I spent 9 years as a security-level cleared system administrator for multiple computers systems for the Executive Office of the President & OMB, I most certainly do, Freder. Really, do pay attention, and check my goddamn profile before you open your mouth & say something that stupid again.
Freder, NO ONE in Federal IT would sign off on a Secretary level position having their own private email server. NO ONE. The shenanigans involved in doing what Clinton did boggle the mind, and show just what a train wreck the Obama administration let the civil service behemoth become.
The NJ present the Clinton Camp defense that backs up my theory that she was originating emails that should have been marked, but weren't because of course if they were, she could not send them...
"Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted."
"Unless she has somehow really pissed off Obama, which means that he has this hold over her for the next year and a third."
Bingo ! I think this may be a real factor. Obama is that devious.
Bruce said...And, if she loses, likely won't get prosecuted anyway since that would make the Republicans look like sore winners.
You are correct, and of course if the positions were reversed, the evil doers would do time regardless. See the Clinton enemies list or the O'bama treatment of the CIA water boarding witch hunt
A snip:
How was Secretary Clinton accessing information from these systems? Normally, someone cleared to the TS/SCI level (and beyond) would have a minimum of three government e-mail accounts, one for NIPRNET, one for SIPRNET and one for JWICS. Officially, there is no record of Mrs. Clinton ever establishing such accounts during her tenure at Foggy Bottom, but then again, her friends in the press corps haven't exactly pressed the issue.
Freder Frederson said...
This is a bombshell.
Not really. The emails apparently had some classified information but it was not identified as such (which of course is the responsibility of the sender not to send over unsecured email).
Be serious. Of course it wasn't identified as classified. Clinton created the emails. Was there supposed to be a Classifier sitting over her shoulder?
Consider the implication of this policy if it were true: literally any original email could be sent completely without recourse because the classification process hadn't occurred yet. Read the negotiating positions of our Iranian Nuclear Negotiators? Quick send an email notifying the press. Since no one has marked this email classified yet it's fine.
Absurd.
The Drill SGT said...
Have you considered that this approach gives a pass to State, the WH and to a certain extent Clinton? All DoJ needs to do is slow roll this.
The only way this helps Clinton is if it's over in four months and clears her. Slow rolling keeps the issue alive and kills her. It doesn't matter if she talks about it, everyone else will.
Freder Frederson said...
This is a bombshell.
Not really. The emails apparently had some classified information but it was not identified as such (which of course is the responsibility of the sender not to send over unsecured email). The government has an entirely separate computer system for classified information. Emails should never be transferred from one to the other. If she did, that would be a serious breach. But so far I don't think anyone has claimed that.
Having spent over 30 years either in the military or as a defense contractor, I'm well acquainted with how the government handles classified information. On the military side, there are multiple networks. For unclassified information, there's NIPRNET. For information classified up to secret, there's SIPRNET. For higher classifications, there's JWICS. The networks are not connected to one another but you're allowed to send information of a lower classification on a network. For example, there's nothing prohibited about sending unclassified information on SIPRNET or JWICS.
Developing and certifying a system that can handle multi-level security has proven very challenging. They've been working on various systems for well over 10 years but I don't know of any that have been formally approved.
Sometimes people mess up. From time to time, they'll send an email message on an unclassified system that turns out to be classified. When that happens, all sorts of excrement hits the fan. For contractors, we can lose our jobs. For government employees, not so much. For a security violation, the email server and any computer that opened the email has to be scrubbed. Hillary not only violated all the rules by operating her own email system, if there was classified information sent or received on it, she failed to follow the proper procedures to cleanse it. What she did was wrong on every level and if there were any accountability, she not only wouldn't be still in the race, she'd be looking at serious jail time.
Ms. Clinton has pressed for equipping cops with cameras. I think that is a good idea, mainly for the protection of the good cops. But I doubt if Ms. Clinton would agree the cops should control the content and allow them to only release the content the individual officer found relevant if there were questions of bad behavior.
But slow roll is the operative term. Soon enough this will be "old news" a Republican witch hunt (pun only partially intended) and a waste of taxpayer money since everything has been released.
If, as alleged, Hillary Clinton send Emails with classified content from an unsecured server over an open network, then she's not just guilty of a Federal felony ...
SHE'S UNBELIEVABLY STUPID!!!
Keep the pressure on to drive up her negatives. I'll settle for her defeat next year.
You are correct, and of course if the positions were reversed, the evil doers would do time regardless. See the Clinton enemies list or the O'bama treatment of the CIA water boarding witch hunt
Gee, I guess I missed the prosecution of persons responsible for the CIA torture program (and can we finally stop pretending that there was "no torture"). And Patreus gave classified information to his biographer/mistress and just paid a small fine.
Freder, NO ONE in Federal IT would sign off on a Secretary level position having their own private email server. NO ONE. The shenanigans involved in doing what Clinton did boggle the mind, and show just what a train wreck the Obama administration let the civil service behemoth become.
Do I need to point out that the Bush White House did exactly the same thing, but on a much grander scale.
Do I need to point out that the Bush White House did exactly the same thing, but on a much grander scale.
Caught with his "facts" thoroughly discredited Frederson resorts to tu quoque evasions.
Do I need to point out that the Bush White House did exactly the same thing, but on a much grander scale.
If you are going to make that type of assertion, you will need to back it up. Most of us don't inhabit the fetid far left reaches of the blogosphere where this is assumed as a matter of faith. I have heard about Bush people having multiple email accounts, both government and private, but am unaware of any who did not have a govt. account for more sensitive, etc. information. So, give us the links, so that we can see if you are blowing smoke or actually have enough to yell "hypocrite".
Go ahead and send a FOIA request for the emails. See how many of them State won't turn over because, they're classified. Question answered.
@Freder,
And, while you're at it, give the information on which Cabinet Level Official under the Bush Administration ran their own external e-mail server, had a spouse taking large amounts of money from foreigners, and, when asked about that external server, wiped it clean & refused to share the wiped server with government security officials for forensic purposes.
Freder, I'm an IT guy as much as I am conservative. If the Bush admin had done this, I would have been jumping up & down & screaming about that, too. This goes far beyond some clowns using their gmail accounts when they shouldn't (which, by the way, Obama staffers have been known to do, also).
I suspect that the Bush WH claim has to do with Rove and the other Bush Politicals being advised to NOT use the Federal email system for political activities because that would trigger a Hatch Act violation, so instead, the RNC set up a political server to support those emails.
Also note that the rules changed during the Bush administration. Somehow I don't trust Freder to include that bit of info.
Although the Tu Quo is always fun to watch:
A) Clinton violated the law
B) But so did Patreaus
C) Therefore Clinton is excused
Why, its almost as if Freder has no shame.
There was a report in the Washington Times yesterday to the effect that the DOJ has somehow constrained the inspectors general from doing their jobs properly-- I didn't bother to read it because I'm pretty inured to the lack of prosecution of corrupt officials in DC. But the coincidence of these doubtless unconnected developments occurred to me this morning when I saw this at Politico or wherever it was.
Oh, goody. I love threads where Freder shares his vast store of knowledge with the rest of us.
I do not understand how a Secretary of State can work for 4 years and never have need to send or receive classified material? How is that possible?
"where Freder shares his vast store of knowledge"
Yes, it truly is breathtaking. I keep hoping he'll get into a medical knowledge fight. My IT knowledge is 50 years old. Most of it, anyway,
Freder's an absolute delight when it comes to physics.
The day Hitlery is frog marched in ankle chains will be a day long remembered!
Book her Danno.
"Book em Danno".
Wouldn't it be great if the next prez appointed an AG named Danno.
A dawn raid in Chappequa with klieg lights, half a dozen armed men, an overly broad search warrant and a gag order would really shed some light on this situation.
Beta Rube said...
A dawn raid in Chappequa with klieg lights, half a dozen armed men, an overly broad search warrant and a gag order would really shed some light on this situation.
and a gag order :)
If she were a Republican a search warrant would have been sought and issued awhile ago for her server.
Must be nice being a Democrat.
Has Freder ventured back into the fray on how much actual negotiating strength an individual might have when negotiating benefits/perks with employers?
He was particularly amusing in that discussion as well.
so Clinton is either a criminal or just incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Or all of the above. But we're supposed to vote for her because VAGINA?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा