Whoa! Hillary instructs top aid to violate security protocols surrounding classified email?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Big surprise, now classified information found in both Rice and Powell's private emails.

Powell, just like Clinton, denies that they were classified at the time, says he doesn't believe they should be classified now, and wants the emails released so that public can see how innocuous the material being claimed as classified actually is. Is the US government over-classifying documents? My guess is that the answer is most definitely yes. And the government shrouding way too much in secrecy should be more of a concern to those of us who want a functioning democracy than whether or not Clinton mishandled some of the information.

Does this mean we know for sure that Clinton didn't break the law? No. But it should indicate that without further information, it is impossible for us on the outside to actually come to an objective conclusion as to whether or not she did.

Clinton’s False Email Equivalence

Hillary tries to wrap Powell and Rice into her email security breach.

Feb. 5, 2016 6:49 p.m. ET


A week ago Hillary Clinton’s allies accused the State Department Inspector General’s office of belonging to the vast right-wing conspiracy. So you have to admire her chutzpah this week in trying to spin a memo from that same office to exonerate her use of a renegade private email server. All the more so because the new memo strengthens the case that she mishandled national secrets.

In Thursday’s Democratic debate, Mrs. Clinton hailed a new document from State IG Steve Linick that summarizes his view of the email practices of five prior Secretaries of State. The memo says he found a few instances of “sensitive material” sent to the private email accounts of Republicans Colin Powell and staffers to Condoleezza Rice.

“Now you have these people in the government who are doing the same thing [to Powell and Rice’s aides] they’ve been doing to me,” claimed Mrs. Clinton—that is, “retroactively classifying” documents. “I agree with Secretary Powell, who said today this is an absurdity.”

Ah, yes, the old everybody-does-it defense. Mrs. Clinton wants Americans to believe it was common practice for top diplomats to use private email, and that they are all now subject to overzealous interagency squabbling over classification. By Friday Democrats were spinning that Mrs. Clinton is a political victim for having been singled out. Her media phalanx is buying this line, though the Powell and Rice details prove the opposite—and how reckless Mrs. Clinton was by comparison.

Start with the fact that neither Mr. Powell nor Ms. Rice set up a private email server to conduct government business. Mr. Powell did have a personal email account, but he purposely used a State-maintained classified computer system on his desk for classified communications. This may not have been “convenient” for him, to borrow an earlier Clinton explanation for her private server, but Mr. Powell understood the rules. And he understood them even prior to 2005 when State instituted clear rules warning against private email for official business. Mrs. Rice’s aides say she never used any email while at State.

While a few sensitive details may have leeched into a Powell or Rice-aide email account, these would have been accidental. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton intentionally created a private email account, on her own private server, precisely so she could keep those emails away from government public-disclosure rules.

Mr. Linik’s review turned up two messages sent to Mr. Powell’s account that State now deems sensitive (though Mr. Powell disputes that they should be classified). Mr. Linik found 10 that were sent to Ms. Rice’s State Department entourage over her entire tenure. By contrast, State has now deemed that more than 1,600 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server are confidential—and there is another batch still to be released.

The federal government maintains several levels of classification, ranging from the lowest designations of “sensitive but unclassified” and “confidential” to code-word classifications for the most important secrets. While all such information must be safeguarded, lower-level “sensitive but unclassified” and “confidential” information is sometimes circulated on unclassified government systems. Mr. Powell points out that the two emails sent to him were first circulated on unclassified State Department systems and forwarded to his account by an assistant.

Many of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,600 classified emails also fall into these “sensitive” and “confidential” categories. But at least 22 emails have been identified as highly classified from their creation. This means that their information would have resided at all times on classified government systems until they were sent to Mrs. Clinton and her unclassified, unguarded private server. There is no evidence that anything remotely like that happened under Secretaries Powell or Rice.

This transfer question gets to the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s email negligence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is defending Mrs. Clinton by claiming there is no evidence that any of these top secrets emails originated with Secretary Clinton. “It has never made sense to me that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else,” the California Democrat says.

But Mrs. Clinton is responsible because she is the one who created the classification problem by doing official business on her private server. This would never have become an issue if she had followed the rules and used State Department email. That she set up her private email out of a self-serving desire to shield her communications from public disclosure makes her disregard for security a willful act that opens her to criminal liability.

Readers of a certain age will recall that another Clinton tried the everybody-does-it defense when he was found to have broken the law. Are Democrats really going to lash themselves one more time to the Clinton standard of ethics?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Readers of a certain age ....

Do you mean those who have "graduated" from pictures to words?

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

While a few sensitive details may have leeched into a Powell or Rice-aide email account, these would have been accidental. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton intentionally created a private email account, on her own private server, precisely so she could keep those emails away from government public-disclosure rules.

I assume, from context, when the author is talking about "those emails" they are referring to the ones that contain "classified emails." This opinion is made without a shred of supporting evidence. Of course, they accidentally "leeched" into Powell and Rice email, but it was deliberate by Clinton.

But Mrs. Clinton is responsible because she is the one who created the classification problem by doing official business on her private server.

But didn't (at least) Powell create the same problem by doing official business through his private email? I don't get how the author differentiates the two.

As this author continues prove, to completely exonerate Powell while simultaneously completely condemning Clinton requires one to hold a blatant double standard. What both of them did was stupid and should have been against the rules, but despite the author's incorrect claim to the contrary, it was not.

This would never have become an issue if she had followed the rules and used State Department email. That she set up her private email out of a self-serving desire to shield her communications from public disclosure makes her disregard for security a willful act that opens her to criminal liability.

Considering it wasn't, in reality, a violation of the rules, this willfully doing something both completely legal and in accordance with the rules (as much as I don't like them) does not, in and of itself, open her up to liability.

Of course, I would like to point out that this author, like everyone else publicly condemning Clinton, has offered up no evidence to support their claim other than "she had classified information on her server" and, in this case, false claims that she violated some rule.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I assume, from context, when the author is talking about "those emails" they are referring to the ones that contain "classified emails." This opinion is made without a shred of supporting evidence. Of course, they accidentally "leeched" into Powell and Rice email, but it was deliberate by Clinton.


But didn't (at least) Powell create the same problem by doing official business through his private email? I don't get how the author differentiates the two.

As this author continues prove, to completely exonerate Powell while simultaneously completely condemning Clinton requires one to hold a blatant double standard. What both of them did was stupid and should have been against the rules, but despite the author's incorrect claim to the contrary, it was not.


Considering it wasn't, in reality, a violation of the rules, this willfully doing something both completely legal and in accordance with the rules (as much as I don't like them) does not, in and of itself, open her up to liability.

Of course, I would like to point out that this author, like everyone else publicly condemning Clinton, has offered up no evidence to support their claim other than "she had classified information on her server" and, in this case, false claims that she violated some rule.

Powell did not have a private server and destroy thousands of emails. Thousands of emails that she erased were not her property, but ours. Again, the FBI investigates crimes. We'll know soon enough.

[IIFFOFRDB]

0zombies are feeling the Bern...

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I assume, from context, when the author is talking about "those emails" they are referring to the ones that contain "classified emails." This opinion is made without a shred of supporting evidence. Of course, they accidentally "leeched" into Powell and Rice email, but it was deliberate by Clinton.


But didn't (at least) Powell create the same problem by doing official business through his private email? I don't get how the author differentiates the two.

As this author continues prove, to completely exonerate Powell while simultaneously completely condemning Clinton requires one to hold a blatant double standard. What both of them did was stupid and should have been against the rules, but despite the author's incorrect claim to the contrary, it was not.


Considering it wasn't, in reality, a violation of the rules, this willfully doing something both completely legal and in accordance with the rules (as much as I don't like them) does not, in and of itself, open her up to liability.

Of course, I would like to point out that this author, like everyone else publicly condemning Clinton, has offered up no evidence to support their claim other than "she had classified information on her server" and, in this case, false claims that she violated some rule.

Though not specific, Hillary violated several laws concerning the handling of classified information including direct orders from the President of the United States. There are standing orders concerning classification process and those have not changed. Something that the Justice department sends marked classified cannot be unclassified by even the Secretary of State. Only the person who classified it or their superior can do that. Same holds true for NSA originating documents. The Hillary camp will say that they weren't marked but documents signed by Hillary Clinton acknowledge that any communication from the NSA is automatically classified regardless of what is or is not on the document. She's guilty of negligence at the least, espionage at the worst. Is she had a reasonable expectation that her server was open to foriegn powers then she did commit espionage. Her newest defense of blaming others before her is an tacit admission that she has committed some crime and is now trying to mitigate her guilt by muddying the waters.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

Powell did not have a private server and destroy thousands of emails. Thousands of emails that she erased were not her property, but ours.

Agreed. But the fact that he didn't have a private server is completely besides the point if we are talking criminal offense; having a private server violated neither the law nor the rules. As for destroying emails, if they were on her private server and they were her private stuff, we don't own them. This is the problem with having private server and why the rules and law should explicitly forbid it, even back then. It's hard for us to say that she only deleted her own emails without seeing them, but she has every right not to show them to us. This is why it should be (and now is) separate. But, if we are talking about legality, which seems to be the main crux of this thread, she did nothing wrong. As I said earlier (and have repeated) I don't like the fact that she had a private server at all, mainly for FOIA issues.

Again, the FBI investigates crimes. We'll know soon enough.

Agreed. I am anxiously awaiting the outcome. I wish they would complete it faster.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Something that the Justice department sends marked classified cannot be unclassified by even the Secretary of State.

And do you have any evidence that she unclassified something so she could send it? (The answer is "no," BTW, I already know).

The Hillary camp will say that they weren't marked but documents signed by Hillary Clinton acknowledge that any communication from the NSA is automatically classified regardless of what is or is not on the document.

And do you have any evidence that the classified documents in question contain things sent from the NSA?

She's guilty of negligence at the least, espionage at the worst.

Without knowing what was in the emails, it is impossible to say "negligence." The least is really "she is guilty of nothing." But espionage, while highly unlikely, is the worst, I agree.

Her newest defense of blaming others before her is an tacit admission that she has committed some crime and is now trying to mitigate her guilt by muddying the waters.

Citation?

[Yssup Rider]

Talk about negligence... JDrunk is by far the most negligent poster in this forum. He neglects the facts. He neglects the truth. He neglects the fact that his bullshit is nowhere near the truth.

He's on step 13 now...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Clinton’s False Email Equivalence

Hillary tries to wrap Powell and Rice into her email security breach.

Feb. 5, 2016 6:49 p.m. ET


A week ago Hillary Clinton’s allies accused the State Department Inspector General’s office of belonging to the vast right-wing conspiracy. So you have to admire her chutzpah this week in trying to spin a memo from that same office to exonerate her use of a renegade private email server. All the more so because the new memo strengthens the case that she mishandled national secrets.

In Thursday’s Democratic debate, Mrs. Clinton hailed a new document from State IG Steve Linick that summarizes his view of the email practices of five prior Secretaries of State. The memo says he found a few instances of “sensitive material” sent to the private email accounts of Republicans Colin Powell and staffers to Condoleezza Rice.

“Now you have these people in the government who are doing the same thing [to Powell and Rice’s aides] they’ve been doing to me,” claimed Mrs. Clinton—that is, “retroactively classifying” documents. “I agree with Secretary Powell, who said today this is an absurdity.”

Ah, yes, the old everybody-does-it defense. Mrs. Clinton wants Americans to believe it was common practice for top diplomats to use private email, and that they are all now subject to overzealous interagency squabbling over classification. By Friday Democrats were spinning that Mrs. Clinton is a political victim for having been singled out. Her media phalanx is buying this line, though the Powell and Rice details prove the opposite—and how reckless Mrs. Clinton was by comparison.

Start with the fact that neither Mr. Powell nor Ms. Rice set up a private email server to conduct government business. Mr. Powell did have a personal email account, but he purposely used a State-maintained classified computer system on his desk for classified communications. This may not have been “convenient” for him, to borrow an earlier Clinton explanation for her private server, but Mr. Powell understood the rules. And he understood them even prior to 2005 when State instituted clear rules warning against private email for official business. Mrs. Rice’s aides say she never used any email while at State.

While a few sensitive details may have leeched into a Powell or Rice-aide email account, these would have been accidental. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton intentionally created a private email account, on her own private server, precisely so she could keep those emails away from government public-disclosure rules.

Mr. Linik’s review turned up two messages sent to Mr. Powell’s account that State now deems sensitive (though Mr. Powell disputes that they should be classified). Mr. Linik found 10 that were sent to Ms. Rice’s State Department entourage over her entire tenure. By contrast, State has now deemed that more than 1,600 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server are confidential—and there is another batch still to be released.

The federal government maintains several levels of classification, ranging from the lowest designations of “sensitive but unclassified” and “confidential” to code-word classifications for the most important secrets. While all such information must be safeguarded, lower-level “sensitive but unclassified” and “confidential” information is sometimes circulated on unclassified government systems. Mr. Powell points out that the two emails sent to him were first circulated on unclassified State Department systems and forwarded to his account by an assistant.

Many of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,600 classified emails also fall into these “sensitive” and “confidential” categories. But at least 22 emails have been identified as highly classified from their creation. This means that their information would have resided at all times on classified government systems until they were sent to Mrs. Clinton and her unclassified, unguarded private server. There is no evidence that anything remotely like that happened under Secretaries Powell or Rice.

This transfer question gets to the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s email negligence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is defending Mrs. Clinton by claiming there is no evidence that any of these top secrets emails originated with Secretary Clinton. “It has never made sense to me that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else,” the California Democrat says.

But Mrs. Clinton is responsible because she is the one who created the classification problem by doing official business on her private server. This would never have become an issue if she had followed the rules and used State Department email. That she set up her private email out of a self-serving desire to shield her communications from public disclosure makes her disregard for security a willful act that opens her to criminal liability.

Readers of a certain age will recall that another Clinton tried the everybody-does-it defense when he was found to have broken the law. Are Democrats really going to lash themselves one more time to the Clinton standard of ethics?

Don't forget to mention that these 1,600 classified emails that the FBI has had to "forensically recover" from Hildabeast's 'erased' and unsecured server only deal with Hildabeast's yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding plans.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Don't forget to mention that these 1,600 classified emails that the FBI has had to "forensically recover" from Hildabeast's 'erased' and unsecured server only deal with Hildabeast's yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding plans.

That included the email she sent to Chelsea the night of the Benghazi attack informing Chelsea that terrorists had attacked the compound where the ambassador was staying before she chimed in on the "video claim" story!

[JD Barleycorn]

Citation? You don't need a citation for common sense. When someone who is under the gun starts saying that others did it, you can be certain that they did do what they are accused of and now they want to mitigate what they did by saying that others have been doing it. Don't you have kids?

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Citation? You don't need a citation for common sense. When someone who is under the gun starts saying that others did it, you can be certain that they did do what they are accused of and now they want to mitigate what they did by saying that others have been doing it. Don't you have kids?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was looking for the citation for the claim that she was "blaming others." Because I had no idea what you were talking about. Now, you have already backtracked and are saying that her pointing out that "others did it." These are two very different things, you have to be careful with the language.

She hasn't denied that information on the server is no classified, she has simply stated numerous times that it wasn't classified at the time or it wasn't labeled as classified when it passed through her server and she never knew any of it was classified. And pointing to the fact that other people (at least Powell) have the same problem isn't admitting wrong-doing, it is forcing the people condemning her to either deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding a blatant double standard, or also condemning someone they don't really want to condemn - which sheds light on the fact that this all stems from wanting to condemn her rather an objective view of the facts.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was looking for the citation for the claim that she was "blaming others." Because I had no idea what you were talking about. Now, you have already backtracked and are saying that her pointing out that "others did it." These are two very different things, you have to be careful with the language.

She hasn't denied that information on the server is no classified, she has simply stated numerous times that it wasn't classified at the time or it wasn't labeled as classified when it passed through her server and she never knew any of it was classified. And pointing to the fact that other people (at least Powell) have the same problem isn't admitting wrong-doing, it is forcing the people condemning her to either deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding a blatant double standard, or also condemning someone they don't really want to condemn - which sheds light on the fact that this all stems from wanting to condemn her rather an objective view of the facts.

Your pay check from Soros, HOW MUCH, 0zombie?

[CuteOldGuy]

I think eatfiber is Hillary's Fluffy. He's overdosed on the Hillary Kool-Aid. There is no talking sense to him.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think eatfiber is Hillary's Fluffy. He's overdosed on the Hillary Kool-Aid. There is no talking sense to him.

This is the key statement that reveals his refusal to accept her responsibility:

"Because I had no idea what you were talking about. ..... you have to be careful with the language."

He actually should be saying that to Not-So-Hillarious-Any-More ...

... if he were a "real" supporter of hers ... rather than making excuses for her!