Have Hillary's chickens come home to roost?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

the process as to how it gets there is quite subjective.

No it's not.....

ALL government networks carry a classification level.....any data....ANY data generated on that network carries that classification until it is authorized to be downgraded to a lower level.

And even if she used her .gov email and transmitted or stored classified data on it, that would be a spill and would generate an automatic investigation.....

And just because documents don't carry a classification of Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret doesn't mean it doesn't fall under other categories that need special attention.

Categories like Unclass but Sensitive, FOUO (For Official Use Only), or NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals).....are all types of documents that may not carry a Classification but still need to be treated appropriately.....

At the very least she is guilty of gross negligence for by-passing government systems/safeguards......if they find out that she knowingly moved classified documents from government systems to Unclass systems, she should be doing time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

No it's not.....

ALL government networks carry a classification level.....any data....ANY data generated on that network carries that classification until it is authorized to be downgraded to a lower level.

And even if she used her .gov email and transmitted or stored classified data on it, that would be a spill and would generate an automatic investigation.....

And just because documents don't carry a classification of Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret doesn't mean it doesn't fall under other categories that need special attention.

Categories like Unclass but Sensitive, FOUO (For Official Use Only), or NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals).....are all types of documents that may not carry a Classification but still need to be treated appropriately.....

At the very least she is guilty of gross negligence for by-passing government systems/safeguards......if they find out that she knowingly moved classified documents from government systems to Unclass systems, she should be doing time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If ANYONE else, any mere mortal, had done this, they would already be locked up with an investigation well underway.

The fact that politicians can skirt the same rules that bind the rest of us is absurd and is another indication on how far we have fallen from the path the founding fathers intended.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

No it's not.....

ALL government networks carry a classification level.....any data....ANY data generated on that network carries that classification until it is authorized to be downgraded to a lower level.

And even if she used her .gov email and transmitted or stored classified data on it, that would be a spill and would generate an automatic investigation.....

If all government networks carry a classification level, yet there was no hard rule against using private email, that would suggest the default classification at state.gov was pretty low, if existent at all.

So if there wasn't a hard rule on using private email, and the state.gov servers aren't supposed to have classified information on them anyway, I don't see where the argument is that she broke any laws. It's a totally different scenario than Petraeus.

Remember that Clinton isn't even the subject of the DOJ investigation and I believe none of the information was sent or received with a classified status.

Sure, it wasn't wise for a variety of reasons but I'm not sure they were doing it to hide anything. If that was the case you'd have a totally clandestine account.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

If all government networks carry a classification level, yet there was no hard rule against using private email, that would suggest the default classification at state.gov was pretty low, if existent at all.

So if there wasn't a hard rule on using private email, and the state.gov servers aren't supposed to have classified information on them anyway, I don't see where the argument is that she broke any laws. It's a totally different scenario than Petraeus.

Remember that Clinton isn't even the subject of the DOJ investigation and I believe none of the information was sent or received with a classified status.

Sure, it wasn't wise for a variety of reasons but I'm not sure they were doing it to hide anything. If that was the case you'd have a totally clandestine account.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...825-story.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...825-story.html

2 emails that should have been top secret out of over 6,000 doesn't a "systematic effort" make.

Additionally, isn't the outrage over these stats pretty moot without a baseline to compare them against? How common is this?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

If all government networks carry a classification level,

Its not "If".....they do.....anywhere from "Top Secret" to "Unclassified" , Every network as to be certified to a certain level.....this is what type of information that is certified to be present on that network

Originally Posted by spence

yet there was no hard rule against using private email, that would suggest the default classification at state.gov was pretty low, if existent at all..

She can use private e-mail....there is no Rule against it....but there are plenty of rules a responsible government official must adhere to when transmitting government docs....and putting any classified/unclassified sensitive information on them is a no-no

Originally Posted by spence

So if there wasn't a hard rule on using private email, and the state.gov servers aren't supposed to have classified information on them anyway,

Again, there are hard rules on what types of documents can be on an unclassed network...if state.gov mail server is on an unclassed network, then she can't have them on that server either

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see where the argument is that she broke any laws. It's a totally different scenario than Petraeus.

We'll find out when they are done with the investigation, won't we?

Originally Posted by spence

Sure, it wasn't wise for a variety of reasons but I'm not sure they were doing it to hide anything. If that was the case you'd have a totally clandestine account.

Of course she wasn't doing it to hide anything...that's obvious....it was all hanging out there for every hacker in the world to look at...the problem is she should have taken the safeguards to HIDE EVERYTHING....that's the problem

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

2 emails that should have been top secret out of over 6,000 doesn't a "systematic effort" make.

Additionally, isn't the outrage over these stats pretty moot without a baseline to compare them against? How common is this?

Two emails out of 6K is not the sample pool being discussed. TWO emails out of FORTY in the sample reviewed by the Intelligence Community Inspector General had top secret / compartmentalized information.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites...n%20server.pdf

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Its not "If".....they do.....anywhere from "Top Secret" to "Unclassified" , Every network as to be certified to a certain level.....this is what type of information that is certified to be present on that network



She can use private e-mail....there is no Rule against it....but there are plenty of rules a responsible government official must adhere to when transmitting government docs....and putting any classified/unclassified sensitive information on them is a no-no



Again, there are hard rules on what types of documents can be on an unclassed network...if state.gov mail server is on an unclassed network, then she can't have them on that server either



We'll find out when they are done with the investigation, won't we?



Of course she wasn't doing it to hide anything...that's obvious....it was all hanging out there for every hacker in the world to look at...the problem is she should have taken the safeguards to HIDE EVERYTHING....that's the problem

Yes - she was at best, sacrificing security for convenience, at worst she was blatantly and willfully defying the rules and logic on handling government information to prevent future investigations against her. Meanwhile, she made it easier for other governments to read the email of the Secretary of State.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Two emails out of 6K is not the sample pool being discussed. TWO emails out of FORTY in the sample reviewed by the Intelligence Community Inspector General had top secret / compartmentalized information.

The State Department has already released over 6000 emails and another 6000 today I believe which a few hundred of are being referred to other agencies for further review.

The Inspector General decided to take no further action on the two they felt should be top secret and many have even argued the information in them is pretty benign.

Yes - she was at best, sacrificing security for convenience, at worst she was blatantly and willfully defying the rules and logic on handling government information to prevent future investigations against her. Meanwhile, she made it easier for other governments to read the email of the Secretary of State.

Considering we know that state.gov has already been hacked I'm not sure it really means all that much. It's a wake up call to harden everything...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

The State Department has already released over 6000 emails and another 6000 today I believe which a few hundred of are being referred to other agencies for further review.pretty benign. [/UOTE]

Yes, I believe there were around 150 classified out of the ones released today.


Considering we know that state.gov has already been hacked I'm not sure it
really means all that much. It's a wake up call to harden everything...

Your right Spence, what better way to wake up to the Dangers then to make an example of a High Profile person like Hillary. Put her in the clink and throw away the key.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Your right Spence, what better way to wake up to the Dangers then to make an example of a High Profile person like Hillary. Put her in the clink and throw away the key.

There's no evidence yet she did anything illegal. Why would you throw her in the clink?

If there are bigger issues our government needs to address then that's a systems problem.