Hilary email

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think we all understand it's not just about the server. The issue here is there still isn't really evidence Clinton mishandled anything, yet people are all running around saying she did.

Clinton being forwarded what's considered at the time benign information, that years later is deemed sensitive during a public release process is not mishandling information.

"The issue here is there still isn't really evidence Clinton mishandled anything"

The existence of some of that data on her personal server, is problematic to some people. She created the atmosphere, which made it necessaru to have that data on her personal server.

"Clinton being forwarded what's considered at the time benign information"

I don't know that we know, that 100% of what made its way to her server, was believed to be benign at the time.

I wonder why she deleted all those emails. Didn't she say that everything she deleted was personal, not work-related? Wedding plans, yoga classes, and th elike?

And when a reporter asked her is she had the server "wiped", she relpied "you mean with a cloth?" Yeah, that's the kind of honest leadership we need.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

Spence, I don't understand all the rules or the IT mumbo jumbo, nor do I care to.

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.

i don't think we know for sure, that material known to be classified, wasn't intentionally put on her server. If it was, she lied (once again).

You have to admit, you approach these things with a slight...shall we say...point of view.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.

No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I wonder why she deleted all those emails. Didn't she say that everything she deleted was personal, not work-related? Wedding plans, yoga classes, and th elike?

Why would you turn over personal emails?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would you turn over personal emails?

Regardless of what you think Spence, the diabolical way she went about it and the amount of money the Clinton's have raked in since 2014 , obviously, shows that the Clintons have a tough time keeping personal business separate from government business . To them it's one in the same. They need to prove they are not crooked because everything they do points to the fact that they are .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans .

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Regardless of what you think Spence, the diabolical way she went about it and the amount of money the Clinton's have raked in since 2014 , obviously, shows that the Clintons have a tough time keeping personal business separate from government business . To them it's one in the same. They need to prove they are not crooked because everything they do points to the fact that they are .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Colin Powell got Congress to buy 44,000 new computers for the State Department and drove the organization to get onto the State's email system.

Except he used his own personal email as well.

Was that diabolical?

Bush 43 get's paid six figures to speak and his foundation has similar assets to the Clinton's. Shouldn't we be investigating Jeb in case he becomes president and starts to return all those favors?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

"No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter?"

See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would you turn over personal emails?

Don't we know for a fact, that some of the deleted emails were work-related? Are you feeling OK?

[Jim in CT]

Spence, here is the link I referred to, which makes no mention of the IG letter...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...challenge.html

From the article...there were 2 emails on her server, 1 with data from the CIA, 1 with data from the NGA. The article states that officials from both agencies confirmed that each email was top secret when it hit her server. The State Department is challenging that. The 2 agencies consider it a closed matter.

The CIA can gather its own intelligence and decide what classification to give it. What it cannot do (and thi sI know for sure) is modify the classification that another agency gives to its own data. Only the agency that generated th edata, can do that.

Somehow, you have concluded that she did nothing wrong. Let's see what the investogation turns up.

And why did the IG, appointed by Obama, work in secret with the GOP, as you claim?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter.

The IG is giving interviews now? Haven't seen any of those. Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The IG is giving interviews now? Haven't seen any of those. Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true?

Nope, it wasn't the IG I was referring to, my bad there. It was a source from each of the 2 agencies (CIA and NGA) stating that the emails on her server, which they claim came from their respective agencies, were flagged as top secret when they hit her server.

This was Fox reporting this story. They have an ideological bias, clearly...as do you, just as clearly. If Fox made it up, they should go out of business. But I hope it gets looked into.

On what basis do you automatically dismiss this report, as untrustworthy?

"Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true"

Nope, I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it needs to be investigated. You are the one making a declaration, that it is not true. Again, what's your source for that?

Perhaps, on the other hand, you are listening to what Hilary is saying and assuming it's all true.

Ask yourself why you give default credibility to the self-serving statements of a serial liar?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, here is the link I referred to, which makes no mention of the IG letter...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...challenge.html

From the article...there were 2 emails on her server, 1 with data from the CIA, 1 with data from the NGA. The article states that officials from both agencies confirmed that each email was top secret when it hit her server. The State Department is challenging that. The 2 agencies consider it a closed matter.

The CIA can gather its own intelligence and decide what classification to give it. What it cannot do (and thi sI know for sure) is modify the classification that another agency gives to its own data. Only the agency that generated th edata, can do that.

Somehow, you have concluded that she did nothing wrong. Let's see what the investogation turns up.

And why did the IG, appointed by Obama, work in secret with the GOP, as you claim?

Jim, we've discussed this before. The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification.

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret.

“As someone who regularly reviews classified material, I can say that those documents are always clearly marked as containing classified information,” she said. “Every official who writes classified material, whether in email or on paper, must mark the information as classified. They would also be required to use a separate classified email system to transmit the information. The emails identified did not contain these markings.”

What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we've discussed this before. The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification.

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret.



What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State.

"The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification."

The State Dept is entitled to gather its own intelligence, and to classify data as it sees fit. But how do you know that's what too kplace, in the case of these 2 emails? Other than taking her word for it, what else you got?

"Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret."

How does she know?

Let's let the investigation pan out, how about that?

According to you, everyone who defends her is credible, everyone who hints she acted improperly, is a partisan hack, including Obama's IG. We get it.

"What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State"

yes, that will be interesting.

Spence, what of her response to the question, "did you wipe the server?", and she said "what, you mean with a cloth?" Is that a presidential answer to a fair question?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret..

Oh. What Feinstein said, is what Hilary has been saying, that the emails "were not marked as top secret".

There was a guy on TV last week addressing this. He said it's meaningless, because security measures would prohibit an email marked as top secret from being sent to an unclassified server, meaning, it's physicaly impossible for her server to have emails flagged as top secret. Meaning, if those emails were on her server (as the CIA and NGA claim they were) but not "marked", it means either someone removed the mark so the emails could be sent to her server, or that someone made an unsecure, unmarked, copy of those emails, and sent those to her server.

Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible.

She is parsing her words very carefully, isn't she? I wonder why?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The State Dept is entitled to gather its own intelligence, and to classify data as it sees fit. But how do you know that's what too kplace, in the case of these 2 emails? Other than taking her word for it, what else you got?

That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them.

How does she know?

She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone.

According to you, everyone who defends her is credible, everyone who hints she acted improperly, is a partisan hack, including Obama's IG. We get it.

You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?

Spence, what of her response to the question, "did you wipe the server?", and she said "what, you mean with a cloth?" Is that a presidential answer to a fair question?

Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them.


She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone.


You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?


Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

"That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them."

But you have reason to doubt the CIA and the NGA? What would that be?

"She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone"

And Clinton was secstate. What they said is true, but if the guy I saw was correct, what they said also proves nothing. Because he said it was not possible for her to have marked emails on her personal server. So Hilary could also have said "I am not 10 feet tall", and while that's true, I'm not sure it's all then enlightening, is it?

"You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?"

I have no idea. That's why I want an investigation.

Spence, have her past lies diminished her credibility in your eyes, at all?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible.

Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

Now how could you know that it was suggested by an aide, and not something she came up with? What do you base that on?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Colin Powell got Congress to buy 44,000 new computers for the State Department and drove the organization to get onto the State's email system.

Except he used his own personal email as well.

Was that diabolical?

Bush 43 get's paid six figures to speak and his foundation has similar assets to the Clinton's. Shouldn't we be investigating Jeb in case he becomes president and starts to return all those favors?

And I suppose you can't understand that a government run computer system , when it's new takes a while to be up and running correctly ( The Obama care system comes in to mind ) Colin Powell probably had to use his personal email server .

Are you seriously using the Bush did it too excuse ? Apples and oranges . George Bush is an honorable man from an honorable family . Hillary Clinton not so much
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

I would also add that the Clintons
accepted donations while Hillary was in a position of power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?

No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

And I suppose you can't understand that a government run computer system , when it's new takes a while to be up and running correctly ( The Obama care system comes in to mind ) Colin Powell probably had to use his personal email server .

Really?

Are you seriously using the Bush did it too excuse ? Apples and oranges . George Bush is an honorable man from an honorable family . Hillary Clinton not so much
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not accusing Bush of doing anything, but think you should hold them to the same standards you're expecting of Clinton.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Now how could you know that it was suggested by an aide, and not something she came up with? What do you base that on?

Intuition.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

My understanding is that it's a totally different system. Agree state.gov has more resources, but that didn't make her use of a server illegal. It was a security gap that they corrected. Clinton's not an IT person, she likely had someone tell her it was good enough for non-sensitive communication. Powell certainly did and there were plenty of hackers in 2005.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that it's a totally different system. Agree state.gov has more resources, but that didn't make her use of a server illegal.

You keep getting stuck on the legality issue (which is still being investigated?) but avoiding the "stupid, incompetent" issue.

It was a security gap that they corrected. Clinton's not an IT person, she likely had someone tell her (intuition?) it was good enough for non-sensitive communication. Powell certainly did and there were plenty of hackers in 2005.

"had someone tell her"? Stephens told her that it was good enough and probably "smart" enough to not have a show of American force at the consulate, or in Libya in general. That really turned out well. Yeah, her style of leading on bad advice will make her a "good enough" President.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

Bingo.....

But then again there's that whole "Holiday Inn Express" thing you're arguing with.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device