Clinton expressed worries about exposure of personal emails at State Dept.

[paulthompson]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by tammywammy (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Politico

Hillary Clinton expressed concern in November 2010 about the risk of her personal emails becoming accessible after one of her top aides said they needed to discuss putting her on the State Department’s email system.

The report concluded that Clinton violated the agency’s email rules when she chose to exclusively use a private email server during her four years at State Department and did not promptly turn over records after she departed the agency.

The document also included some details of an exchange between Clinton and Abedin, who both chose not to cooperate with the IG’s investigation.

“In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not being received,” the report said. “The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-personal-email-worry-223559

---

There have been some other headlines about the IG report today, but this Politico story hones in on what I consider the most important aspect to be revealed in it.

Remember how Clinton repeatedly claimed that the reason she had a private email account and private server was simply a matter of "convenience," due to her not wanting to keep two devices for two email accounts? That never made sense in the first place, since anyone can check multiple email accounts on one device, and now we can see it was untrue.

I've been making a timeline about the Clinton email scandal, and here's an entry on some more relevant comments she made:

September 27, 2015: Clinton alleges it is "totally ridiculous" she used a private server to hide her emails from later public scrutiny. Clinton is asked if she used her private email server at least in part to avoid scrutiny from future Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or Congressional subpoenas. She responds, "It’s totally ridiculous. That never crossed my mind." She calls the suggestion "another conspiracy theory." She says she assumed her emails would be available because she mostly was emailing to other officials who were using government email addresses. (The Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2015) (The Washington Post, 9/27/2015) However, in 2000, she made a private comment about possibly using email that was recorded on video: "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? ... Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?" (ABC News, 3/6/2015)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5#entry02715totallyridiculous

Furthermore, the email discussed in the Politico link above was not released as part of the 30,000 work emails she handed over. And yet it was clearly work related. Another Politico article from today mentions this:

The back-and-forth seems highly germane to the issue of whether Clinton's use of the private email setup was simply for "convenience," as she has claimed. But it was never released in the roughly 30,000 messages State made public after receiving them from Clinton in December 2014 at the agency's request. The inspector general report is vague about how State got the message, but it seems possible it arrived in batches of thousands of emails turned over by Abedin and other Clinton aides.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-email-problems-223573

Remember that in August 2015, Clinton signed an oath under threat of perjury that stated the following:

"I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done."

And yet more and more work emails that she didn't turn over have been coming out. I count over 150 from this month alone, prior to this IG report, due to emails found in other inboxes from other Freedom of Information Act requests that have been made public.

Clinton is in trouble, and for a variety of reasons, including this one. It's becoming increasingly clear that she failed to turn over all her work emails, probably due to damning content, such as the above mentioned email between Clinton and Abedin. One can easily understand why she "forgot" to turn that one over. Regardless of the actual content of her emails, how will she avoid getting charged for violating her oath and not turning over all her work emails?

[tom_kelly]

1. She's dragging that Humana woman down with her... n/t

[Scootaloo]

53. Auto-correct? Do you mean Huma Abedin?

...Or is there a Humana insurance angle I've just not heard of?

Assuming you mean Huma... Well. Anyone married to Anthony Weiner is probably used to being double-dealed, ditched, and dumped. I've always felt a little bad for her, largely because of that asshole.

[unc70]

88. There is a new documentary following Abedin and Weiner

Can't imagine why they allowed the filmmaker to follow them around, but they did -- through his scandals, etc.

I haven't seen the film yet, but apparently it is really cringeworthy.

[pnwmom]

2. Who would want their PERSONAL emails to become public fodder? Isn't she entitled

to the same privacy of her personal communications as any citizen?

[retrowire]

3. XD This made me laugh, really.

NSA. Snowden. PRISM.

Privacy? What the hell is that in this day and age?

And you'd better believe your communications are A LOT less private if you're a federal employee.

[pnwmom]

4. Even in this day and age, most of us aren't subject to FOIA requests

scooping up our personal emails.

[retrowire]

8. Don't need one. Shit can be monitored either way.

Doesn't mean all of our messages are actively being scoured through, but metadata is abundant, and everything is easily found. That's all I'm saying. We don't have privacy so we damn sure shouldn't expect it for a federal employee at such a high level.

It doesn't make it right. But that's what we've let the government get away with.

[ThinkCritically]

71. Once she decided

to use her personal email server for government business, it became government property. I guess none of her advisors realized that.

[oioioi]

5. Abedin is in deep trouble...

- She was aware that hdr22's email was hacked and failed to formally report
- hdr22 suggested a second device to separate personal from State and she did not obtain
- That suggestion was made by IT representatives at State to Abedin, who rejected it because it "didn't make much sense"

The entire shonky arrangement was probably below hdr22's line of sight - she would have a reasonable entitlement to assume the security was handled appropriately by her IT people - Abedin is incompetent and should not have been entrusted with this role. The server was very likely compromised based on the correspondence from Abedin, which clearly infers she knew it was serious and yet did nothing to address the security matter with State.

[pnwmom]

9. What law did she break?

[oioioi]

11. I'm not a lawyer but she is in violation of all kinds of

security policies which absolutely are in place in Federal establishments governing the handling of information security. Presumably there are criminal sanctions for egregious violations.

The correspondence from Abedin reveals that she clearly knew hdr22's email was compromised - she wrote an email to staffers advising them not to send anything sensitive to hdr22 and she would "explain later".

Abedin clearly should not have been entrusted to make the kinds of decisions that she was making with regarding the set up and ongoing use of the email server. It was a ham-fisted attempt to keep hdr22 on a single device - that is why her IT guy's taking the fifth - Abedin on the other hand was in a position of senior responsibility and failed to follow policy and simple basic - common sense - procedures to obtain technical assistance to secure the email traffic once she became aware that it was compromised. She had a clear moral and legal obligation to act and failed to do so.

[pnwmom]

14. I've never seen a non-partisan lawyer analyze this and say she broke any criminal laws.

Here is an example of a lawyer's analysis, by a U Michigan professor who wrote a manual on classification procedures for the Department of Homeland Security.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

[oioioi]

15. It depends on the definition of "is" :)

from your link...

With respect to the provisions of Section 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations which provides in Section 2001.42 that persons who have access to classified information are responsible for:

a) Protecting it from persons without authorized access … to include securing it in approved equipment … whenever it is not under the direct control of an authorized person.

b) Meeting safeguarding provisions prescribed by the agency head; and

c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or data circuits

Somebody is in violation and Abedin MUST have signed some kind of compliance policy with respect to security provisions to be working in the capacity that she was.

I am not suggesting hdr22 is in trouble directly, however Abedin most certainly is - and she is uncomfortably close to hdr22, unfortunately. The poor judgment question really must come up. hdr22 was fully aware of this issue and should have taken it more seriously than just trusting Abedin, who is evidently not very bright - but plenty bossy.

[paulthompson]

18. That link is out of date

Pnwmom, you know I've been working on a Clinton email timeline. I've read that article, and the author only had a surface level understanding of the situation when it was published on March 20, 2016, and failed to address some of Clinton's most difficult problems, such as her emails between her and Sid Blumenthal. But, that aside, the article is out of date, due to information that has come out since then, such as this IG report.

Note the author's conclusion:

Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified.

Exactly. More information has come out, rendering that article moot. If that author writes a new article based on the lastest information, please post that. Otherwise, you're wasting people's time posting an out of date analysis.

[oioioi]

19. the link was helpful to me, thanks.

it contains the applicable statute references.

[pnwmom]

23. The IG report doesn't address criminal charges and nothing has come out that would change that.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/clinton-email-report-changes-few-minds

The other major investigation into Clinton's emails, the FBI probe focused on the handling of classified material, is reportedly in its final stages.

Legal experts agree a criminal indictment is unlikely – although not impossible – in the case.

[oioioi]

25. it's not a question of criminality...

It's a disregard for basic security over State Department communications that beggars belief.

It may not be legally wrong, but it is demonstrably and shockingly inept.

[paulthompson]

47. "nothing has come out that would change that."

"nothing has come out that would change that." Really?! Read the rest of this thread, for starters. For one, deliberately withholding her work emails from investigators is a crime in and of itself, and most of the evidence for that has only come out in the last month.

One could argue that not turning over thousands of work emails was some kind of accident, or maybe she'll try to blame someone else for that. Everyone accused has some kind of excuse or defense, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're right. But if the FBI isn't trying to make a criminal case against her at least based on "destruction of evidence" and "obstruction of justice" charges, then they're not doing their jobs.

And I don't want to repeat myself, but suffice to say that's just one of several areas where she's in serious trouble. The "legal expert" links you like to post generally only look at the classified content of the emails issue, but that's just one area. And even there, the "legal experts" who say there's nothing indictable are full of it, because they haven't seen the top secret and above top secret emails in question.

[pnwmom]

49. What criminal law, as opposed to civil regulation, are you suggesting she violated?

Maybe you should let the FBI know.

[paulthompson]

81. I can't help it...

...if you have trouble reading my posts. Here's a quote to remind you from my above post:

But if the FBI isn't trying to make a criminal case against her at least based on "destruction of evidence" and "obstruction of justice" charges, then they're not doing their jobs.

[pnwmom]

82. Colin Powell, working under the same public records act, destroyed ALL of his emails

when he left office, and yet there were no consequences for him.

And there were no consequences for the Bush administration staffers who routed all their emails through the RNC server, and "lost" millions of them.

There is no precedent for Hillary to be prosecuted in this situation. None. And her actions were far less egregious.

[cali]

83. No. Read the OIG report.

[pnwmom]

84. Cite the precedent . I didn't see one. n/t

[raindaddy]

42. The FBI doesn't grant immunity in a casual manner...

Hillary's IT guy was given immunity for information that was inflammatory enough that he must have felt he needed it...

[Gore1FL]

29. Not breaking a law in an avoidable scandal is not the low bar I expect out a U.S. President.

Perhaps making (obvious)good choices in the first place would have been a better option for her.

[XemaSab]

46. That's one of my biggest issues with Hillary

A track record of mediocre and bad decision making.

[Gore1FL]

50. What kills me is how far out of her way she had to go to screw up this badly.

But she still managed to put in the effort.

[XemaSab]

54. Yuuuuuup

I mean, the not wanting to carry two devices?

My cousin had two phones when she was an Administrative Assistant I for the county.

One strictly for work, the other one strictly for sexting with her boyfriend.

Why?

Because she understood that if you're going to have a professional job, you need to act professionally.

Laziness is no excuse on Hillary's part. The only valid explanation is that she had shifty motives.

[morningfog]

66. Because she is hiding something desperately.

[spin]

65. The IG report doesn't deal with criminal offenses. ...

Not following department record keeping rules is not an indictable criminal offense.

The FBI is doing an separate investigation that might lead to an indictment and criminal charges against someone. Rumors are the investigation involves classified email found on the system and donations to the Clinton Foundation.

These rumors may or may not be based on fact. Time will tell.

[paulthompson]

6. The thing is...

The thing is, what Clinton considers "personal" clearly isn't what other people consider personal. Consider the email mentioned in the OP. In what world is that "personal" and not involving State Department business?!

And, as I said, at least 150 more Clinton emails came out this month, mostly due to a batch of Huma Abedin emails being released, with lots of them between her and Clinton. I've looked them over, and nearly all or all of them were work related, and yet Clinton apparently thought they were "personal" too. Remember she said that if there were any emails that were borderline at all, she turned those over, just to be sure. That turns out not to be true. And other emails have come out that she didn't turn over that were clearly work related, including emails between her and David Petraeus and her and Sid Blumenthal.

People have said all along that it shouldn't have been up to her to decide what was personal and what was not, because what if she deliberately held back work emails? How would anyone know? And that's exactly what we're seeing, now that more of her deleted emails are coming to light through other sources. How could that not concern you? That's a clear violation of the law.

[paulthompson]

7. I did some calculations...

Due to another lawsuit, all of Huma Abedin's State Department emails have started to be publicly released. 400 pages are due to be released each month for a total off 29,000 pages. (I don't know why they're measuring in pages instead of emails, but they are.)

For some weird reason, the release of the first batch of Abedin's emails hardly made any news. (My guess is because reporters are too lazy or busy to go through them one by one to figure out which ones were released already.) But I looked them over carefully, because many of them are between her and Clinton. Now, out of those, most of them were from the first two months of Clinton's time as secretary of state, and Clinton released NO emails from that time. So that's not a fair measure of her emails as a whole.

Thus, I put those aside and looked at about 30 emails from that batch release that seemed to be a random sample of the rest of Clinton's secretary of state tenure. They're scattered all over, from 2009 to late 2012. I checked those carefully against the 30,000 emails Clinton publicly released. Out of them, I found 15 that were not the same, and 16 that were. So, about 50/50. They all looked work related to me, which isn't surprising since Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff. Five of them were actually Clinton's replies to Abedin email that WERE turned over in Clinton's 30,000, so it makes no sense to argue the replies were somehow not work related.

But keep in mind that's just one small portion of the first batch of Abedin's emails, that make up far less than one percent of all of Abedin's emails. If it turns out that Clinton deleted work emails at the same ratio as he did with this small batch, some simple math shows that thousands of emails between Clinton and Abedin alone should have been turned over by Clinton but weren't. At least 3,000, if that sample is accurate. And that's just emails with one person! Of the 30,000 emails Clinton did turn over, about 15% of them were between her and Abedin. If that ratio is roughly accurate for her deleted emails, we should see thousands more work emails that she failed to turn over between her and other people. It could easily be over 10,000 emails were improperly deleted, out of the 30,000.

Of course that's just a back of the envelope calculation based on a small sample. But I don't see how it can be denied that Clinton failed to turn over a large number of emails that she should have. This is not just a few stray emails here and there.

[pnwmom]

12. And Hillary always said she assumed emails exchanged with other people on the .gov system

were being saved there.

[paulthompson]

16. Yes, but...

Yes, but that's a total lie. Another State Department report determined that far less than one percent of all emails were archived during Clinton's time as secretary of state.

But even so, what about Clinton emailing people who don't have .gov addresses? That actually turns out to be a big number, because most of Clinton's top aides used private email addresses for most of their work too. For instance, Huma Abedin had an address at the same private server Clinton used. As we're seeing from the recent publicly released batch of Abedin's emails, she used that for work all the time. So how did Clinton expect the State Department to get copies of her emails between her and Abedin? Ditto with Cheryl Mills and her other top aides. Those right there make up most of her emails.

Clinton was required to turn over ALL her work related emails when she left office, not just some. She even signed a legally binding oath to do so the day after she took office.

Then, near the end of her term, people started asking for her emails in Freedom of Information Act requests. The State Department replied there were none. Cheryl Mills even kept tabs on one such request, knowing full well about Clinton's email account, since she emailed Clinton every day. And while Clinton was still secretary of state, a Republican Congressperson directly asked Clinton in a formal letter if she had a personal email account, and Clinton simply failed to answer the letter.

You're trying to defend the undefensible.

[morningfog]

28. She lied. She said her emails to government employees were

on their .gov accounts and preserved. That was a lie. At least four of her circle emailed her goventment business from their private accounts. State has NO access to those communications
This is bad.

[pnwmom]

32. She was mistaken. nt

[morningfog]

33. No, she was fucking lying.

[pnwmom]

35. And she is going to be our nominee. All the spouting of RW talking points isn't going to change that

[morningfog]

40. Goddamit, this isn't rw talking points. Check yourself

and apologize. It's the state IG. Goddamn, y'all are think with double thought.

When you get a little uncomfortable, like tic, yell RIGHT WING!!!"

Yes, I get she is set to be the nominee. We're fucked because of that.

[pnwmom]

55. The IG didn't say she was lying. You did. n/t

[morningfog]

61. The IG did. You should really take the time and read the report.

The IG reported the lie.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

Read pages 26 and 26. 72,000 pages of emails of government business were discovered to and from private email accounts.

It was a lie. And it is not a fucking right wing talking point.

[pnwmom]

62. Nowhere in the report does the IG say she lied. n/t

[morningfog]

63. Lol. I totally get your refusal to read it.

It is damning.

[pnwmom]

64. Please give a quote including the word "lie." Or even "falsehood."

Your interpretations are your interpretations. Nothing more.

[morningfog]

67. Lol. The OIG doesn't write for idiots as its audience.

Page 27 sets it out.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

You have to be willfully ignorant to maintain this report does not trip her up in lies and intentional violations of the law.

[pnwmom]

68. I knew you couldn't because he never said it. I also know that the civil regulations

the IG's report covers, that may have been violated, carry no penalties for people no longer employed with the government.

Which is why Colin Powell could destroy millions of emails when he left government with absolutely no consequences.

[morningfog]

69. Too fucking funny. You are a trip.

Playing dumb is cute too.

[pnwmom]

70. You are so funny, thinking this will help Bernie somehow.

[morningfog]

72. Are you just a bot that spits out nonsense?

When have I ever said this would help Bernie?

I haven't. You have no idea how foolish you look right now. Maybe you do and just don't care.

This isn't about Bernie. It's about our to be nominee and the liability she will be for us. It's a problem for the Dems. And it sucks that Hillary and her supporters put us in it.

[pnwmom]

74. No, you're a Hillary hater who is endlessly grasping at straws. n/t

[morningfog]

86. You are full of it, lol.

[Yo_Mama]

44. No, she very deliberately constructed this situation in order to hide something.

This is, sorry, not deniable. Multiple judges haven't bought it, and no one objective can.

[Gore1FL]

31. She should have simply followed the Obama Administration email policy

This wouldn't have been a hard decision in the wake of the Bush White House email scandal and the Sarah Palin gmail scandal. I am rightly outraged by all three.

[Yo_Mama]

43. When I saw that statement, I realized somebody was in deep trouble legally, because

that is total bullshit.

A bunch of her top employees also had email addresses on the special private server. That way the "insider" email chains would be totally excluded from FOIA searches as long as the low-level individuals responsible for doing the searches had no way to know the email addresses used. Their procedure was to look up the official listing.

That's why she didn't want her actual email address excluded from the spam filter - if there was an official record of it, emails she had sent to State employees on the standard system might be picked up.

There was a conspiracy to evade the law - which is why the judges are talking about "bad faith" and granting depositions, etc.

[Lars39]

87. So a closed loop with the server,

no desktop. I would think one of the few ways left to her to conduct official government business would be the very secure channels to which most people like me aren't familiar. Those investigating this are surely looking into her usage of those very secure channels, too, to give them a better idea of how she operated. Wouldn't surprise me at all at this point to learn she sidestepped even more security precautions.

Don't you just know there is a lot of face palming and JFCing! going on by OIG for intel?

Thanks for your explanation, Yo_Mama!

[TipTok]

10. So use a personal address...

The moment she started using it for official government business she lost all my rights to any privacy protection.

Period...

Setting legality aside, it just screams poor judgement.

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. Perhaps she shouldn't have co-mingled her personal

and government e-mails on the same server.

[AzDar]

36. * This. OMG...a THOUSAND times, THIS. Our Lady Of Poor Judgement brought ALL this on herself!!

[TheBlackAdder]

17. Personal emails are for personal email systems, business emails are for corporate/govt use only.

.


Really, how hard is it to perform diligence and follow proper Chinese Wall procedures that banks must follow?


.

[Press Virginia]

26. Couldn't she use her personal email for personal emails?

that's what most people do

[morningfog]

27. She shouldn't have mixed them. Stupid move that guarantees

the personal emails will get out.

[Yo_Mama]

38. It is not about personal emails - it is about the email she was using for work.

She did not want to publicize that address because then FOIA searches would include it (all the emails sent from that email to addresses at State).

That's why she is proposing to get another email address to communicate with State employees, when necessary.

[Press Virginia]

52. Yeah...but not a State.gov e-mail.

she made this mess all on her own

[Yo_Mama]

56. Very deliberately. I'm still amazed. n/t

[Press Virginia]

59. She refused an alternative which resulted in her loss of control

or what she wanted to do.
And then lied about it. Repeatedly.

[merrily]

76. No, not after she intermingles her personal communications with government communications.

[tabasco]

20. Worried about personal emails... a lot.

National security .... not so much.

[oioioi]

21. nailed it.

[Gore1FL]

34. Perfect observation in only 11 words! nt

[ReRe]

60. Like Abe. n/t

[modestybl]

22. The Clinton Foundation... the family business model...

Donors were also State Dept clients, were/are sources of Clinton family personal income, which are HRC campaign donors... a braided conflict of interest.
.
THAT is what HRC wanted to shield from view...

[silvershadow]

24. K&R nt

[SusanLarson]

30. don't forgot this

"As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I —- I don’t even want -— why would I ever want to do e-mail?" she's seen on tape telling Peter Paul on home video captured at a fundraiser.

"Can you imagine?" she said.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-2000/story?id=29396854

[FailureToCommunicate]

39. +1!

[Yo_Mama]

37. Yeah, there's proof now from content in multiple emails that the motivation was to avoid FOIA

It's extremely clear.

And the reason for not disclosing to employees her email address so it could be excluded from spam (the normal fix for this problem) was that they didn't want her email address publicly recorded at State, because that way the people searching for records to answer FOIA requests would know how to search for her email.

This is why she never had a state email address.

[oioioi]

45. Can you please provide a link to support?

I have formed the impression that it was an attempt to shield PERSONAL communications from FOIA but the incompetence of hdr22's staff in wanting her to carry one device only (this was an Abedin decision) resulted in this ridiculously amateurish setup. whereby her State and personal email were going to the same account.

hdr22's suggestion to Abedin that she should perhaps carry separate devices (which State IT also suggested to Abedin) seems to support this. hdr22 was obsessed with not having personal email exposed to FOIA but Abedin wanted her to carry a single device and combined email - it was some staffer's bright idea by the sounds of it - maybe Abedin herself insisted on it - who was responsible for the "blackberry in sunglasses" photo which was used to promote hdr22 as being tech-savvy? I would start looking there for the one who was dictating what hdr22 should be provisioned with and it sounds a lot like Abedin based on the email I've read.

[Yo_Mama]

51. Inspector General's report.

Short summary:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/25/state-department-inspector-general-report-clinton-server/84917170/

Most damning:

“Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.” (Inspector General Report, page 40)

No way can this be blamed on Abedin. It was Hillary insisting on this. The domain application for the server was in 2009 during the confirmation process.

The Inspector General's report:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/313813106/State-Department-IG-report#fullscreen

There's your source. She is lying and has been lying.

[oioioi]

58. Why can't it be blamed on Abedin?

hdr22 did not personally set up the server - her political flunky IT guy did (badly).

Why wouldn't it have been Abedin or another hdr22 staffer dealing with these low-level matters? hdr22 was probably not even aware of this - I strongly suspect that Abedin squelched any dissent or discussion about it - in fact, hdr22 suggested to Abedin (over email) that hdr22 be given 2 separate devices so hdr22's personal would not be exposed to FOIA - State IT told Abedin to do so and she directly countermanded them - does this not support the suggestion that hdr22 is concerned with separation of personal from State - not hiding State from FOIA? It was Abedin's insistence that her boss not have to carry around two devices for her email and her reliance on political hacks for IT advice and support.

If it were really as sophisticated as you're suggesting, then you'd think they would find an IT guy who could set up an email server properly. It looks very much like it was incompetent people who got their start in the campaigns and were given ongoing roles that they absolutely should not have been entrusted with.

I still do not see proof that hdr22 is demonstrably lying - do you have anything more concrete that ties hdr22 to the directive to State IT? It sounds more like hdr22 just wanted a solution to keep personal email out of FOIA and trusted Abedin to deal with the IT support stuff.

[Yo_Mama]

73. That's ridiculous - her personal EMAILS could never have been exposed to FOIA scrutiny, because

the Department of State literally did not have them, nor would they ever be sent out in response to an FOIA request even if State did have them.

Read the Inspector General's report. It also lists all the regs violated (which are, once published in the Federal Register, laws).

The "personal" Hillary did not want exposed was her EMAIL address, which is why she would not let it be excluded from the spam filter. The reason why she did not want any official record of her email address was NOT because State would then search her email server (they could not), but because then State would be able to find emails from her on the State.gov system, which would then be returned in response to FOIA requests. And when they were returned, and disclosed to the requester, the requester would realize that she was using a private email address, and that would have opened up all sorts of other difficulties.

Among those difficulties would be the discovery that she was not complying with NARA regs. Also the security issue.

It is Hillary Clinton who is insisting on this, not Huma Abedin.

As for Pagliano (who, as you will read in the IG's report was actually working on the server during his working hours, and thus there is another violation), he would naturally assume this was a PERSONAL server, and would not think to set it up for secured communications.

If he had attempted to set it up for secured communications, the procedure would have involved (read the Inspector General's report, this is in there) consulting with a specific branch, which denies ever having been consulted.

But by 2011 (this is in the Inspector General's report), Pagliano realized the server was under attack. First he shuts it down, then he emails hist contact to notify others not to send "sensitive" information, and says that the explanation will be given only over the phone. And this is why he took the Fifth. And this is why he got immunity.

And then we have the Platte River concern, who took over the email server, and their concerns about the shady dealings:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-platte-river-networks/

This can't be pushed off to anyone else. She did it. She ordered it done.

[oioioi]

78. from the IG report... Clinton wanted a blackberry - Abedin insisted on the personal server

This was certainly a deliberate attempt by hdr22 to shield PERSONAL email from the FOIA - this is very consistently reflected. I doubt hdr22 even cared or knew what her email address was - she probably doesn't understand this - otherwise she would have had better IT support at home. Any email server - even a personal one - should be deployed with basic encryption - it's not difficult to do (if you have some inkling of what you're doing).

The report suggests that hdr22 was less aware of the security and technology implications than Abedin was - hdr22 just wanted her blackberry - it also exposes hdr22 as hopelessly inept with her understanding of basic security and technology - as bad as this is though, perhaps you're inferring malice aforethought when it's more like shocking stupidity and political arrogance.... Abedin sounds like a complete nightmare....

In late-January 2009, in response to Secretary Clinton’s desire to take her BlackBerry
device into secure areas, her Chief of Staff discussed with senior officials in S/ES and with
the Under Secretary for Management alternative solutions, such as setting up a separate
stand-alone computer connected to the Internet for Secretary Clinton “to enable her to
check her emails from her desk.” The Under Secretary’s response was “the stand-alone
separate network PC is [a] great idea” and that it is “the best solution.” According to the
Department, no such computer was ever set up.

In March 2009, after unsuccessful efforts to supply Secretary Clinton with a secure government
smartphone, DS was informed that Secretary Clinton’s staff had been asking to use BlackBerry
devices inside classified areas. The Assistant Secretary of DS then sent a classified memorandum
to Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff that described the vulnerabilities associated with the use of
BlackBerry devices and also noted the prohibition on the use of Blackberry devices in sensitive
areas. According to a DS official, shortly after the memorandum was delivered, Secretary Clinton
approached the Assistant Secretary and told him she “gets it.”

In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not
being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk
about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so
you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address
or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible

In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to the Secretary’s
request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her
personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because “her personal email
server is down.” The then-Executive Secretary informed staff of his intent to provide two
devices for the Secretary to use: “one with an operating State Department email account
(which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and
another which would just have phone and internet capability.” In another email
exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had already
been set up for the Secretary and also stated that “you should be aware that any email
would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.”154
However, the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff rejected the proposal to use two devices,
stating that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” OIG found no evidence that the
Secretary obtained a Department address or device after this discussion.

[Uncle Joe]

41. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, paulthompson.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Isn't that nice?

There's a risk that my wall street speech transcripts might become public domain if left on a secure government server, so I'll buy a beige box at best buy, install it in my bathroom and have one of my staffers install an exchange server on it.

Yeah, there's a risk that China or Russia will hack it and find out everything the Department of State knows about everything, but it's a small price to pay to protect my personal secrets from eventual release to the public.

[Babel_17]

57. /. commenters on the Computer World article

https://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/05/25/2142250/state-dept-it-staff-told-to-keep-quiet-about-clintons-server

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3075347/government-it/state-dept-it-staff-told-to-keep-quiet-about-clinton-s-server.html

[Jesus Malverde]

75. In any organization

If you have a division head who is not using the company information systems. It's an end around the CEO as much as anything else.

Imagine John Kerry coming in on the job and having no idea what the previous SOS did because there was no historical record of the job that was done.

First thing the company I worked for asked for when they laid me off was access to my email records so they could take my active projects and reassign them or otherwise refer to work that was competed.

This looks like an end around, on her boss President Obama. She could then continue to work with operators like bloomenthal whom the administration had specifically banned from the state department.

If any of my employees set up their own information systems and refused to use the companies, they are obviously untrustworthy, not team players and likely up to shenanigans. It's obvious in any organization. Why do we play games and pretend government, especially dealing with matters of national security would be any different if anything it would demand stricter controls.

[pugetres]

77. Having the worry of

keeping your private emails separate from your work/national security emails, planning your daughter's wedding, avoiding FOIA laws, trying to perfect your downward dog, hiding the fact that a good friend who doesn't have security clearance is in possession of classified information...

just doesn't sound "convenient" to me. But, that's just me.

[billhicks76]

79. Then Shouldn't Have Mixed Them, Hypocrite.

[Major Hogwash]

80. Clinton refused to cooperate with the IG's office.

That is also being reported tonight.

[Scuba]

85. Best possible case for Hillary now is that she had terrible judgement (again) and lied ...

... to cover it up.




Not exactly the characteristics or behaviors I expect from Democratic Party leaders.