MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Clinton Using Private Email ‘Stunning Breach of Security’

[Cali_Democrat]

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell tonight covered the big news that Hillary Clinton solely used her personal email account while she was Secretary of State, and he honestly found this news both troubling and baffling, noting how personal emails are “only supposed to be used for government business in an emergency.”

New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters said this is definitely “unusual,” but only adds to the idea that Clinton is not very “forthcoming” and “not all business is being conducted in the open like it should be.” MSNBC senior editor Beth Fouhy also wondered, “Where were the State Department lawyers who allowed this to go forward?”

Fouhy said, “She understands rules and protocol, and for her to just willingly violate it just to preserve some semblance of privacy just really makes no sense.”

O’Donnell, meanwhile, was just baffled at how the Secretary of State could be “using a not-secure, commercial email system” the entire time. He called it a “stunning breach of security and said, “If it’s true that she never used a State Department email address, we have something that, at first read, has no conceivable rational explanation to it that is legitimate.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-odonnell-clinton-using-private-email-stunning-breach-of-security/

[hrmjustin]

1. Did he say the same thing when Colin Powell did the same exact thing?

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Didn't your mama tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? n/t

[hrmjustin]

12. My mother taught me right from wrong thank you.

[iandhr]

85. Two wrongs don't make a right

But three rights make a left.

[roguevalley]

14. first of all, she put information at risk. She used

personal emails the entire time she was there. Secondly, anyone ready to poo-poo this or be her apologist, remember that Sarah Palin did the same thing. If its wrong for her, then its wrong for Clinton. In fact, its worse. Palin is a numbskull. What is Clinton then?

WTF kind of judgment is this? WTF!

Sincerely, I am not ready to walk through the sewer with a Clinton again. This is not excusable. Gear up Bengazi everyone. You know they will and no one is to blame but her. Using a private email the entire time you are Sec of State is inexcusable stupidity. Period.

[hrmjustin]

15. Well if they were not encrypted then this story will get bigger.

If they were it will blow over.

[roguevalley]

16. I feel that even if they were encrypted it won't

because she wants to be prez and this is a judgment issue. Really, I am stunned about this. They seem to WANT shit to happen. Bill getting back on the pedophile's plane after the story breaks is amazing to me. So is this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. In tennis, they call these "unforced errors." Yet another political gift to Rethuglians.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

102. At the very least, it is an immunization for Scott Walker.

Walker set up his own servers in a government office so he and his underlings could conduct campaign activity on the government dime.

We don't know what Clinton was thinking or doing. But it won't matter to the "both sides do it" crowd and media.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. Excellent point. If nothin else, we lose using that issue to further weaken Walker. That wud be regrettable.

[BojackFan]

30. Yikes

I didn't know that thing with Bill C. was ever confirmed...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

68. I don't think it has been confirmed by reputable reporting. Apparently, WashPo & NYT are still investigatin the story, so to be fair, we need to wait before passin final judgment.

[Dems to Win]

33. +1 They want us to have to swallow their scandals and support them anyway.

What's up with that?

[KeepItReal]

118. Encryption requires specific set up on both ends of an email (for every recipient).

Maybe these folks using private domains/emails for communications are on the ball, but most likely they are not.

e-mail encryption is not something you can impose unilaterally. To protect the contents of your account, you need to ensure that everyone you communicate with is in a position to handle encrypted mail—and is willing to use that ability.

Finally, e-mail encryption doesn't encrypt everything. Certain metadata—including e-mail addresses of both sender and recipient, time and date of sending, and the e-mail's subject line—is unencrypted. Only the body of the mail (and any attachments) gets protected.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/encrypted-e-mail-how-much-annoyance-will-you-tolerate-to-keep-the-nsa-away/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. It was stupid in the extreme & tees up the obvious argument that Hillary lacks judgment in security matters, showin she's not Presidential material.

[aquart]

56. I'm guessing Hillary knows more about violations of privacy than you can even imagine.

She did see her husband's penis described in print?

I expect it taught her to be very careful and controlling about information.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. That's an interesting "twist" (pun intended) to the security issue, though if Hillary offers that as a possible explanation, not sure that's going to fly with most people. Maybe; we'll see.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. Some people don't learn from their mistakes.

Using a commercial email service is not 'private' at all.

So even if she 'knows about them', she still simply did something unimaginably stupid if this story is true.

I would even say 'un-Presidential', except that after George W, nothing, no matter how stupid or illegal is 'unPresidential' any more.

[still_one]

111. That is not actually factual. You can use decryption technologies with public and private keys on

commercial email servers, and it is quite private

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

113. Sure, you can. Any proof that she did?

And we've been told that doing so automatically puts you under surveillance and causes all of those encrypted emails to be held onto indefinitely by the NSA, among others. But every year, as computers get faster, the time it takes to decrypt anything of a given key length decreases as well. Are you suggesting that a woman who couldn't be bothered to use more secure channels in the first place is going to take the time to set up encryption key exchanges with each of the hundreds or thousands of people with whom she communicates individually in her personal email account? That seems pretty far-fetched.

[still_one]

114. That wasn't my point, you made a statement that using commercial email could not be secure. I was

simply correcting that

If there were rules setup on use of private emails she or her staff should have followed those rules.

However, if the government really knew what it was doing, it would not have allowed any personal email correspondence to occur. They could have quite easily blocked it from within the state department through their servers

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

116. And my point stands. It's not.

Your data can be intercepted, and kept until such time as it can be decrypted.

Sure if all you care about is things you wrote not being read in the next few years, you're 'safe'. But I'd bet within a decade, any of the encryption schemas currently in use will have been cracked. That's why keep seeing longer and longer keys being used every couple years.

[still_one]

121. Whatever

[jeff47]

126. No, you can't.

You can encrypt the connection between you and your mail server.

You can theoretically encrypt the data that is stored on the mail server. It is very unlikely that it is actually encrypted on the server - this is hard to do and error prone.

You can not send an encrypted email to someone else out of the blue. You have to exchange encryption keys first, which is not a trivial undertaking. No common email client automatically does it.

Without key exchange, your recipient just gets a pile of encrypted garbage they can't read.

As a result, the overwhelming majority of email is sent and stored unencrypted. There's little reason to believe Clinton did any different than "standard practice".

[cascadiance]

71. I had a pretty close inside view with what happened with Sarah Palin's email hack...

... and it wasn't pretty. Can't say much more than that. But for Clinton to put important emails dealing with non-private matters and government centric business on a private email account is really NOT the right thing to do! The government has its own priorities on how it should safeguard it's email, and knows what's important to secure and how the security branches will look and not look at it. A private email enterprise has different priorities (mostly profit), and is not always on the same page with what is important to those working in government.

I hope she was using a paid email account and not a "free email account". There's at least more attention given to the paid email accounts in terms of quality of service and less compromises in terms of security to things like inline advertising, etc. That was one of the big mistakes Palin made.

[fadedrose]

100. Benghazi

According to Rachel & O'Donnell, the R's investigating the Benghazi affair are the ones who discovered the email thing, and they are going to continue digging.

Maybe that's why HC hasn't announced yet....waiting for all the garbage to come out, clear it up, and then run without the baggage.... makes sense to me and it would make it easier to get money from supporters.

Anything can be cleared up with the right potential campaign workers. I can just barely recall that a few months ago Monica Lewinsky was in the news 24/7 for at least 2 weeks, and it was the same here in DU. And now it's back to Monica's a done story. But I do wonder how she did with that new start stuff.

[aquart]

22. Cyber security seems more problematic now than it did in the previous century.

That much I'll freely admit.

But if it was really a scandal, I am dead sure some troll would have leaked it while she was SOS. Unless this is another of those lovely plants like Cheney did to get us into war. Could the Kochs afford that?

[MADem]

34. Madeleine Albright did it too--and so did everyone in the Bush White House.

The punishment is thirty lashes with a National Archives bookmark.

There will be no "frog marching." Oh well. I'll bet some are disappointed.

[fadedrose]

98. Where's the link for "everyone" you list?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

109. I'd like to see that too. While the excuse "everyone does it" won't fly with a lot of people, it would lessen the damage that's already out there....

Still shows bad judgment on Hillary's part regardless, especially since she is vying to be the Commander-in-Chief while showin a profound lack of sensitivity to security issues. As a leader, Hillary should be settin the example, not making excuses. JMHO.

[MADem]

136. You were seriously unaware of that controversy? It was all over the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Their crime was that they didn't "archive" and they used the account to get around official channels. That's not the case at State. State had an antiquated system (unlike the WH) and the emails produced were all archived.

[brush]

62. He didn't have his show then but it doesn't really matter

Colin Powell isn't the dem frontrunner for the 2016 presidential race.

If this is true Hillary is about to get hammered relentlessly for astoundingly poor judgment.

The repugs will milk this until the cows come home with the milk — even more than they have Benghazi.

[fadedrose]

97. In defense of Powell

(just my opinion)

Powell was Secretary of State 2001-2005 under George W. Bush, and was succeeded by Condy Rice, 2005-2009. In 2008, Powell started to support Obama and has continued to support Obama.

Getting to the email thing, maybe Powell did not trust the Bush Administration but had no proof of anything, and may have come to the conclusion that there was lying about why to go to war in Iraq. Afghanistan is where he started, and the battle moved to Iraq.

He had damn good reason for his distrust.

Did Hillary have any reason not to trust the Obama Administration? If so, what might that reason be? If not Obama, who else shouldn't know what she was doing?

[Orsino]

129. Norwegian Blues stun easily. n/t

[marym625]

2. I love him.

[Fumesucker]

3. No one could have predicted that using unsecure email as SoS could lead to controversy

SO STOP SAYING THAT!

[ram2008]

4. I suspect this will be the first of many...

The Clintons have proven to be deceitful characters who think they are above the law time and time again. . She hasn't even announced yet and we're already seeing stuff like this. I can't imagine the type of scandals that would arise when shes actually in a position of governing again. No thanks... it's a new decade, time for someone new to represent the party.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Ya think? Yes, way overdue. We have a deep bench; plenty of qualified potential candidates who set a good example and demonstrate sound judgment.

[ram2008]

9. You can bet a huge part of the party was waiting for something like this

They all have a metaphorical gun to their head from 08, when Clinton probably agreed to play nice with Obama on the condition that the party agreed to support her candidacy in '16. The party has been reluctantly playing along, but this is the equivalent of a hostage stomping on the foot of the person with the gun. It leaves a small opening for someone to wrestle it away... Hopefully that happens now.

I'd really love to be a fly on the wall of Team Clinton right now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Good analogy ram. For too long, the Clintons have held members of the Democratic Party hostage. Some of 'em are still sufferin from Stockholm Syndrome.

[aquart]

27. Bullfuckingshit.

I've had an eye on Hillary since she admitted not wanting to bake cookies (I bake cookies). And I've respected her since she neither killed, maimed, nor left her cheating husband.

No first lady has ever done what she did and it awes me how many of you find that success repulsive.

[MADem]

35. I know--she belted him with a lamp (allegedly) but did no permanent harm.

Now THAT takes some serious skill! A lesser person would have cut or bruised him!

Seriously, though--I agree with you that she is an amazing human being. Her accomplishments are amazing, she is smart as hell, dedicated as hell, takes more shit than any ten Senators or cabinet members, and just keeps on keeping on, no matter how vicious people are to, or about, her.

I think she's just fine. I don't 'get' the envy.

[aquart]

38. A lamp? I think I would have liked a scar. On his forehead, perhaps.

[MADem]

39. I think there was a bit of swelling around the eye--a bit of pan stick covered it.

The story is the secret service heard the commotion and stepped in to grab the lamp. I guess they simmered down a bit afterwards, but she was still (justifiably) pissed off.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. When is it ever justifiable to begin throwin objects at your spouse in response to some argument you're engaged in?

[AngryAmish]

76. Spousal abuse is almost always justified I guess.

[Bonobo]

54. Because physical abuse of your spouse is totally okay! nt

[MADem]

57. No, it's not "OK" but in this instance I can see her POV and appreciate her frustration.

It was a visceral reaction to his abuse, prevarication and betrayal. Gee, if it's emotional abuse, it's OK? Is that your point?

But hey--great oversimplification, there!! Pat yourself on the back! Not too hard, now...

[AngryAmish]

77. My spouse cheats on me I get to slap them around.

Where is that written into the intimate partner abuse statute? Or is it common law?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Wow! So if the roles were reversed, you would appreciate & excuse Bill's visceral reaction of throwin a lamp at Hillary?

I see, another exception carved out for Hillary - let nothing get in the way of the coronation, God forbid!

I wish it weren't so, and that Hillary was an exemplary leader, especially with her stellar credentials as First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. To be an exemplary leader, however, you're supposed to lead by EXAMPLE, and that's where Hillary falls WAY short.

I know I'll never convince you and Hillary's loyal supporters otherwise, and that's okay; in some ways you are to be commended, certainly not hectored the way so many of us are treated here for takin an opposing progressive viewpoint. Trust me, those of us who see right through Hillary, just like we did in 2008, and rightly oppose her stance on so many issues important to Main Street voters will be vindicated once again. You'll see and, one day, you'll be grateful that the truth prevailed.

[MADem]

134. If you mistake challenge and objection for "hectoring," you need to go do your homework.

HRC has hardly been "crowned" here at DU. She catches more shit here than Jeb Bush or Chris Christie do.

Usually, that shit doesn't just involve criticisms of her, but also her husband, and her activities as a teenager supporting her father's chosen candidate. Her record--and she has one, a long one, unlike some--is peppered with Very Liberal ideas, going way, way back (who was for Universal Health Care as First Lady? Not Dolly Madison, for example). But hey, haters gonna hate. I can't worry about that.

I will vote for the winner of the Democratic primary, as I've always done. I won't, like some here, take my ball and go home if my choice doesn't win. That's because I understand what some here do not--even the worst Democrat is far better than the best Republican.

If you can't say the same, well, that's on you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

144. Just prefer Dems not TELEGRAPH ultimate support 4 even the worst candidate as u say (agree w/ ur premise) so Hillary won't take our vote 4 granted & will move left on issues

important to progressives.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. Apparently, like the rule against government officials' use of personal email to conduct non-emergency govt business, there's an exception for Hillary. Didn't you get the memo?

[aquart]

107. Holding someone to a rule NOT IN EXISTENCE till 2 years after she left her job?

Dear me.

[Autumn]

146. She threw it at him, it missed. I fell in love with Hillary when I heard that.

And the cookie bit I thought was priceless. She's one hell of a lady That being said, I really hope she doesn't run

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. Hillary, once again, shows incredible lack of judgment - seems to be a pattern with her. Time for Elizabeth to step up.

[Agschmid]

7. There are other candidates who are actually interested in running you know...

[MADem]

41. Yeah, because being a registered Republican as late as 1996 shows better judgment?

I mean, really--let's get a little perspective, here.

We don't know what she knew about the quality of State Department email. Their message traffic sure as hell wasn't safe--a lot of that ended up in the hands of Wikileaks.

[aquart]

42. Hogwash. What a lynchmob DU has become.

[RiverLover]

69. Yep.

Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department

[Adrahil]

143. Disagree....

This is mountains out of mole hills.

When I worked for the Navy, we all used private emails, especially on the road, because the official system sucked (and still does).

Heck we even wound up using private laptops at one point because the officially provide "NMCI" machines sucked so bad. they were so laden with management software, that it SERIOUSLY hampered productivity. Still does, I understand, though apparently it is somewhat improved.

It got so bad at one point that an Admiral in my commend issued an order to not bad mouth NMCI In any official correspondence or meetings. LOL!

Much of this was the result of Congressionally mandated requirements, and sweet-heart deals arranged at the Congressional level. The Navy is STILL trying to clean it up, almost 20 years later.

[TDale313]

8. ...

Ya know, this is one of the most frustrating things about the Clintons for me. They know the Repugs are out to get them- always looking for the next Clinton "scandal"- this has been the case for decades now. Why, why, why give them this kind of ammunition?

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Also...

This is the fricken Secretery of State. You've gotta use secure communications.

It's now safe to assume that the Russians, Chinese, Israelis and others were reading everything.

Good lord.

[TwilightGardener]

18. I will say, I doubt she or her staff would put sensitive or classified

stuff on unsecured emails--there's a separate protocol for that stuff, if they followed proper procedures. So if they hacked her account the Chinese would get stuff like: "Glad to see you again at the Conference! See you next year!" or "Remember to let Ambassador Blankety-blank know that we will review our policy on providing pack llamas for Bolivian women basketweavers". At least I hope so. I hope it's not full of "WTF is going on today in Benghazi?? Holy shit, I better make some phone calls, I've been getting my hair done all afternoon!"

[PedXing]

28. Do you really think Clinton is THAT stupid?

[Dems to Win]

32. +1. Just what the presumptive Democratic nominee needs -- more baggage.

[aquart]

40. Try this:

link:http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-isnt-awful-seems/ That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Life Isn't as Awful as It Seems

On the surface it sounds damning. The Secretary of State potentially sent top secret information through her personal account, even though there's evidently a law that says she's not allowed to use a personal account for government business--sounds outrageous. But like many of the bombshell news stories we've witnessed in the last couple of years, it all falls apart under the most cursory level of scrutiny.

BOB CESCA

PS Sorry about the link. I can't seem to do it on a tablet.

[MADem]

43. Here you go--I hope everyone reads it.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/

Especially THIS paragraph:

The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.

Read that carefully. Those DIRE Federal Regulations went into effect TWO YEARS AFTER CLINTON STEPPED DOWN!!!

Oh, the HUGE manatee!!!!!!



What a load!!!!


I can't help but note that some people were just so damn eager to throw a Democrat under the bus....anxious, almost. This will be an enormous disappointment to them, I'm sure.

[aquart]

45. THANK YOU!

I once did a successful cut and paste on a tablet. Once.

[MADem]

50. Hey--that was a beaut of a find, and ALL CREDIT TO YOU! Talk about much ado about NADA!!!

And Lawrence O'Donnell ought to be ASHAMED of himself--who's doing HIS research? The Three Stooges? The Three Republican Amigos?

I mean, really--how hard is it to find out when the damn LAW was signed into effect? Ya can't shriek convincingly about someone being a law breaker when there was no damned LAW when she was supposedly "breaking" it.

Keee-ripes!!!!!

[Bohunk68]

67. I tired of O'Donnell ages ago.

He's just too damn smug and smarmy. I usually will listen to Rachel, but lately, not so much. So Larry was on, acting as if he is the smartest person in the world and then I heard this report and did a WTF? Frankly, I now get most of my news from either Al Jazeera or Link TV OR right here on DU. The rest just suck. I agree wholeheartedly with you, MADem.

[TheKentuckian]

110. The law was put into place to correct a problem, no?

Did she break the law? No.

Did she engage in the very behavior that necessitated the law? Sure seems like that, is there some argument?

Nobody is talking about prosecution so the law being in effect is immaterial to the conversation rather it is her lackluster ass judgement, a pattern of silly self inflicted and unforced political errors, and general penchant for shadiness (which fuels a lot of the first two problems) being discussed.

Really, the hail of sniper fire shit should be an exclusion not so much because it was such a huge lie (and it was as a tall tale as any) but because of the awe inspiring scope of the incompetence and stupidity of it.

It is one of those lying little kid lies that are impossible not to figure the truth out in very short order but done out of individual nature and lack of consequences to provide incentive to learn to behave otherwise.

[aquart]

119. Actually, the personal email was considered government property, you'll notice.

Does the current rule free personal email from that restriction?

So whatever Hillary did with her email was done with the assumption it would turn up in federal archives. With the new law, her staff now have the right to separate personal from gov't email which is what they've been doing. Or did I read that wrong (the doctor has restricted my coffee intake, you know)?

[MADem]

132. Huh? "Lying little kid lies?" No one did any lying. You've not got the bubble.

The State Department computer system sucked--no surprise there. IT is still playing catch-up, a decade and a half after Nahn Wun Wun--all over the federal government. She didn't do anything her predecessors didn't do.

You seriously expect the SECSTATE to have to walk down the hall and wait in line to send an email? That's what the capability was when she was in the seat.

Her judgment was fine. The only correspondence that got compromised from STATE on her watch didn't come from her emails, it came from sanctioned State Department message traffic, sent through official channels (thanks to a grabber/dumper named Manning who is now residing at Leavenworth).

I am amazed at the pile-on/retractions on this issue that have taken place in a 24 hour news cycle. The fact that so many people here on DU were eager to jump in and wrongly assume the worst--over-eager, some--is ... interesting.

[TheKentuckian]

145. That was about her stupid sniper lie or are you claiming she took fire after all?

[MADem]

150. When ya got nada, change the subject!

She copped to that error. You've got google, look it up.

What "But....but...." is next, I got to wonder? "Waaah, she was a (gasp) Goldwater girl as a teen-ager!!!"

[brush]

64. Two years after she left office or not

The Secretary of State should be using a secure email channel.

Sorry, it's poor judgement that the repugs are going to hammer her with.

This shows they've already got their opposition research operatives going full bore.

[MADem]

147. They can hammer all they want--it's not going to stick.

The American people aren't stupid--they can spot a bully at fifty paces. Rick Lazio figured that out, too late....

[brush]

155. They're already starting

The head of the BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI committee has subpoenaed her emails.

They'll be milking this all the way through the campaign season, as will FOX and Limpbutt and all the rest.

They're gonna cherry pick whatever they can make hay over and dribble it out and keep it in the news for the next year and a half so the negatives on Hillary will build. And those negatives don't just influence the repug base, independents and some dems fall for it as well.

I'm sorry, no way should a Clinton, especially one with an eye on running for higher office, ever give repugs red meat like this to pounce on.

[KittyWampus]

74. MADem, do us all a solid and post this as an OP for all the henny-pennies.

OR SOMEBODY.

I'd post it but my OP's almost never get read.

[MADem]

133. Sorry--I was out of pocket today with a bit of work to do.

It's all been resolved and pretty much everyone knows it's a Seinfeld report (i.e. a story about NOTHING).

I guess NYT had to try to throw some shit up there to detract from all the BIBI BAD PRESS!

Let the games begin--at least now we know that they'll lead with lies at the Fifty Shades of Grey Lady (crap meets crap!) if they want to try to manage the 24 hour news cycle!!!

This should be a cautionary tale though--the New York Times is not reliable. They definitely have a bias, and they're willing to print incomplete, poorly researched, poorly sourced S.H.I.T. (stupid, halfassed innuendo with truthiness) in order to distract from other stories of import and to get clickbait. They've lost their way.

I mean, really--Judy Miller. Jayson Blair. They frickin INVENT the news, they shade it to suit their corporate bosses. They are lacking in honor and this is just the latest fuckup. It's a shame. If the newspaper industry wonders why they're dying, and "new media" is becoming the standard, it's because they are doing a shit job of verifying information. There's no editing anymore. So long as we're going to read unverified crap, we might as well get it from peppier outlets online. Why pay to get lies and bullshit, AND ink on your hands/clothes?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

89. Except... it was still a known problem long before the law.

Was it illegal? No.

Was it still damned stupid? Yes.

But commercial email accounts have been being hacked for several decades, so if she honestly didn't realize that sending government mail over commercial servers was a bad idea, she's either incredibly naive and living in a bubble not reading the news, or just stupid and arrogant.

[MADem]

151. The archivist of the United States has NO problem with SECSTATE Clinton.

He's not sweating the load. He has said she has broken NO laws and done NOTHING illegal and that there is NO rule against her--or anyone else--having and using multiple email accounts --and that includes non-dot gov ones--even if you don't happen to like that.

My only question is this: If he's not worried, and she did NOTHING illegal (and I'll believe him and his statements of yesterday, rather than the tortured justifications of people who plainly wish Clinton ill and engage in creative interpretation of government regulations to a point of absurdity) , why are ostensible Democrats on a Democratic message board pitching a massive, gassive hissy fit about this invented, contrived, NON-story?

Apparently, HRC did a better job of keeping HER emails safe than official message traffic to embassies and consulates--her stuff didn't end up at Wikileaks, only the cables from the Department did.

But hey, keep on about the whole judgment thing (sorry, your opinion is not controlling, here). I'd say the ones who are "stupid and arrogant" are the ones who don't see the great big load of stinking Bibi Poop Distraction they're being served up by the NYT and other sketchy actors. Instead of turning up their noses, and seeing the WHAT and WHY of this lousy non-story which has been debunked, they're volunteering to be GOP waiters, and are passing the shit around like it's hors d'ouvres at the GOP pre-coronation party.

Wassup with THAT...? Hmmm.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

154. She was the BOSS.

She saw a problem with the Department's email system, and her solution was to fix it ONLY FOR HERSELF.

NOT to fix the official system, but simply her own.

That makes her a really crappy boss, and a really crappy manager.

It sure as hell doesn't paint her as a person who wants to solve the problems the country faces for all Americans.

She's looking out for herself first, and no one else.

Still think it's a 'NON-story'?

[BlueCaliDem]

91. I LOVE Bob Cesca. He cuts through the RW-propaganda each and every time.

You should make your post an OP in order to silence the strong and loud dissenting voices of Hillary Clinton on DU and discourage them from returning with the same B.S. in order to tear down our strongest Democrat.

[hopemountain]

130. this ought to be it's own OP. nt

the hysteria is over taking the sense of reason.
so now we know where the nyt stands with regard to hillary's decision to run.

the mainstream news media are such powerful bullshit entities they are able to drag through the mud whomever displeases or is not lock step with them.

[ARMYofONE]

148. There's more than one Fed reg in play here, and the other pertinent one was enacted in 2009

"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." Section 1236.22, National Archives and Records Administration Requirements.

Clinton was head of the agency and she did not follow this requirement. Period. End of story. No emails were turned over until 2 years after she left office, and the ones that were, were hand picked by her staff. That is bullshit.

[MADem]

149. The archivist of the United States disagrees with you, and he's the final arbiter, not you, not an

incompetent NYT reporter bent on distracting from the Bibi disaster on the Hill, not pouting teahadists, not right wing blogs.

She archived every message--so too bad, so sad. Darn the bad luck!

And how dare her staff pick out the messages about the flowers selected for Chelsea's wedding....OH, the Huge Manatee!!!

[hopemountain]

61. thank you, both

furthermore - if she was communicating sensitive and top secret emails - do we really think she and the persons she was communicating with were not insuring secure encrypted technology? this is why her staff never raised an eyebrow either.

it is all bruhaha. i see nasty fingerprints and 'slimy bad breath feeding the hysteria furnace' all over this story. the gop is terrified hillary will run.

the timing is interesting as well - early monday morning the news was reporting that hillary would be announcing her bid this month. by late afternoon, this story hits the fan....

wait until lawrence o'donnell realizes he has been played.

[aquart]

103. What I see is unmarked cash disappearing into pockets.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. Arrogance, pride, hubris.

Call it what you will, but it's certainly not limited to the Clintons. It's a basic component of the majority of higher level politicians, and most of them consider it a 'good' thing, that you 'have' to have the ego to think you're going to make better decisions than anyone else, and therefore the decisions you make are 'good' until you get caught and shamed for them.

[Faux pas]

10. Entitled and

above the law, not attractive qualities in anyone.

[MADem]

44. Really? Above the law? You might want to check the link at post 43.

It's kind of disingenuous to accuse people of being "above the law" when the law wasn't signed until TWO YEARS AFTER they left office....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

92. Sort of like jumping on the case of somebody

for not having read a post that was posted 33 comments after they wrote theirs?

[MADem]

139. I find it rather sad that so many here at DU are not just willing, but EAGER, to

shit on a Democrat with "AH HA!" and "J'ACCUSE!!!" posts without waiting to see if maybe, just maybe, those assholes at the NYT--who have done this kind of shit before (cough Judy Miller cough) -- are up to their usual dirty tricks again.

I'd love to be disappointed, and see DU say "Let's wait for the full story" rather than see so many jump on HRC with undisguised glee. Didn't happen, though.

I was astounded to see such a poorly sourced piece of garbage in NYT on the front page--they really rushed that piece of crap out. I suppose they needed something to take the stink off of Bibi's Blundering Bloviation as a consequence of Buffoon Bonehead's invitation, and they just slapped that shit up, hoping someone would bite--and way too many people, who should have known better, certainly did.

All I can say is this kind of thing is just more of the same. This really isn't a Democratic message board anymore.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

142. Several points.

First, that's human nature. Especially since the story was being reported on by basically every pundit on TV already, which made it seem like it was 'general knowledge' and not everything coming from a single story. How many times have you gone into a 'breaking' type story, and found commenters digging up all sorts of new info somehow on their own, rather than depending upon what was already presented? Not bloody often.

Second, virtually everyone on here has strong opinions about what they think the Party 'should be', and most of those include thinking that some 'Democrats' actually tarnish the party image and make it less like their ideal Party. In some cases, that includes Hillary Clinton. So yes, people who already think she is dragging the Party farther from their ideals are going to 'jump on her' when she does something that yet again seems to show a Democrat in power acting just like Republicans in power.

Third, while many people (not me, because I read some of the comments addressing the 'illegality' issue before I posted) did mistakenly assume that what she did was 'illegal', what actually matters electorally is how voters perceive her actions in term of the 'known Clinton' narrative. So whether it was 'illegal or not' (I don't know enough about the 1950s statute to judge whether it covers what she and her team did or did not do), and whether rules were clarified AFTER her term in office or not, what voters see is another politician doing something that looks a lot like trying to be able to keep some of what they do out of public hands. They may remember Scott Walker's private email setup, or, apparently Jeb Bush's similar private emails. And so that narrative of 'powerful Democrats and powerful Republicans act the same' grows stronger, and the Party's image with voters grows poorer. Most of them don't care WHY she had a private email system, only that she DID.

Heck, even those who have heard about the State Department's 'crappy antiquated email system' have to ask how it is that her 'solution' to that problem was to fix HER email rather than the State Department's email. For her entire term of office, she did nothing about what was apparently a well known problem with what was supposed to be the primary means of communication for the entire Department for which she was supposedly in charge? She didn't even bother to delegate the job to some Deputy, to say 'This is unacceptable. It might have been good enough for Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice, who were from the party that constantly tries to weaken and destroy the government's ability to do anything efficiently, but not for me. I'm a Democrat and we believe that government is actually capable of solving problems. I want it fixed ASAP. At the very least, it needs to be as efficient as the email this generic IT guy set up for me personally, and preferably much more secure. Report back to me on your progress on fixing this every two weeks.'

So even if your voter is savvy enough to have heard about the lousy email system, again, the impression given is that she only cared about HER email, and didn't give a crap about that of every other person in the State Department. That she acted just like the Republican Secretaries of State before her.

Can you see how that frustrates people who want Democrats to be seen as better than Republicans? Who believe that standing up for regular Americans and being seen as caring about other people and wanting government to be seen as working better under Democrats is the path towards getting more people to vote for Democrats? Why they might want Democrats who don't want to be better than Republicans to get out of the way, and let Democrats who actually want government agencies to be run well take over?

This is still a Democratic message board. But a lot of people are tired of the excuses for Dems behaving like Republicans. They want Dems to be BETTER.

[AtomicKitten]

17. Cheney defied subpoenas.

Some people think they are above the law.

SNL spoof on Hillary circa 2008 was right.
Video scrubbed from the web.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/101177

Hillary: "I have no ethical standards."

[aquart]

46. Let's be clear: You are quoting a parody NOT Hillary who NEVER said those stupid words.

God, if this is the beginning the Democrats will do 80% of the Koch's wet work before the Republicans hold their first primary.

[AtomicKitten]

52. I made it clear by calling it an SNL spoof.

That it has an element of truth to it makes it interesting.

[aquart]

49. Cheney and his Bush buds planted misinformation in the NYT?

ANYTHING LOOK FAMILIAR?

[AtomicKitten]

55. They thought they were above the law too.

[Major Hogwash]

19. This is devastating.

If true, this demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about how the SOS functions.

[MADem]

36. No it isn't. The wingnuts WANT it to be, but since they've done the very same thing, they have no

room to talk.

Maybe she felt the government net wasn't sufficiently secure for her purposes--who knows?

[still_one]

112. hyperbole much?

[Major Hogwash]

131. Nyet!

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Yawn. Every email is hackable. There is no "secure" system.

[Fumesucker]

23. If you are the NSA perhaps

Hopefully the State Dept has a secure means of communication.

[SunSeeker]

31. The State Dept. is no paragon of security. Chelsea Manning leaked 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

93. Not by hacking.

Manning had actual access to those files (whether or not she should have is a different argument), and downloaded them internally, then walked them out. It takes an inside job to do that sort of thing.

When you use commercial servers, your data is bounced wherever the net can route it faster, and is out there for anyone along the line to intercept.

[KeepItReal]

120. Exactly.

Unless these people encrypted the emails they originated *and* had all recipients with encryption enabled on their side, the messages were by no means secure.

[SunSeeker]

124. Your email is hackable no matter what server you use.

And it's not like she was using Yahoo or gmail. She set up her own domain, back in 2009 when she started her SOS confirmation hearings.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

125. 'She set up her own domain'

So, instead of using a server run by a major company with actual security guys onstaff, she had some generic IT guy somewhere set one up for her? Yeah, that really makes her 'more secure'.

[SunSeeker]

128. What info do you have that she had some "random guy" set up her domain?

She appears to have used Network Solutions.

[MADem]

152. But no Clinton emails.

Ain't that something!

[freshwest]

29. And I have video of O'Donnell proudly saying to Greenwald he's not a progressive, either.

O'Donnell said then he's a Socialist, because 'progressives' are evil, doncha know. But now he's going with conservative billionaire owned MSNBC for the bucks!

This is just tossing anything that the GOP Koch Libertarian M$M thinks will stick - the outrage du jour - just using Segretti's method. It's been working for 40 years, why stop now?

[Iliyah]

25. The House Ethic Committtee will start their investigation on it immediately

24/7 corporate media coverage

[MADem]

37. I'll bet you a donut they live in a glass house on this particular issue. nt

[merrily]

47. Trying to blame this on lack of notice to Hillary and/or on her lawyers or staff is laughable and

embarrassing.

We weren't born yesterday and neither was Hillary.

She went to college at Wellesley, one of the Seven Sisters, and law school at Yale, an Ivy League University. She's been a lawyer since 1973 and in and around government, probably since Bubba was graduated from law school.

I'll eat my hat if she never heard of any or all of the very same public/private emails kerfuffles I and other DUers heard about, never got briefed on the requirements of Federal Records Act, never got written notice of the requirements of the Federal Records Act, etc.

[MBS]

48. Here's a comment on the NYT article on this:

I agree with O'Donnell that this is an astonishing breach of security. As well as a violation of clear federal regulations. Not to mention a violation of good sense.
Of the many, many comments to the NYT article, this one stuck in my mind:

V DC 4 hours ago
This is actually unbelievable. I'm a Hilary supporter but I am truly surprised and disappointed by her actions. I'm a federal employee myself. At every training, they tell us not to use our personal email for federal business unless it is an emergency. If I used my personal email exclusively, I would be fired for cause, and for good reason--I'm ignoring government record retention rules. The fact that a cabinet level official thinks she is above the rules is incomprehensible.

Here's the link to the NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?

[MADem]

51. See link at post 43. There was no "federal regulation" until two years after Clinton left State. nt

[MBS]

59. Even ordinary federal workers have very, very strict rules regarding use of email

Work email is not to be used for personal business, and personal email is not to be used for government business except in true emergency.
As the letter writer mentioned, these rules are spelled out in detail, and stressed over and over again, by IT and legal offices. And, yes, you can get fired for this, especially for chronic lapses or for lapses which entail breach of confidentiality or security.
And this was true long before 2014.
If these are the rules for mere low-security federal workers, the rules for places like the State Dept., especially for those with top-secret clearance, have to much, much stricter than that.


I'm still astonished that Hillary chose to handle her correspondence that way, and that she was allowed to do so.

[MADem]

60. The Secretary of State is not an "ordinary federal worker." Surely you realize this.

The rules you're trying to cite don't apply to her. She was the most senior cabinet official in the administration. She served at the pleasure of the POTUS.

That's as silly as saying that Obama has to take a military PT test and sit through ass-numbing lectures on everything from weapon and workcenter safety to workplace harassment because he's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Hell, make him go through boot camp and OCS before he can send the SEALS to go kill Bin Ladin!

That's as silly as saying that ordinary federal workers have to endure rigorous questioning by members of the Senate before they can collect their first paycheck.

So, sorry--there was no rule governing the SECSTATE for ELECTRONIC communications. That's why they went back and asked all of 'em back to Madaleine Albright for these comms. That's why they wrote the regulations and Obama signed it...LAST NOVEMBER, after Clinton was LONG GONE...because there were no rules on this for the upper echelons.

This is yet another GOP/NYT and COMCAST MSNBC attempt to fuck with the likely Democratic candidate. Same shit, different election cycle. Judy Miller is gone, but her spirit lives on.

I'm not "astonished" at all--Powell did the same thing. Maybe they knew more than we did. After all, Julian Assange ended up with all their message traffic (which is NOT the same as email) , didn't he? Yeah, some security!

[MBS]

63. On the face of it, her decision to use a private email account simply makes no sense.

Whatever the "rules" as they applied to her (and, again, the foreign service must have stricter rules, and for obvious security reasons, than 'regular' federal workers ) her decision to use a private account defies common sense and good judgment. I can't even figure out why she would do this in the first place. Perhaps she did it to ensure access to her archived correspondence for purpose of her memoirs?

But, pragmatically, she had to know that this was a bad idea for political optics. And using an account that mixed her State business with other business is bad optics, at minimum.

And, seriously, what about the security issues? She would do well to explain how that was handled.

[MBS]

96. That certainly wasn't my thought.

i just don't understand how the State Dept IT folks, or the Inspector General, would have approved a plan to use a private email account
And -- even leaving important questions of ethics, international security and archiving logistics aside - I really don't understand how HRC- could possibly have thought that it was in her political self-interest to do so. In the end, it's the poor judgment that startles me the most.

[MADem]

138. I hope, in the last 24 hours, you've had a chance to see that this was bullshit, it was a NYT

"game of distraction" a la Judy Miller, it was designed to suck the air out of Bibi's bad press, and the story neglected (cough) to mention key facts--like the biggie--it was not ILLEGAL, the regulations were not changed to include collection of emails until TWO YEARS after Clinton left State, and her assistance to the archivist of the US is entirely voluntary. Of course, the "faux damage" has been done-- that won't be the takeaway from the people who are invested in another outcome.

As for "security issues" - why did we get treated to all sorts of official State Department MESSAGE traffic, courtesy of a person named MANNING who stole that stuff and gave it to WIKILEAKS, but we didn't get any Clinton emails in that pile?

Seems like Clinton had the better security.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

94. And there ya go.

The rules you're trying to cite don't apply to her.

Yup, that's the problem with too many politicians.

None of them ever think the rules apply to them.

[MADem]

137. But they don't. It's not privilege, it's fact.

It's not a problem at all--if there was a problem, it was with the antiquated IT systems that the federal government was using. The system did not meet the needs of leadership, and all appropriations begin .... where, again? Why, IN THE HOUSE. The GOP - controlled HOUSE. Even Colin Powell had to resort to this tactic in order to get anything done because State was woefully behind in terms of Information Tech modernization.

The secretary to the administrative assistant to the deputy public affairs officer isn't travelling all over the world -- the SECSTATE is.

If all "the rules" applied to leaders as well as rank and file, Obama would be sitting through day long "safety standdowns" as commander-in-chief, instead of doing the work of the nation.

[aquart]

53. Is that the paper that regularly printed Republican lies to talk us into war?

I'm sure they've changed.

[MADem]

58. Yes, Judy Miller's NYT, and COMCAST's MSNBC....and they eat it up like the cat's cream. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. I agree the NYT is guilty as charged, tho it was fed those lies by the Bush admin that stooped to a new level of corruption that caught people off-guard.

[Euphoria]

65. This has more to do with

the decision of O'Donnell and his producers to ratchet this up than about substance. Look at the shake up of the MSNBC lineup and consider what that means to the substance and tone of the programs.

[Capt. Obvious]

72. Rachel too!

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/clinton-only-used-private-email-at-state--nyt-407222851951

Can't take her seriously anymore.

[AngryAmish]

78. They are all Comcast's paid liars.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

87. Yes ur right-can't take a news person seriously 4 reportin news esply if it shows the chosen candidate ina negative light based on their exercise of extremely poor judgment.

[peace13]

101. Had to stop watching Rachel.

She repeats and dramatizes the point and it is agonizing to watch! My brain melts after ten minutes of this. KO got to the point and pounded it. He assumed that his viewers had a brain!

[aquart]

105. He's suspended from his sports show, you know.

Practically free.

[peace13]

123. He's back this week! Saw him last night!

Not sure I understand the rest of your comment. KO is not for everyone same with Rachel.

[BlueCaliDem]

84. It appears that my theory is becoming a reality regarding MSNBC's reason for the lineup shakeup.

They're preparing for the 2016 presidential elections, and they're beginning to minimize intelligent progressive voices while ratcheting up the wailing from the Right. Clearly, executives at MSNBC want to ensure that they join the U.S. Media (propaganda circus?) club so that they can provide the next Democratic candidate the LEAST amount of positive coverage, the way they had for President Obama in 2012. They're clearly hoping for another warmongering, economy-crashing Republican in the White House.

[DebJ]

88. Has anyone verified that she sent important state secrets using this email?

I would think that she could have her staff do that type of stuff.

Unless there is documentation, this story might mean nothing at all.

Maybe she just wasn't a big email user.

There are other ways of communicating secure information, both through the use of staff, and using other electronic
or other means.

[KeepItReal]

95. She sent *ALL* her emails using the private account as Sec. of State

NYT article says she never used a Dept of State official email account.

[DebJ]

115. That doesn't answer my question.

State secrets or other confidential information could have been communicated via some other manner, or using
a staff member's government email, etc.



On Edit: how was such information passed on in say, 1986? 1976? 1956?

[KeepItReal]

117. Here's some insight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026304514

[sailfla]

90. A one day old story...gimme a break we won't know the truth for a couple of days

This could all be bullshit. I'm sure she is smarter than that. All those emails going back and forth and no one mentioned this to her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. If tru, it wud be shockingly stupid on Hillary's part. We shud know ina few days, but if we don't hear somethin soon, it's likely the news is NOT good...

since, obviously, Hillary could instantly extinguish this story if it's untrue.

[ladjf]

108. Her actions were careless at best. nt

[greatlaurel]

122. O’Donnell lost all credibility when he freaked out over Obama's prayer breakfast speech.

O’Donnell showed his true colors as a not very bright media nitwit who went along with the current right wing meme, just like he is with this one. He is trying to save his job under Comcast. He will do and say whatever his master's tell him to say.

It is pretty funny that O’Donnell is acting like he is some sort of expert about email and security. It is clear from reliable sources that this whole blowup is another manufactured non issue for the consumption of the talking head class who are clueless ninnies.

[riversedge]

127. Remain objective:..see poster...

Tweet
Remain objective: @DavidCornDC … #p2 #UniteBlue

[Rex]

135. Maybe she was paranoid the CIA was spying on her.

That wouldn't be an unfounded reason.

[Major Hogwash]

140. Naw, she was just proving that she doesn't have to answer a phone call at 3 AM.

And never will.

[McCamy Taylor]

141. Dear Mr. O'Donnell, How Does It Feel Being a Tool?

[chillfactor]

153. I am sick..

of all the in-fighting on DU about Hillary...good god...everyone please put a sock in it!!!!

[Spazito]

156. Actually the stunning breach of security happened in 2010...

when Chelsea Manning stole 250,000 diplomatic cables and gave them to Wikileaks. The diplomatic cables were State Department material. It is quite interesting to see some who applauded what Manning did are now hyperventilating about the potential breach of security re Clinton's server.

This is much ado about nothing imo.