Role of tech who set up Clinton's server unknown to bosses at State

[NWCorona]

"Soon after Hillary Clinton's arrival at the State Department in 2009, officials in the information technology office were baffled when told that a young technician would join them as a political appointee, newly disclosed emails show.

The technician, Bryan Pagliano, was running the off-grid email server that Clinton had him set up in her New York home for her work as secretary of state. But even as years passed, Pagliano's supervisors never learned of his most sensitive task, according to the department and one of his former colleagues.

Pagliano's immediate supervisors did not know the private server even existed until it was revealed in news reports last year, the colleague said, requesting anonymity because of a department ban on unauthorized interviews.

Clinton's decision to side-step the official state.gov email system has since shrouded her campaign for the U.S. presidency this year in controversy and legal uncertainty. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting one of several inquiries into the arrangement, which saw classified information passing through her unsecured clintonemail.com account."

And this is where it gets interesting.


"Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state's offices, should be joining the IT department's ranks.

Schedule C employees, who help presidential appointees and agency heads make policy, can only report to people appointed by the U.S. president or other senior executive officials. But no one like that worked in the IT office, so Kennedy ended up being Pagliano's designated supervisor.

The department told Reuters that Pagliano and Kennedy had little contact, and that Kennedy was unaware of the server or his subordinate's role in running it. Nor did Wisecarver, Pagliano's day-to-day boss, or Swart know, according to the former colleague, who said the IT office should have been informed."

It seems like a highly unusual arrangement.
Some things should be noted.

Hillary's server couldn't have been set up without Brian being in the State Department’s IT unit and the fact that his .Gov email file from the time Hillary was there was deleted from the record. The emails are there from after she left tho.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0WR00X

[upaloopa]

1. Anything illegal here? How did Rice and Powell do it?

[840high]

2. Are they running for president?

[upaloopa]

7. You don't know that?

[NWCorona]

10. Haha

You might have something there!

[840high]

80. You mention them so often

I was afraid you didn't know.

[AgerolanAmerican]

4. not with private email servers

This particular "it" doesn't seem to have any precedent at all.

[upaloopa]

9. I heard Secretary Rice and Secretary Powell also used private email servers while head of

the State department.

[NWCorona]

12. No

Powell used an AOL account and Rice used another vendor who's name escapes me at the moment.

[Old and In the Way]

37. Cool, so Powell's AOL ACCOUNT WAS SECURE, but Hilliary's wasn't.

How about the Republican House and Senate pass legislation that says anyone in the WH/Federal government has to use government servers for all officiL correspondence? They did not do that when Bush was in the WH and using "gop.gov" as their primary communication method. Fucking hypocrites and naive BS morons just play along. Naive, stupid, or trolls......you decide.

[NWCorona]

41. Actually Powells wasn't secure

When have I ever given him a pass? He's under investigation too!

[Old and In the Way]

48. Until federal legislation is made to make federal emails transparent, I wont condemn Democrats for

Using the same system that hid Republicans usind GOP.COM during the Bush years. Notice that Republicans have not pushed this legislation.

[NWCorona]

54. I can totally understand that

I don't claim to be an expert at this but I do have some working knowledge of the systems involved and there limitations.

It's just Hillary went so beyond the (outside) norms and it's caught up with her.

[Old and In the Way]

59. You obviously aren't an expert, but you are making unsubstastaniated posts.

There are no federal laws, AKAIK, that make make private email servers illegal for any servants in federal government. Maybe I am wrong, if so, please cite the relevant statues. I assume that Hillary followed the same protocol as her predecessors, Powell and Rice. The hey didn't adnere to any standard because the Republicans did not wNt their private conversations available to the public. The important ztuff was being commu icated on tneir GOP.GOV account. It was none of you business.

[NWCorona]

67. It's not the server.

That's just a component of this. You can check my post history. I never make the claim that she's in trouble merely for her using a server. I've said it was unprecedented tho. Hillary saw a loophole and ran a semi through it. That Obama had to close through an executive order.

So what unsubstantiated claims am I making?

Also it is my business if the emails are work related.

[leveymg]

112. It's not the server that's illegal, it's the classified material she and others put on it that

Has hundreds of FBI agents investigating the apparent felony violations of 18 USC Sec 793, mishandling classified information. Operating an uncertified server to transmit classified info is a mere violation of State Dept regulations at Volume 8 Federal Affairs Manual, 8 FAM

[AgerolanAmerican]

13. I'd verify that information before relying on it

you'll probably have quite a bit of trouble sourcing that claim

[malokvale77]

62. Server vs account

There's a huge difference.

[Autumn]

64. No. Private email accounts, not servers. I hadn't heard Secretary Rice and Secretary Powell

were running for President.

[CentralCoaster]

72. I don't think people understand the difference. Others have used private email accounts.

And as such the servers that run Yahoo and other accounts are "private", (compared to a government server).

But Clinton had the physical server, the hardware and drives, in her personal home.

I don't know of any other official who did that. THAT is what people don't seem to understand.

Would you agree?

[Autumn]

73. Yes I agree. I think that they understand it, but some want to brush that part aside.

And this really bothers me.

"Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state's offices, should be joining the IT department's ranks.

Schedule C employees, who help presidential appointees and agency heads make policy, can only report to people appointed by the U.S. president or other senior executive officials. But no one like that worked in the IT office, so Kennedy ended up being Pagliano's designated supervisor.

The department told Reuters that Pagliano and Kennedy had little contact, and that Kennedy was unaware of the server or his subordinate's role in running it. Nor did Wisecarver, Pagliano's day-to-day boss, or Swart know, according to the former colleague, who said the IT office should have been informed."

It seems a little sleazy, like Hillary was hiding things from Obama, her boss.

[KoKo]

110. Her Personal Server located in Hillary & Bill's Chappaqua, NY Home

is the definite difference from Powell and Rice's situation of using Private E-Mails. They did not have their own servers in a location in their home home like Hillary's that was installed by Pagliano but maintained by an outside group.

[kcjohn1]

5. Contrary to what Clinton camp

Says, what she did is not comparable to Rice/Powell.

Those two admitted to sometimes using a personal email to send work related stuff. That is the equivalent to me using my gmail/hotmail account to send these emails.

What Hillary did was setup a separate server where she not only exclusively did all her state work but in addition to "personal" stuff that includes the Clinton foundation stuff. This is unprecedented. All her emails were outside the privy of state department, and in sense she was running state department work out of her basement.

[upaloopa]

11. Again was there anything illegal here?

[AgerolanAmerican]

16. There appears to be

FBI is extremely unlikely to get her server admin immunity if he had nothing to substantiate a crime.

[upaloopa]

24. And if you are wrong what are you going to do about it?

[840high]

74. What will you do if

you are wrong.?

[kcjohn1]

22. It should be

If not. The whole point of setting this server was avoid FOIA, allowing Clinton do whatever she wanted without any oversight.

If the server itself was not illegal, the danger for her is the contents of the emails, especially the 30,000 deleted ones. Multiple issues can arise. 1) Mishandling of secret information 2) Conflict of interest with Clinton foundation and state dept work.

Not only was the server itself show of bad judgement, but she also used the same server for personal (not personal as in wedding emails) but here none state dept stuff like the Foundation and political planning stuff. Even if you are going to set up a separate server for state stuff, she should have set up a separate server for clinton foundation as well. If those 30,000 emails are recovered I don't see how she can avoid this scandal getting worse because I'm pretty sure they thought the public would never have access to these emails.

[upaloopa]

25. She turned over all the emails it was her idea.

[NWCorona]

38. Ok I'm starting to wonder as there is no basis for almost anything you are saying.

And I'm not trying to be rude either.

[upaloopa]

45. basis

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails

We’ve put all of the information about Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails here. Just the facts, all in one place.

Why did Clinton use her own email account?

When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience. It enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule.

That is the only reason she used her own account.

Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time.

As Clinton has said, in hindsight, it would have been better to just have two accounts. While she thought using one account would be easier, obviously, that has not been the case.

Was it allowed?

Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.

The 2009 National Archives regulation in place during her tenure required that "[a]gencies 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." The regulation recognizes the use of non-government email accounts.

As she has stated, Clinton's practice was to email government officials on their ".gov" accounts, so her work emails were immediately captured and preserved. In fact, more than 90% of those emails should have already been captured in the State Department’s email system before she provided them with paper copies.

A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren't in effect when Clinton was in office, 'she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,' said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."

Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.

After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with this assessment.

Clinton hopes the State Department and the agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which of the 55,000 pages of emails are appropriate to share with the public.

How did Clinton receive and consume classified information?

The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.

A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.

Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.

Is it true that her email server and a thumb drive were recently turned over to the government? Why?

Again, when information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.

Clinton hopes that State and the other agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which emails are appropriate to share with the public, and that the release will be as timely and as transparent as possible.

When the Department upgraded some of the previously unclassified email to classified, her team worked with the State Department to ensure copies of her emails were stored in a safe and secure manner. She also directed her team to give her server that hosted her email account while she was Secretary to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her emails that already had been provided to the State Department. Clinton has pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry.

Would this issue not have arisen if she used a state.gov email address?

Even if Clinton's emails had been on a government email address and government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release.

While the State Department's review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the emails that recently were upgraded to classified prior to public release were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling classified communications.

Have Clinton's State Department aides also been asked to provide the Department and Congress with emails from their personal accounts?

We understand that members of her State Department staff were recently asked to assist the Department in its record-keeping by providing any work-related emails they may have on personal accounts. They have received requests from Rep. Gowdy as well.

Clinton is proud of the work of all the dedicated public servants that were part of her team at the State Department. She was proud of her aides then and is proud of them now, as they have committed - as she has - to being as helpful as possible in responding to requests.

Press reports say she used multiple devices – a Blackberry and an iPad – is that true?

Clinton relied on her Blackberry for emailing. This was easiest for her. When the iPad came out in 2010, she was as curious as others and found it great for shopping, browsing, and reading articles when she traveled. She also had access to her email account on her iPad and sometimes used it for that too.

Was she ever provided guidance about her use of a non-".gov" email account?

The State Department has and did provide guidance regarding the need to preserve federal records. To address these requirements, it was her practice to email government employees on their ".gov" email address. That way, work emails would be immediately captured and preserved in government record-keeping systems.

What did Clinton provide to the State Department?

On December 5, 2014, 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department's record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by "state.gov" accounts.

Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department's record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.

Why did the Select Committee announce that she used multiple email addresses during her tenure?

In fairness to the Committee, this was an honest misunderstanding. Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her initial weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.

At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department in 2014, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.

Why didn't Clinton provide her emails to the State Department until December 2014?

In 2014, after recognizing potential gaps in its overall recordkeeping system, the State Department asked for the help of the four previous former Secretaries in meeting the State Department's obligations under the Federal Records Act.

Clinton responded to this request by providing the State Department with over 55,000 pages of emails. As it was Clinton's practice to email U.S. government officials on their .gov accounts, the overwhelming majority of these emails should have already been preserved in the State Department’s email system.

In providing these emails to the Department, Clinton included all she had that were even potentially work-related—including emails about using a fax machine or asking for iced tea during a meeting—erring on the side of over-inclusion, as confirmed by the Department and National Archives' determination that over 1250 emails were "personal" records (which they have indicated will be returned to her).

After providing her work and potentially work-related emails, she chose not to keep her personal, non-work related emails, which by definition, are not federal records and were not requested by the Department or anyone else.

Why did the State Department ask for assistance in collecting records? Why did the State Department need assistance in further meeting its requirements under the Federal Records Act?

The State Department formally requested the assistance of the four previous former Secretaries in a letter to their representatives dated October 28, 2014, to help in further meeting the Department’s requirements under the Federal Records Act.

The letter stated that in September 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued new guidance clarifying records management responsibilities regarding the use of personal email accounts for government business.

While this guidance was issued after all four former Secretaries had departed office, the Department decided to ensure its records were as complete as possible and sought copies of work emails sent or received by the Secretaries on their own accounts.

Why did Clinton decide not to keep her personal emails?

As Clinton has said before, these were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral services and condolence notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines, and other items one would typically find in their own email account, such as offers from retailers, spam, etc.

Did Clinton delete any emails while facing a subpoena?

No. As noted, the emails that Clinton chose not to keep were personal emails—they were not federal records or even work-related—and therefore were not subject to any preservation obligation under the Federal Records Act or any request. Nor would they have been subject to the subpoena—which did not exist at the time—that was issued by the Benghazi Select Committee some three months later.

Rep. Gowdy's subpoena issued in March 2015 did not seek, and had nothing to do with, her personal, non-work emails nor her server nor the request by State Department last year for her help in their own record-keeping. Indeed in his March 19th letter, Rep. Gowdy expressly stated he was not seeking any emails that were "purely personal in nature."

In March 2015, when Rep. Gowdy issued a subpoena to Clinton, the State Department had received all of Clinton's work-related emails in response to their 2014 request, and indeed, had already provided Clinton's relevant emails to Rep. Gowdy’s committee.

Rep. Gowdy, other Republicans, and some members of the media have seized on a CNN interview with Clinton to question her on this point. Rep. Gowdy has even gone so far as to say Clinton is lying. But he and the others are clearly mistaken.

As Vox reported, "[S]he didn't lie about the subpoena. … Clinton clearly wasn't responding to the question of whether she'd ever been subpoenaed by the Benghazi Committee but whether she'd been subpoenaed before she wiped the emails from her server." Additionally, Factcheck.org said in its analysis, "Clinton's denial came in response to a question about deleting emails 'while facing a subpoena,' and Clinton objected to Keilar's 'assumption.' Clinton’s campaign said that the emails were deleted before she received the subpoena and that was the point Clinton was making." Politifact added, "Suggesting that Clinton deleted emails while facing a subpoena contradicts what we know about the controversy so far."

Vox went on to further decry Rep. Gowdy's reaction, saying, "[T]his one's a particularly absurd gimmick, even for a committee that is selectively leaking from depositions and documents to justify its existence. If there was a more extreme category of dissembling than 'pants on fire,' now would be the time for Politifact to roll it out on the House Republicans."

Why was the State Department given printed copies?

That is the requirement. The instructions regarding electronic mail in the Foreign Affairs Manual (the Department's policy manual) require that "until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of email messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records." [5 FAM 443.3].

Were any work items deleted in the course of producing the printed copies?

No.

How many emails were in her account? And how many of those were provided to the State Department?

Her email account contained a total of 62,320 sent and received emails from March 2009 to February 2013. Based on the review process described below, 30,490 of these emails were provided to the Department, and the remaining 31,830 were private, personal records.

How and who decided what should be provided to the State Department?

The Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official to determine what is and is not a federal record. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual outlines guidance "designed to help employees determine which of their e-mail messages must be preserved as federal records and which may be deleted without further authorization because they are not Federal record materials." [5 FAM 443.1(c)].

Following conversations with State Department officials and in response to the State Department's 2014 letter to former Secretaries, Clinton directed her attorneys to assist by identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records. This entailed a multi-step process to review each email and provide printed copies of Clinton's emails to the State Department, erring on the side of including anything that might be even potentially work-related.

A search was conducted on Clinton's email account for all emails sent and received from 2009 to her last day in office, February 1, 2013.

After this universe was determined, a search was conducted for a ".gov" (not just state.gov) in any address field in an email. This produced over 27,500 emails, representing more than 90% of the 30,490 printed copies that were provided to the State Department.

To help identify any potential non-".gov" correspondence that should be included, a search of first and last names of more than 100 State Department and other U.S. government officials was performed. This included all Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Ambassadors-at-Large, Special Representatives and Envoys, members of the Secretary's Foreign Policy Advisory Board, and other senior officials to the Secretary, including close aides and staff.

Next, to account for non-obvious or non-recognizable email addresses or misspellings or other idiosyncrasies, the emails were sorted and reviewed both by sender and recipient.

Lastly, a number of terms were specifically searched for, including: "Benghazi" and "Libya."

These additional three steps yielded just over another 2,900 emails, including emails from former Administration officials and long-time friends that may not be deemed by the State Department to be federal records. And hundreds of these emails actually had already been forwarded onto the state.gov system and captured in real-time.

With respect to materials that the Select Committee has requested, the State Department has stated that just under 300 emails related to Libya were provided by the State Department to the Select Committee in response to a November 2014 letter, which contained a broader request for materials than prior requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Given Clinton's practice of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov addresses, the State Department already had, and had already provided, the Select Committee with emails from Clinton in August 2014 – prior to requesting and receiving printed copies of her emails.

The review process described above confirmed Clinton's practice of emailing State Department officials on their .gov address, with the vast majority of the printed copies of work-related emails Clinton provided to the State Department simply duplicating what was already captured in the State Department's record-keeping system in real time.

Did Clinton use this account to communicate with foreign officials?

During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.

Did she withhold any work emails? What about the 15 emails that Sid Blumenthal provided to the Select Committee that she did not provide to the State Department?

She provided the State Department with all work and potentially work-related emails that she had, including all of her correspondence with Sid Blumenthal. We understand that Mr. Blumenthal had some emails that Clinton did not have, and Clinton had some emails that Mr. Blumenthal did not have, but it is important to note that none of those emails provide any new insights on the attack on our facilities in Benghazi.

Do you think a third party should have been allowed to review what was turned over to the State Department, as well as the remainder that was not?

The Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official, not the agency or a third party, to determine what is and is not a federal record. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual outlines guidance "designed to help employees determine which of their e-mail messages must be preserved as federal records and which may be deleted without further authorization because they are not Federal record materials." [5 FAM 443.1(c)].

Clinton responded to the State Department's request by providing approximately 55,000 pages of her work and potentially work-related emails. She has also taken the unprecedented step of asking that those emails be made public. In doing so, she has sought to support the State Department's efforts, fulfill her responsibility of record-keeping, and provide the chance for the public to assess the work she and officials at the State Department did during her tenure.

After her work-related emails were identified and preserved, Clinton chose not to keep her private, personal emails that were not federal records, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral service, family vacations, etc.

Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts. Clinton exercised her privilege to ensure the continued privacy of her personal, non-work related emails.

Can't she release the emails she provided to the State Department herself?

Because the printed copies of work-related emails she provided to the State Department include federal records of the Department, the Department needs to review these emails before they can be made public. She called for them to be made available as soon as possible, and is glad to see the Department has begun releasing them.

Some of the emails released show Clinton emailed aides at times on their personal, rather than .gov accounts. Was she trying to hide these communications?

As Clinton has said before, it was her practice to email U.S. government officials on their .gov accounts if it was work-related. This is evidenced in the emails released so far. In reviewing her emails in 2014, there was a fraction of emails with work-related information sent to U.S. government officials’ personal accounts, and those were provided to the State Department. The overwhelming majority of her work-related emails were to .gov accounts.

Where was the server for her email located?

The server for her email was physically located on her property, which is protected by U.S. Secret Service.

What level of encryption was employed? Who was the service provider?

The security and integrity of her family's electronic communications was taken seriously from the onset when it was first set up for President Clinton's team. While the curiosity about the specifics of this set up is understandable, given what people with ill intentions can do with such information in this day and age, there are concerns about broadcasting specific technical details about past and current practices. Suffice it to say, robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.

Was the server ever hacked?

No, there is no evidence there was ever a breach.

Was there ever an unauthorized intrusion into her email or did anyone else have access to it?

No.

What was done after her email was exposed in February 2013 after the hacker known as "Guccifer" hacked Sid Blumenthal’s account?

While this was not a breach of Clinton's account, because her email address was exposed, steps were taken at that time to ensure the security and integrity of her electronic communications, including changing her email address.

Was the State Department able to respond to requests related to FOIA or Congressional requests before they received printed copies of her work-related emails?

Yes. As the Select Committee has said, the State Department provided the Committee with relevant emails it already had on the state.gov system before the State Department requested any printed copies from former Secretaries, and four months before the State Department received the printed copies.

For example, in the well-publicized hack of Sid Blumenthal's email account, a note he sent Clinton on September 12, 2012, was posted online. At first blush, one might not think this exchange would be captured on the state.gov system. But in fact, Clinton forwarded the email, that very same day, onto the state.gov system. And the email was produced by the State Department to the Select Committee, and acknowledged by the Select Committee, in August 2014.

This example illustrates: 1) when an email from a non-".gov" sender had some connection to work or might add to the understanding of State Department officials, it was Clinton’s practice to forward it to officials at their "state.gov" address; and 2) the State Department was able to search and produce Clinton’s emails when needed long before, and unrelated to, receiving the printed copies as they were already captured on state.gov accounts.

[NWCorona]

50. Dang! You didn't have to paste the whole thing

I've read that fully.Trust me.

Hillary is obviously gonna put the best spin on the situation.

[AgerolanAmerican]

51. Do you work for the HRC campaign?

I ask because everyone else on the planet seems to be aware that Clinton's statements on the matter have proven to be false time and time again, and thus reprinting another Clinton statement on the matter is highly unlikely to influence anyone's opinion.

[upaloopa]

53. wrong

[AgerolanAmerican]

56. Need I enumerate the untruths from Clinton's lips on this matter alone to enlighten you?

It really wouldn't be that hard to do, with the caveat that the list might be incomplete.

[libdem4life]

96. So the Expert Analysis on HRC's shenanigans is....Hillary Clinton!

This is not impressive, although it is long, tedious and, well, slanted toward the intended outcome...Nothing To See Here...LOL

[kcjohn1]

39. That is Clinton talking point

Clinton didn't come forward until forced to. As far as the state department was concerned there were no clinton emails. They requested Clinton's emails, and she was so helpful that she sent printed 50,000 emails when she had the digital copy. This is all end of 2014. She left office in 2012. When was she going to "provide" the emails. She is lying when she says it was her idea, when in fact it was request from State Dept due to Beghanzi investigation.

She thinks the public is stupid by using "I asked them to release it all". Once the state dept had it in their possession they were going to release it anyway, so saying release it all makes no sense.

[karynnj]

65. It was not her idea. The State Department demanded she do so

Once they understood what she had done. About 6 months later they got the 55000 pages of emails.

[dchill]

32. "running state department work out of her basement."

Gives a whole new and different meaning to the term "Top Secret."

What Obama and DOS don't know won't hurt me.

[mmonk]

82. Exactly. They did not run their official government duties

through a private server system although they also had their own home servers.

[NWCorona]

8. They did it very differently

And if it makes you feel better the FBI is infact investigating both Powell and Rice. He has already admitted that he gave an interview to the feds.

Is this illegal? On the face of it probably not but it gives incredible insight into other issues.

[upaloopa]

14. "it gives incredible insight into other issues" Not for me I don't have an ax to grind

against Hillary.

The narrative you have invented for Hillary is false as is the persona you have invented for her.

[NWCorona]

17. You can say what you will

But we will find out in the end.

[upaloopa]

26. No doubt but I won't hold my breath waiting for the apologies.

[NWCorona]

30. I have no issues admitting if I'm wrong about something.

I've done it here before.

That said I think I like my odds better.

[dchill]

35. My money's on you.

[NWCorona]

47. Thanks!

[azmom]

79. Me too. N/t

[Babel_17]

42. Would you put on hold your Presidential ambitions?

[NWCorona]

46. That's a tough question

Obviously I'd like to say I'm principled enough to drop out but I'm honest enough to admit I never be in that position.

[Babel_17]

60. Your honesty is swaying me, you should run!

[noiretextatique]

113. You won't have to apologize

The Clinton's skate on the edge of the law constantly. Eventually they will make a mistake. I think this is it.

[NWCorona]

116. I think this is it too

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. So when a trooper pulls you over for speeding do you point to the cars in front of you...

and say "They were speeding too!"?

I bet that gets you out of a lot of tickets.

[upaloopa]

28. Hillary didn't commit a crime so your argument makes no sense.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. You're giving me your opinion. Nothing more. Excuse me while I eat this grain of salt...

[NWCorona]

70. Oh, that was a good saying

I'm going to remember that one!

[revbones]

20. Sheesh. I'm tired of that crap.

Rice and Powell did not do it. They both had personal email accounts AND a separate email account for classified information. They did not have private email servers. Thousands and thousands of emails went through Hillarys private server. Colin Powell emailed family on his personal account.

[dchill]

52. They know it's crap. But it's all they've got.

And their pretzel logic is so twisty and toasty.

[ljm2002]

83. Rice and Powell did not have private email servers...

...although they did both sometimes use their private accounts for official business.

Clinton's private server amounted to an end run around using the official .gov account at all.

I don't know anything about the legal issues, but I do know there is a difference between occasionally using one's personal email, vs. setting up a private server to handle all emails.

[CoffeeCat]

101. Did Rice and Powell have private servers

that even the President at the time was unaware of?

No. They didn't.

No high level government official has set up a secret, private, unsecured email server in their home.

Only Hillary.

[Press Virginia]

106. Which one of them had an e-mail server in their home and then a bathroom closet?

[AgerolanAmerican]

3. Just imagine 8 more months of this

File under "problems we won't have if we nominate Bernie Sanders"

[upaloopa]

15. Imagine if people stopped chasing scandals and cared about issues.

I sure as hell would not nominate Sanders because some 'Dems" use right wing scandals to try and boost his chances.

[AgerolanAmerican]

19. This is a major issue

This strikes right at the heart of the two-tiered justice system we have in this country where the elites get away with anything while the hammer mercilessly comes down on any of us poor plebes who might inadvertently cross a line.

[upaloopa]

31. No it is not. It is a right wing scandal like Whitewater and travelgate and filegate and Benghazi

and Vince Foster. It is an attempt to hurt Hillary politically and it is a damn shame that Democrats play along because they think it will help Bernie become President.

[AgerolanAmerican]

40. Weird

How come politicians not named Hillary Clinton don't seem to compile these lengthy scandal trails?

I mean, Obama isn't any better liked by the right wing but I don't see him dealing with scandal after scandal after scandal his entire career.

My friend, I'm afraid you are in denial about someone who spends a lot of time toeing the line of what's legal and what's not and doesn't have all that great a sense of balance.

[840high]

75. +20 years of Clinton crap - I say

that's more than enough.

[upaloopa]

117. Why? Why? Because they are effective and the right wants to put an end to that effectiveness.

I really can't believe someone needs to ask a question like that!

[upaloopa]

118. I am not your friend

[tex-wyo-dem]

71. Nope...you're wrong...

Hillary did this to herself...took a chance and lost when it gained the attention of the FBI.

And the silly thing is she could have so so so easily avoided the whole thing by just following a few simple rules, but no, she wanted control of the email, personal, Clinton Foundation, official SoS all rolled into one server in the basement of her house, in strict violation of the rules.

This is all her doing.

[noiretextatique]

115. Are the FBI, Obama and Lynch

A part of this RW scandal?

[revbones]

21. Yes, because surely everything negative about Hillary is just a "right wing scandal"

and none of the "scandals" contain any truth whatsoever.

[upaloopa]

34. Ok you are nominated to show the truth in any of the Hillary scandals.

[revbones]

44. Why don't you disprove some?

Specifically any of

1. The Clinton Foundation donations from mid-east countries around their arms deals
2. Her flip on the bankruptcy bill after getting donations
3. Her telling unions she'd fight the Colombia Free Trade Agreement but the emails released show she lied and lobbied for it

How about those for starters?

[upaloopa]

49. I am not the one who said there is truth there. I don't have to disprove your statements

you have to prove that what you said is true.

You are doing what every trol calling into talk shows do. They make some bogus claim and expect the host to defend against it.

[revbones]

57. No, but you are the one

that makes comments such as "Ho hum. Another day, another fake right-wing scandal." in an attempt to discredit the poster or facts.

So if you truly believe those 3 I mentioned are fake, despite the facts easily accessible, please proceed.

And you just defined what you do here at DU in nearly every response you make.

[Lizzie Poppet]

85. Exactly. It's a convenient way to deflect/ignore even the most serious criticisms.

Princess Weathervane cannot err...

[Logical]

61. Either the Feds will clear her or charge her, then we will know if it is true. Nt

[Peace Patriot]

66. Okay, I care about the issue of Clinton's pay-to-play with the Saudis...

...approving a big arms deal for those woman-hating tyrants in exchange for nice bucks to the Clinton Foundation. THAT's what she was using this secret server for. That, and getting around Obama's stricture against hiring Sydney Blumenthal in the U.S. State Department.

Dirty deals. And fucking over the President of the United States.

Nice.

That is WHY the FBI has 150 agents on this case. It is NOT--or is likely not--just a "right wing scandal." If it WAS, none of us would care about it. Because they are damned liars and scumbags.

I wouldn't put President Obama, and his AG, and his FBI Director into that category. It's POSSIBLE that they are doing this to PROTECT her from RW liars and scumbags. I won't rule it out. But I don't think that's the case--because the seriousness of what she was doing with the server.

Then there's Honduras. That is probably not a legal issue (unless some of the victims in Honduras take her to the World Court). It is an ethics issue. And her ethics stunk to high heaven, and furthermore her actions--in determining to prevent the elected president of Honduras from returning to his rightful office (revealed in her emails)--led to murders, rapes, beatings and jailings, most often of WOMEN who opposed the coup, also gays, and recently a very prominent environmental activist, Berta Caceres, murdered by the RW deaths squads that Clinton unleashed by NOT supporting democracy in Honduras and instead supporting the fascists.

So, there are some issues for you. You got any issue beefs with Sanders? Let's hear it. You have the floor.

[Myrina]

104. Months? Try, years.

The GOP and their congress critters would be on her like a tick from the minute she took office.
The gridlock and bullshit Obama had to deal with from the GOP/TP would look like a picnic.

[noiretextatique]

114. Frontrunner might get indicted

Absolutely insane that Dems are backing this person. Some folks must have a lot of cash invested.

[RobertEarl]

6. Bummer

The backdoor shenanigans of the Clintons sure do suck. Sucks for the people anyway. I'm sure it helped the Clintons stay rich and powerful. Until now?

[napi21]

23. So, who was harmed? Yes I stole that Norm Goldman, but he has a valid point.

I would THINK the server she set up was a lot more secure than Gmail/Hotmail! Still, where's the harm? If I understand this whole thing right, it wasn't against State Dept. rules to have your own server (at that time). That server was never hacked. No classified info was found on her server. So as Norm always asks, where's the harm. No harm, no foul.

[NWCorona]

27. Actually if you do any research on the server and how it was set up

You'd find that it wasn't very secure. Yes I agree that AOL/Hotmail isn't the best security wise but at the time it had 128 bit encryption and from the reports that's far better than what Hillary had. The fact that phishing emails made it to her IN BOX is crazy! And yes she opened them.

Can I say that it was hacked? Obviously not but you can't say that it wasn't either. The odds are that it was tho. Regardless of the logs supplied.

[840high]

78. 22 emails were classified. We

don't know if it was hacked or whose lives were put in danger.

[dwrjr]

81. Your answer is in reply #66

Read #66 for insight into some of the harms.

[Babel_17]

29. Life imitating art, imitating life

Definite House of Cards vibe to this. Or at least that's how many will see it. And likely some of them are undecided voters that we'll need.

Edit: What some may key on is that the story makes it look like there could have been deliberate planning to get around the system that was in place. And that adds a layer to sending material to an unofficial sever that could be a deciding factor in how the whole thing is judged. Breaking regulations can be seen as merely that. Planning to break regulations might be taken much more seriously.

[MisterP]

36. she'll be the most TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT THAT EVER WAS OR WILL BE!

according to the Maenads here

[Old and In the Way]

43. GOP.COM

Goodle it. Republicans ran their entire communication offline during the Bush years...notice how theey arent passing legislation to address this?

[tularetom]

55. It says 52 replies but I can only see 7

They must really be squealing.

[NWCorona]

58. I wonder what that would be like.

I swore that I would never block anyone but.... Not many tho

[riversedge]

77. Your loss. You would some TRUTH.

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. Sure does make this shitshow more tolerable, dunnit?

I only Ignore the worst of the lost, the ones that only post snark, condescension, demands for loyalty, and other substance-free inanities. I've always made it a policy to only Ignore complete wastes of my time that are also abrasive jerks.

I still have 55 or so people on my Ignore list. Before this primary? Five...

[VulgarPoet]

87. That it does.

Welcome to the club. I'm almost out of spots on my jury blacklist; and my full ignore list is bountiful. Spring has sprung on DU, that's for sure-- Clean swept most of the major irritants.

[Major Hogwash]

100. It's only going to get worse.

Because after Hillary tries to laugh this off, her supporters will get nasty.
Not like before.
But, really nasty.

[Lizzie Poppet]

102. I can do nasty.

I'm good at it.

But I'm also sick to death of it...this site's become a surefire ticket to irritation and depression lately. The July-to-November timeout I'll have to take if Hillary gets the nod will be a relief.

[Myrina]

105. I hope there isn't a limit to how many one can put on that list ...

... I've got to be close to 100 already.

[Lizzie Poppet]

108. I don't think there is.

Could use a bigger jury blacklist, though...

[SoLeftIAmRight]

111. I love my new DU - Ignore Edition

it is a better world

and nothing is lost from the science group - or the environmental group

[malokvale77]

63. My big wish...

is that people would learn the difference in an email account vs a server.

[NWCorona]

68. I've come to the conclusion that they don't want to know!

C'est la vie!

[malokvale77]

69. Ignorance is bliss. nt

[840high]

76. They don't. Ignorance is what it is.

[VulgarPoet]

88. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

I've had people disregard my take on the subject before; only driving the point home in that I'm in the military, in an IT function. Ain't that funny?

[frylock]

93. It's funny seeing people who probably can't even configure an email client..

to access their POP account arguing with sys admins, IT sec experts, and people with active TS clearance about this.

[VulgarPoet]

95. The first few times, yeah, it was funny.

Now? It's goddamn bloody infuriating. I stopped arguing with 'em on that-- I understood why my CO always had a contemptuous tone in his voice every time he said "civilians".

[frylock]

97. Yeah, funny was probably not the word I should've used.

It's frustrating to be sure.

[VulgarPoet]

98. My benchmark is if you have no idea how to configure an Outlook account manually

Can't troubleshoot your own machine, or think that server == client, you are nowhere near qualified enough to discuss anything about email, hardware, software, or networking. But then again, I'm Sec+ qualified and working on my CEH currently. I'm not masochistic enough to try for CCNA or CCSP just yet.

(lbr my job is just too damn stressful for that. That's for when I'm attending college.)

[JoePhilly]

84. Another call for the indictment fairly.

[NWCorona]

89. No fairytales needed

[asuhornets]

90. You've got nothing on her...

GO HILLARY GO HILLARY!!!! No one cares about the stupid emails.

[NWCorona]

91. Me? Absolutely correct, I don't have anything on her

But I'm not the FBI or the DOJ. I'm not the one Hillary should be worried about.

[frylock]

94. No one cares about this thing that you all predicted would go away year ago.

GO HILLARY!

[asuhornets]

99. It's all right-wing smears

used here at DU by Bernie supporters.

[frylock]

103. Obama's DoJ and the FBI are all involved in the VRWC.

[asuhornets]

107. When Hillary wins the nomination

and the presidency, will u b laughing then?

[frylock]

109. SQUIRREL!

[berni_mccoy]

92. Serious implications here. This proves the intent was to hide the server from gov't officials.