Clinton ran the business of this country on personally owned equipment in the basement of her home.

[CentralCoaster]

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 03:21 PM - Edit history (2)

-

She ran the business of this country on personally owned equipment in her basement.



Enough of the "private email" and "marked classified" minutia, this was a major fuck up from the get go.

Are we so blind that we don't see the problem with our Secretary of State setting up a home server, the hardware and the email service domain, etc., completely OUTSIDE the control and oversight of the government???

And then having the gall to decide for us which emails to release and which to delete?



This is a problem of epic proportion, and the Trump and Cruz campaigns are sitting on a gold mine.

I don't want to lose, and I don't want to risk my country on a loser who has no sense of propriety.

We need Sanders....

[CincyDem]

1. WTF is right...is this Limpball's rant for the day?

...and what is it doing here.

Seriously, of all the "charges" being tossed around left and right by any republican who can find a microphone, I hadn't heard this piece of crap before. I can't wait for the Benghazi and the "Planned Parenthood" tribunals to pursue a new line of thinking - Hillary let the ambassador bite the dust because he was about to reveal the she sent pro-PP emails from her personally owned server.

Yeah - that's the ticket. lol

[CentralCoaster]

2. Why could she not just do as Powell and Rice did? Why did she install her own private equipment?

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

That's the question here.

Right now we have a choice, a stronger candidate with better odds of winning and no baggage.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#e

The link above describes one of the charges that could be made against this candidate.

[CincyDem]

15. Thanks for sharing that.

Technically, I wasn't defending her. I was ridiculing the a$$hat idea that we're going to get into a chitstorm about emails. I think it's referred to as "hoping for the email fairy" to come down and disqualify her. Why didn't she do what Powell and Rice did...hell, why stop there...why didn't she do what Dean Rusk. Hell, let's get to the real question...why didn't she just do what William Seward did. No sense ever doing anything differently, right.

Now I'm sure republicans will spend the summer and fall trying to bake this pile of chit into a believable story that makes the country fall in love the The Donald. They'll be more successful getting Chris Stevens to testify to the Benghazi committee that Hillary failed to do her job.

I'm fully aware that we now have a choice (although, as an Ohioan my time has passed). I'm also fully aware of the polls that are only slightly better predictions of the future than what you, me, and the pizza guy down at the corner can come up with. As for no baggage - hard to say. Everyone has baggage...it all depends on who's loading it into the cargo hold.

Finally, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the "your candidate" comment. Suffice it to say that you have little to no clue who "my candidate" is. I'll pick a democrat over a republican 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Just because I haven't joined the "cut my nose off to spite my face" crowd that would rather stay home than vote for HRC...that tells you I'm a democrat but tell you nothing about "my candidate".

Ahhh...that was invigorating.

[CentralCoaster]

23. My bad!

Sorry bout that, CincyDem.

Edited to make less reactive and more general.

My state hasn't voted yet and I don't like that so many people seem to think this is something that Colin Powell and others have done, because it is decidedly different.

Innocent or not, it has an undeniably sinister appearance to it.

No permission, private contractors used to set her up with the equipment, software, domain name "clintonemail.com, etc.

And I wonder, why would you take it to a private company to be "wiped" before giving it to the FBI???

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-e-mail-server-turned-over-to-fbi/2015/08/12/aba5feea-4160-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

Domain names and email server

At the time of Senate confirmation hearings on Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State, the domain names clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com were registered to Eric Hoteham,[2] with the home of Clinton and her husband in Chappaqua, New York, as the contact address.[3][4] The domains were pointed to a private email server that Clinton (who never had a state.gov email account) used to send and receive email, and which was purchased and installed in the Clintons' home for her 2008 presidential campaign.[5][6]

The email server was located in the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York until 2013, when it was sent to a data center in New Jersey to be wiped of any sensitive information before being handed over to Platte River Networks, a Denver-based information technology firm that Clinton hired to manage her email system.[7][8][9][10][11] Datto, Inc., which provided data backup service for Clinton's email, agreed to give the FBI the hardware that stored the backups.[12]

[CincyDem]

47. Thanks for the edit.

I appreciate that you guys haven't voted out there. Given the current climate, in spite of best efforts of prior states, it is highly likely that HRC is going to be the democratic nominee for president in 2016.

I hate to say it but I'm a pragmatist. When the ball was in my court, I did all that I could do to support a different primary candidate. I voted. I phone banked. I donated. But in the end, I didn't prevail. So, given the choice between HRC and any republican that draws breath, I pick HRC. Now some might call that rewarding bad behavior but I like to think of it as avoiding complete and total anarchy with the like of Trump, Cruz, Kasich (who I know well) or whomever else the rethugs decide to pull out of their racist, sexist, homophobic butts. I'm not going to stay home because that's as much a vote as going to the polls and punching up a republican.

As to your specific concerns, I don't disagree with you that it makes for a bumpier road and I'm not ready yet to label it "sinister". That's a word that I reserve for my enemies (and they usually have a capital R after their names). HRC isn't my enemy. She's my second choice and it a world of realities, sometimes second choice is the best choice given the facts on the ground.

I think we're a long way from really knowing the facts of what Powell or Rice may have "done". I'm sure that Bushco buried more than one computer out somewhere in the deep ocean for far more nefarious reasons. HRC is a republican lab specimen that's been under the microscope for 20 years. They've seen her coming for more than a decade. As a result, I think we tend to over focus on things that Republicans want us to focus on rather than thing that make her a democrat.

Is she the "best" democrat...maybe not...but she's OUR democrat and until we can wrap our minds around that, Republicans can go to bed every night with a little grin believing that their decades of anti-HRC messaging is coming home to roost.

Some will tell me I'm caving in, giving up, throwing in the towel and - as a result - I am complicit in the country's rightward move. Yeah, right. I call bullshit on that accusation. Complicity is staying home because you (in general, not you specifically) didn't have enough people on your side of the vote so you want to pout and "teach her a lesson". I think the tuition payment is too high to take that class.

I'm also reminded of the psychology study that found 80%+ of questions are really statements that the questioner doesn't really want to own. I don't find wiping the hard drives to be a problem and I don't have to wonder about it.

In all your wondering, have you come to any conclusions about why she might have a private company wipe it ?

Again, thanks for the edit and I hope none of this feels attacking. Not my intent.

[pdsimdars]

29. And, by "her own private equipment" you meant that UNsecure, UNencrypted server

that contained the crown jewels of our country, emails with classifications higher than Top Secret?

And yet, her supporters think it's a joke. Ha, the joke's on them.

[mooseprime]

52. IOKIYAC!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[JudyM]

38. I hadn't thought about section G before... The FBI could very well be framing this as a *conspiracy*

and could implicate Bill as well as the other players... That could explain the immunity granted to her aide...

[brush]

61. Do you seriously think Sanders has no baggage?

If by some miracle, Sanders gets the nomination, the repug opposition research that they've been keeping quiet about will kick into gear with 24/7 ads of Sanders' Nicaragua/Sandinista/Cuba/Castro/Moscow honeymoon/socialist — I mean real "means of production should belong to the people" type socialism ties, not European Democratic Socialism, and he will lose spectacularly.

He has not been vetted. Most of his supporters have no idea what would be in store for him, and the huge defeat the Dem party will suffer if he is the candidate.

And the Clinton camp is aware of this stuff also but has shown incredible restraint and respect, btw, by "not going there" in this campaign against Sanders.

Oh, he has baggage, all right — easily researchable — and it makes me wonder about the judgement of supporters of his who thinks this history is inconsequential.

[CentralCoaster]

64. Any voter worried about those things isn't voting for any Democrat.

Sanders' Nicaragua/Sandinista/Cuba/Castro/Moscow honeymoon/socialist only plays to RWNJs.

Educated people don't care, Independents who aren't baggers don't care

The youth vote and the nonwhite vote do not care.

None of his baggage is criminal.

[brush]

67. Who do you think the bulk of voters are? They are Gen Xers and baby boomers who lived through . . .

the cold war and were indoctrinated in school and by the media for years about the evils of communism and socialism and would be shocked when that info comes out about Sanders.

We all know millennials are the generation that votes the least.

And you don't know what all independents care about. Many are right-leaning and damn sure will care about voting for someone with a "socialist" history, as will the right wing tea baggers. Those in fact are the very people that are most likely to care about it.

And LET"S BE DAMN CLEAR. Clinton is not under any criminal charges.

[CentralCoaster]

69. These Independents and same people who support Sanders now already know these things.

I think the Socialist Democrat thing is a done deal, and I think that very few people will do an about face.

Current support is indicative of support in the general, IMO.

[brush]

73. Independents are not a monolith. As I said, some are right-leaning and likely to go repug, some . .

moderates and some left-leaning. And the Democratic Socialist label of western European countries Sanders has adopted is far different than the Marxist/Leninist philosophy that the younger Sanders was drawn to.

The repugs would blast this stuff 24/7 with professionally produced ads designed to scare and paint Sanders as an extreme leftist. Ads like that work, the Willie Horton ads illustrate that quit well.

[Scuba]

100. Sanders has a fanny-pack. Clinton has a truckload of steamer trunks.

[pdsimdars]

28. No but she did have the ambassodor's travel itinnerary in Libya on that server.

[grasswire]

97. OMG yes

was there info about using the embassy for the CIA gun running to the Syrians, too?

I'm tired tonight. I can't remember.

[Kittycat]

3. "Are we so blind"

You have to turn a blind eye to ignore something like this. It's incumbent upon us to hold our leaders accountable to the laws we hold ourselves to. Top down, bottom up. I'm a strong proponent of honest governance. This isn't something I can just ignore.

[CentralCoaster]

6. We're expected to ignore it, and to reject the candidate with a better chance of beating the GOP.

Can you believe it?

Colin Powell did NOT do this, no other cabinet member in any administration has gone roque like this and literally physically set up equipment in a basement to manage not just her own personal correspondence but OUR state department's business.

It's a serious matter, not a RW conspiracy.

[2cannan]

39. From the timeline re: Powell

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5

August 2015: Secretary of State Powell received two classified emails, but under very different circumstances than Clinton. Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall writes a letter to the State Department claiming that Clinton's "use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other secretaries of state." Kendall points in particular to Colin Powell, who appears to be the only other secretary of state to use a private email account while in office. But Powell had a government email account in addition to private one. According to The Washington Post, "Powell conducted virtually all of his classified communications on paper or over a State Department computer installed on his desk that was reserved for classified information, according to interviews." He also had a phone line installed in his office solely to link to his private email account, which he generally used for personal or non-classified communication. The State Department's inspector general did find that Powell's personal email account had received two emails from staff that contained "national security information classified at the 'secret' or 'confidential' levels." (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) It will later come out that the two emails were at the lowest 'confidential' level and did not actually contain any intelligence but were classified for other reasons. (ABC News, 3/4/2016)

[CentralCoaster]

44. Thank you. That's light years different from what Clinton did.

Wow.

Thanks.

[JudyM]

48. Thanks for pointing this out!

[YouDig]

4. Who cares where the email server was physically located?

[NWCorona]

5. From a security stand point. It's very important nt

[YouDig]

9. Email is inherently insecure.

Are government email accounts secure? No. Are gmail accounts secure? No.

This is why government officials don't use email to transmit classified information.

The whole email "scandal" is just ridiculous. Did the server get hacked? No. Did someone break into her house and steal it? No. Was it illegal? No.

In the meantime, there have been massive leaks of information that actually was classified at the highest levels.

[NWCorona]

12. Your post assumes a lot of facts facts that aren't in evidence. nt

[CentralCoaster]

21. And the evidence we have points to different conclusions, not good ones for the candidate.

It seems that her account was hacked.

It seems that sensitive material was passed that should never have been.

It remains unclear whether or not any operations or personnel were compromised but that's not the threshold for an indictment.

I'm gobsmacked at what's happened here, it's totally watergate-ish behavior, clandestine behavior, in her basement.

SMH

[2cannan]

31. At least if she had used a Google, Yahoo or MS email account there would have been more security.

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4

March 4, 2015: Clinton's use of a private server left her emails vulnerable to foreign intelligence agencies. Chris Soghoian, the lead technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), comments on the security of Clinton's private email server: "Although the American people didn't know about this, it's almost certain that foreign intelligence agencies did, just as the NSA knows which Indian and Spanish officials use Gmail and Yahoo accounts. ... She's not the first official to use private email and not the last. But there are serious security issues associated with these kinds of services... When you build your house outside the security fence, you're on your own, and that's what seems to have happened here." Soghoian notes the most serious problem is that it would require a whole team of computer experts to keep Clinton's server protected, and there's no evidence a team like that ever existed. Even if Clinton had used a popular email service such as those by Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft, she would have benefitted from their security teams. But while the Secret Service would have protected against break-ins into Clinton's house, they wouldn't have been able to help with computer security. (Wired, 3/4/2015)

[YouDig]

54. That's arguable, and it might be the other way around.

Remember, the only actual hacking that took place was Blumenthal's AOL account.

[lakeguy]

62. that statement isn't true

just because no hacking was detected does not mean no hacking occurred. on a non-secure server it's pretty easy to get in and out without leaving a trail that can be detected.

[Land of Enchantment]

42. The server WAS hacked. Ever heard of Guccifer?

https://www.rt.com/usa/334846-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradition/

[YouDig]

50. It wasn't her server that was hacked. It was Blumenthal's aol account.

[onecaliberal]

75. The Romanian guy the FBI just extradicted said SEVERAL governments hacked her server...

You're saying a lot of things, most of which are factually incorrect.

[YouDig]

77. Link?

[onecaliberal]

80. Try reading things. It's everywhere. Why the hell do you think they extradicted him?

for shits and giggles.

[YouDig]

82. So you just made that up. Figures.

[onecaliberal]

84. So you have NO CLUE what the actual facts in the case are. That COMPLETELY figures. #Blocked

[YouDig]

86. Actually I do. Which is why I asked you for a link. But there was no link.

[mackdaddy]

36. Her "Home" is a near fortress guarded by Secret Service, and State Dept security!

How much more secure could a "home" server be?

Second, Hillary's server was not compromised by Private Manning who released thousands of State Department emails. (just not the ones on Hillary's server).

[NWCorona]

57. But the server farm she moved it to didn't even have an alarm system nt

[MisterP]

7. hence the internet getting wallpapered with "Rice and Powell also had separate email accounts!"

all quite true

[CentralCoaster]

8. Most powerful nation on the planet, head of state sez, "let's put a server in my basement".

.
If a novelist was trying to pitch a thriller about the state department and included this line, they'd be laughed out of the meeting!

Except it's not funny, it's a big red flag and a problem going in to the general if we don't wise up and pick the stronger candidate.

[arcane1]

34. And the practice was widely condemned by Democrats, including all of DU.

It's funny how it was regarded as a shady practice at the time when they did it, but when it's done now it's written off as "just doing what her predecessors did".

[BootinUp]

10. How is it really different from Colin Powell using a personal email account for government business?

[CentralCoaster]

13. Personal email accounts are managed, saved, archived on large commercial servers, not in your home.

Thus, there are several differences:

Material can be subpoenaed from a commercial personal email server (gmail, yahoo mail) but not from your basement server.

Clinton used some third party back up provider with no security clearance.

Clinton's basement server could have more easily been hacked or corrupted, who knows?

So what Powell did is nothing like what Clinton did.

These are some of the ways it's different.

Now, WHY did she not just use a private email? WHY did she decide to go outside channels and do this stupid thing?

It's a hot mess of her own creation.

[BootinUp]

18. Its not a hot mess, which is why nobody gives a crap except her haters.

Get real.

There will be no indictment forthcoming because there was no gross negligence or known damage to national security.

Do I think it was a good idea for her to use the 1) personal email account 2) private server?

Not the smartest idea no. She did it out of convenience according to her, I believe that is true.

Do I think any of this will politically damage her to the point she can't prevail in the elections. No. Absolutely not.

[CentralCoaster]

20. She's already the weaker candidate in the GE. The GOP will use this to make her weaker.

.

The indictment potential is damning on it's own, but the poor judgement hasn't been touched yet in the campaign.

I don't think the typical voter has a clue about the server problem, they think it's just the personal email problem.

Well, it's not going to play at all well went it's explained and voters picture the equipment being installed in the middle of the night without asking anyone if it's OK.

She could have asked DHS or DOJ or Obama for specific help doing it this way. She did none of these things.

She is toast, she's done, this is over.

[tex-wyo-dem]

66. I recommend you go to this website...

Created by one of our own DUers, read through it and tell us how this is not a "hot mess"

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[frylock]

76. Quite a few people give a crap.

Ignore them at your peril.

[pdsimdars]

32. And on the emergecy occassions they use a private email account they are required to copy it

to their governmnet account immediately.

No one has EVER, in the history of the country, had their own private UNsecure, Unencrypted server from where they did ALL of their GOVERNMENT work. Never happened!

[arcane1]

40. When they did it, DUers considered it a shady practice to avoid transparency.

They were 100% correct.

[BootinUp]

46. According to reports I have seen

There does not appear to be any attempt to destroy evidence. Thats what really matters.

[2cannan]

41. See Post #39. nt

edited for correct post#!

[2cannan]

68. What Rice and Powell did

snip

March 3, 2015: A Clinton aide makes misleading comparisons to previous secretaries of state. An unnamed Clinton aide says about Clinton's use of a private email account and server, "Nothing nefarious was at play. She had a BlackBerry, she used it prior to State, and like her predecessors she continued to use it when she got to State." (Politico, 3/3/2015) However, a week later, The Wall Street Journal will report that Condoleezza Rice, Clinton's predecessor as secretary of state, had a government email account and no private email account for work-related matters. Rice only used the account occasionally, but she did use it. (Wall Street Journal, 3/10/2015) Furthermore, Rice did not use a BlackBerry or similar device. (Ars Technica, 3/17/2016) Earlier secretaries of state did not use BlackBerrys and did not use private email accounts for government work. (ABC News, 3/4/2016)

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4

August 2015: Secretary of State Powell received two classified emails, but under very different circumstances than Clinton. Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall writes a letter to the State Department claiming that Clinton's "use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other secretaries of state." Kendall points in particular to Colin Powell, who appears to be the only other secretary of state to use a private email account while in office. But Powell had a government email account in addition to private one. According to The Washington Post, "Powell conducted virtually all of his classified communications on paper or over a State Department computer installed on his desk that was reserved for classified information, according to interviews." He also had a phone line installed in his office solely to link to his private email account, which he generally used for personal or non-classified communication. The State Department's inspector general did find that Powell's personal email account had received two emails from staff that contained "national security information classified at the 'secret' or 'confidential' levels." (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) It will later come out that the two emails were at the lowest 'confidential' level and did not actually contain any intelligence but were classified for other reasons. (ABC News, 3/4/2016)

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5

[Skink]

11. What did Obama know and when did he know it

[CentralCoaster]

27. Libya: Obama Admits Clinton's "Greatest Moment" Was His "Worst Mistake"

Obama's not loving his Secretary of State choice right about now.

Instead of continuing his legacy, she may end up driving it into obscurity.

Good grief.

Libya: Obama Admits Clinton's "Greatest Moment" Was His "Worst Mistake"



Obama received fierce criticism for acknowledging that, in his mind, there are different levels of "classified" information—a revelation which critics said betrays his favoritism for Clinton. (Photo by: Evan Vucci/AP)

Amid growing speculation about the extent to which President Barack Obama is using his power to bolster the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, recent comments made by the commander in chief about the "shit show" in Libya, among other things, underscore how difficult that line is to toe.

During a telling interview with Fox News this weekend, Obama admitted that "failing to plan for the day after" the 2011 U.S.-backed toppling of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was "worst mistake" of his presidency.

The admission followed similar comments made by the president in a lengthy interview with the Atlantic published this month during which he called Libya "a mess" and privately described the failed state as a "shit show."


http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/12/libya-obama-admits-clintons-greatest-moment-was-his-worst-mistake

[pdsimdars]

35. Formef AG Mukasey said Obama said Hillary was careless with the emails, and previously she was

carless with Libya, she was also careless with the Russian Reset and the Pivot to the Pacific. . . With all this carelessness on all the MAJOR issues she has shown a fundamental lack of judgement.

That isn't just to dis Hillary it is to bring up the facts to make a decision from.

[CentralCoaster]

43. We minimize this at our own peril. There's another way, a better way.

And now is the time to choose the stronger candidate.

[leftofcool]

14. Ben Gawzi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[COLGATE4]

49. Do you know old Ben too?

[mmonk]

16. You would think there would be more Democrats that see a problem.

But they do not see the problem as a Christmas goose being served up to a crazy zealous Republican Party on a platter. They see her as a an icon that represents all and will bring back a dot com bubble with no consequences I guess. It's their choice but seems a gamble to some of us.

[Tarc]

17. The e-mail account of the Secretary of State is hardly "the business of this country"

Let's not get carried away here, or pretend that any Camp Sanders fan would give two shits about secure gov't email if if weren't for the fact that it involves Bernie's political opponent for the nomination.

[thesquanderer]

26. Official business conducted over email is indeed "the business of this country"

That's why it is subject to FOIA requests, and why the government requires all such email to be archived in a government system.

[randome]

19. God is taking requests in your area now! Call before it's too late!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[KingFlorez]

22. Sanders lost.

[thesquanderer]

24. re: "And then having the gall to decide for us which emails to release and which to delete?"

This is not so black and white.

Whenever any public official sends an email, s/he has a choice... if it is personal, they can use their personal account, and if it is gov't related, they are supposed to use their gov't account. The sender is *always* deciding which emails are public record and which are not.

The problem in this case is that the determination was not being thoughtfully made at the time each email was sent, but rather, the determination was made retroactively en masse by applying imperfect algorithms (i.e. it was considered a "government" document if it was sent to/from a .gov address or if it had certain keywords in it that they chose to search for). So no human actually ever evaluated the status of each of the 60k+ emails individually. And by deleting all emails that did not meet their search criteria, it became impossible to *ever* have anyone evaluate them individually, or to search based on some other criteria that they did not think of using the first time.

I think this becomes an even bigger problem if they can prove for a fact that non-personal emails were indeed deleted, and they may be able to do that if they have recovered deleted files from the server, or from a cloud backup, or from people who were on the other end of the email exchange (i.e. people she sent the emails to or received them from). Then the decision to wipe all the rest of the emails changes from "a questionable decision, but one without any known provable consequences" to "a questionable decision that definitely resulted in the inappropriate deletion of non-personal emails." And if any such recovered or alternatively sourced emails show that any of the deleted emails contained classified information, then it gets even stickier.

[CentralCoaster]

30. Why did she take the server to be wiped by a contractor before delivering it to the FBI?

I agree with you. It seems to me that none of the explanations serve to lessen the utter negligence of the initial decision and most of the decisions that followed.

But some decisions are more incriminating than others:

Why would you take it to a private company to be "wiped" before giving it to the FBI???

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-e-mail-server-turned-over-to-fbi/2015/08/12/aba5feea-4160-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

[pdsimdars]

37. Hey, did you know that when she left the Senate, somehow ALL the email from when she

was there was "lost"? Isn't that interesting? Or does it reveal a pattern?

But fortunately for everyone, the FBI has retrieved all those emails she tried to delete.

[2cannan]

60. From the timeline

After August 12, 2015: The FBI recovers most, if not all, of Clinton's deleted emails. In March 2016, the Los Angeles Times will report that some time after the FBI took possession of Clinton's private server on August 12, 2015, the FBI "has since recovered most, if not all, of the deleted correspondence, said a person familiar with the investigation." Clinton deleted 31,830 emails, claiming they were not work-related. (The Los Angeles Times, 3/27/2016) Since then, work-related emails that were not turned over will be discovered in at least three different instances.

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5

[frylock]

79. Should've used a stronger cloth.

Or made several passes with her DoD cloth.

[pdsimdars]

25. And how about this. . . . the security on it was 64,000 times less than a dating site for married

people, which got hacked. She had LESS security on her system.
AND she had at least 22 emails that were classified higher than Top Secret. They exposed people's lives. And they were just sitting there.

And her supporters say, "Oh, well." It is infuriating.

[Maedhros]

45. Our political environment is so hyper-partisan (by design)

that any criticism of an elected official, valid or not, is construed as helping The Other Side and therefore must never be allowed.

[Dem2]

33. It's amazing what President Hillary has done over the years

How are we even able to vote for her seeing as she's been President of the USA for the past 24 years at least?

[scscholar]

51. I thought the Republican lie...

was that it was in a bathroom.

[mooseprime]

55. it was a brazen act of insubordination

after she was told she couldn't get her way on the super-expensive blackberry.

anyone who has had any experience with classified material (i have) knows what she did is wrong and anyone else would be in serious trouble. not only that, she knows full well she wasn't allowed to do it. when you get a clearance all that stuff is spelled out to you in the starkest possible terms...with examples.

plenty of sensitive stuff doesn't have SECRET stamped on it but you don't put it on an unsecure server. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO KNOW BETTER.

[scscholar]

56. If what you say is true, why hasn't...

she been arrested? Maybe you're wrong.

[mooseprime]

63. there isn't a more fundamental way

to break secrecy laws than to be responsible for anything classified being outside a secure environment. period. this could not be more black and white. you don't carry the papers out, you don't put files on a flash drive and move them, you don't transfer them from a secure network to an insecure one. you are not to move any of that stuff from where you find it without a very, very good reason.

quibbles about whether some email was stamped secret after the fact is complete and utter misdirection. this was unequivocally a security breach.

she's not been arrested for some reason not visible to the public and any conjecture is just that:

--they're crossing t's and dotting i's
--Clinton is way too connected to actually indict on anything. Just like Bushco on lies and torture. It generally isn't done.
--there's horse-trading going on behind the scenes
--Clinton, Inc. has some dirt on somebody important
--the exact materials that constitute the felony are being extremely closely protected for some reason

pick anything you see. and there's no guarantee whatsoever that we're ever going to find out the truth, either.

federal government secrecy is hugely serious business, and it's not even remotely "iffy." that's why they take months to investigate people before granting a clearance in the first place.

imagine the scene, during a federal security briefing, of asking if you can do FedGov business on an insecure server set up at your house.

[2cannan]

65. Here's where the bathroom comes from

snip

August 18, 2015: Clinton's private server has recently been managed by a surprisingly small company with no special security features. Platte River Networks housed Clinton's server from June 2013 until early August 2015. Former employee Tera Dadiotis calls it a "mom and pop shop." She adds, "At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton because I don't think they had the resources... [It was] not very high security, we didn't even have an alarm. ... [W]e literally had our server racks in the bathroom. ... We only had the three owners and like eight employees. We didn't do any work in other states." Platte River's facility was a 1,900 square foot apartment in an ordinary apartment building until it moved into a larger space in June 2015. Platte River also has ties to prominent Democrats. For instance, the company's vice president of sales David DeCamillis is said to be a prominent Democrat supporter and once offered to let Senator Joe Biden (D) stay in his house in 2008, not long before Biden became Obama's vice president. Another former employee says everyone was told to keep quiet about the fact they were doing work for Clinton. (The Daily Mail, 8/18/2015)

snip

September 3, 2015: Snowden criticizes Clinton for her use of a private server. Former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor turned whistleblower and international fugitive Edward Snowden says that lower-level government employees would "not only lose their jobs, [but] would very likely face prosecution" for doing that. He adds, "Anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of state has or the director of any top level agency has knows how classified information should be handled. When the unclassified systems of the United States government - which has a full time information security staff - regularly get hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado, is more secure is completely ridiculous." (Al Jazeera America, 9/3/2015) The last statement is a reference to the fact that Platte River Networks, which managed Clinton's server from June 2013 until August 2015, did in fact keep her server in a renovated bathroom. (The Daily Mail, 8/18/2015)

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5

[glinda]

95. Knowing this makes it seem like

intentionally hiding her dealings from maybe even the President. Why else would someone go to such lengths to have an outside firm who all of her emails belong to the Government and also to us. Even the "personal emails".

[haikugal]

53. Clinton acted outside the law. This is a criminal action and others are in prison for similar action

None of these folks really seem to get the crux of the FOIA angle, how inexpensive it would have been—how much BETTER for ease of compliance it would have been—for that system to be designed/configured differently. It MUST be assumed that it was NOT designed that way, purposefully, because the alternative is just so brain-dead dumb to not be credible. All which means it WAS done purposefully, and that purpose was to deliberately thwart FOIA. Can be no doubt of that. That is a felony. And it should cause to give pause for anyone who believes in open, responsive government. That alone should disqualify her. Beyond that, the classified stuff, is just icing on the cake. She is on a hellbent crusade to take power, by any means necessary. Anyone who supports that has to and can only do so with knowledge of that intent…and if they STILL support her, the rest of us should realize they do so only with malice in mind.

[grasswire]

98. she should never have a security clearance again

She can't be trust with our national security secrets.

Nor can Abedin or the other aides.

[ViseGrip]

58. War business to, and it was pay to play. Disgusting!

[Waiting For Everyman]

59. Yep, and she'd probably do the same if she were President

and wouldn't that be awesome? Nixon would be so proud.

She's outright copying Rove in the tactic he used to get around the Freedom of Information Act. The Goldwater Girl strikes again!

[seabeyond]

70. In an X Presidents home. Lol. Nt

[CentralCoaster]

71. So, if Colin Powell had used a server in George Bush's basement, no problemo?

I see.

Yes, of course, that's an important consideration.

A basement server, available maybe to Dick Cheney et al, no problem.

Brilliant!

Perhaps I should self-delete, given this revelation.

[seabeyond]

72. Colin Powell owns up to being exactly in Clinton's position but he is not being harassed.

[frylock]

81. I'd like to see a link to that claim, because the two scenarios are nothing alike.

[seabeyond]

85. Google it. It is out there.

[frylock]

89. Yeah.. no.

I'm just going assume it was never said.

[seabeyond]

90. Ya, figured.

[frylock]

91. Figured what? That I was going to Google your claim?

Here's a novel concept: back up your assertion with links you Googled on your own.

[glinda]

96. HRC said it.

[frylock]

105. Of course she did.

That's why there are no links forthcoming from my friend here.

[CentralCoaster]

88. No, he did not. He used private email, that is all, he did now run his own home server. Proof:

Having the server in your home means you have total control over that machine and that data. She even took it to be wiped before handing it over to the FBI. That's creepy.

Politifact: "Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email"

Our ruling: Mostly False.

Clinton said, regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing."

This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did.

We rate this claim Mostly False.

[seabeyond]

92. Here is the story told. First that they used private email. But when that didn't stick cause all

the others stood up, you all went to the server in the basement.

Literally. Whatever. Can you say, ... Benghazi?

[grasswire]

99. Lame. nt

[amborin]

74. and took advice from Sydney

[frylock]

83. The ultimate affront against Obama.

Why come nobody ever talks about that when the subject of dissing Obama is raised?

[840high]

94. She knowingly betrayed Obama.

[yardwork]

78. Damn. Imagine what she could do with Air Force One. /nt

[treestar]

87. Somebody who is working all day and all night

at any job should get to do some of it out of home.

[CentralCoaster]

93. Server in basement not helpful to doing homework. There's only one reason to do it.

And that is to have total and exclusive control over the hardware and the data stored on it.

I work all day from home, I don't run my own server.

[cantbeserious]

101. Clinton Email Scandal Timeline

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[boobooday]

102. I work for a university, and operate under laws that require transparency

In no way would it be considered acceptable for me to set up a separate, non-university email address and conduct all my official business from that address, housed on my own personal server.

[CentralCoaster]

103. Same here. It's unthinkable, and she takes no reponsibility, shows no remorse whatsoever.

[CentralCoaster]

104. She laughs about it. She thinks it's funny. Wiped it? Like with a cloth? Really, Madam Secretary?

.
You hired private contractors to build your own little system in your basement, created multiple domain names.

You ran all of your State Department email through that private basement server system without any government oversight.

And you lied about it, saying it was a matter of "convenience".

And then you have the unmitigated gall to joke about it?

Really?