2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs there any other legitimate reason for the Clinton server other than blocking transparency?
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Glamrock
(11,799 posts)Ooh ooh! I know! Amazon/EBay addiction.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)As a Reality TV star within it. Coming January 2017.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)I'm goin with Porn
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But they don't know the first thing about data security. So no, there was no legitimate reason for this.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... I always look for the HRC crowd to jump in and really explain why.
In the end, it comes down to something along the lines of 'She is Hillary and she deserves a pass'.
Irritating...
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)her intention was clearly to operate in the shadows.
i bet she has a recurring nightmare where she finds herself completely naked in the middle of campaign speech without even a podium to hide behind.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)She was advised not to use her Blackberry and did anyway. She didn't want to carry two devices. She did what she wanted. Pure and Simple.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)This is the management of American empire, so to speak. There are many mostly dubious reasons to want a private network immune to FOIA and closed to other officials. That this could be kept secret is hubris.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I remember hearing tell of a firm not related to the government that put this server up for her. The only way you can keep something like that perfectly secret is to build it and network it yourself, have it air gapped, encrypted out the ass, AND CLOSE YOUR UNNECESSARY BLOODY PORTS. Hell, the SIPRnet computers in my workcenter are more secure than what hers was, and hers no doubt held State information!
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I'm surprised her side hasn't brought up Manning as a justification for a separate server.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)They scream and rant and rave that Snowden and Manning need to hang when their leaks exposed America for the heinous shit we've done, and then want to give Clinton a pass? Hypocrisy and elitism.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Can't be good to draw attention to a few hundred thousand documents online. They don't know all of what's in there themselves.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)It probably was much more convenient to have your own server to keep your private email about yoga classes, your daughter's wedding and donations to the Clinton Foundation private. It also would help a person avoid those irritating FOIA requests.
merrily
(45,251 posts)to take two years and lawyer up to comply with an FOIA request or a subpoena, either. No reason, other than lack of transparency, to wipe a server after an FOIA request. No other reason, other than lack of transparency, to lie under oath to a Grand Jury. No reason, other than lack of transparency, to prefer an 18-month sentence for contempt of court to answering three questions about Bill Clinton's involvement in Whitewater.
Response to merrily (Reply #6)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)smh
merrily
(45,251 posts)This is series!!11!1!
Any sensible sounding theory on why someone would take a sentence of 18 months in jail, rather than answer 3 question about Bubba? Cause McDougal's rationale was not even close to believable, except to sheeple.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)It's pretty clear that the Clinton political machine in Arkansas stepped way over the legal and ethical line in their financial dealings. Look how many people in their inner circle fell on their swords and went to jail - and contrast that with essentially ZERO in the Obama's inner circle.
You don't have to be a crook be an effective political leader. That's something the Clinton's never embraced. They've always been more of the "what can we get away with" school of politics.
America deserves better. America deserves Bernie!
merrily
(45,251 posts)In my case, anyway. So many of us were brainwashed to think this was all right wing persecution. They got Genifer Flowers to speak up. (Maybe, but they didn't get him to have an affair with her.) They (BROCK) got Paula Jones to sue. (Maybe, but they didn't get him to solicit her for a bj.) They investigated Whitewater until they found out about Monica through Linda Tripp. (Maybe, but they didn't get him to have an "inappropriate relationship" in the Oval Office with a young White House intern.) And it was even somehow okay for the President of the United States to lie to a Grand Jury while under oath.
I bought it. I bought every bit of it. And, then, over time, the stuff that had been drummed into my head wore off and then
Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I wouldn't have thought so.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Not the best-case scenario but still nothing worth getting the pitchforks out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)But it did not withstand scrutiny.
randome
(34,845 posts)NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clintons production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I wish those would come out about American foreign policy generally. But that doesn't mean the private server was not a real violation of existing law, however comparably tame to the usually normal workings of the State Department and the intelligence agencies that have colonized it during the entire postwar era.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't pretend to understand why she chose this route. It seems dumb to me. But she broke no law.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And two federal judges have found enough evidence of intentional wrong doing to allow and conduct investigation.
Saying this is a rw judicial watch issue is red herring denial.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)She broke no laws or nobody cares? Either one is a bold claim that you can't really back up. While the OIG investigated departmental policy violations (and found a minimum of 5) and not federal law violations, the FBI is actively looking into that. I'll take their word over yours that no laws were broken especially since gross negligence is obviously a federal infraction.
As for nobody cares, that's a totally unsubstantiated claim. More accurate to say, "Nobody is surprised." because this kind of gray area navigation is a Clinton trademark.
choie
(4,111 posts)A public servant is hiding from FOIAs, but many of us do.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)and Bernie won't be the nomimnee...call a wambulance.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Not me. Goddamn, ya'll are one trick straw men.
This is not about Bernie. I don't expect him to be the nominee. That is the fucking problem. We are going with a nominee who has clearly violated federal records law. That's at a minimum.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)She didn't break the law, she broke the rules!
That never fails to make me guffaw.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)believe that selectively cherry picking pieces will save her?
FACTS:
She DID NOT COMPLY with the policies while in office - period.
She DID NOT comply when she left office by turning her work product in for archiving - period.
When she did FINALLY "work to mitigate" TWO YEARS LATER, she FAILED TO DO SO COMPLETELY because she didn't even turn everything in (and apparently altered records to boot).
Then she lied to the public in interviews, speeches and debates about all of these things repeatedly.
That is the OPPOSITE of HONEST, TRANSPARENT OPEN GOVERNMENT.
Bring on the pitchforks.
randome
(34,845 posts)Every SOS has been in violation in some way or another. No one gives a shit because: 1) the laws are so complex that no one could possibly be perfect and 2) each SOS has the option (i.e. loophole) of deciding which communications are private and which are public.
Every time you say Clinton 'lied', it's about some minutiae of the law that no one fully understands anyways. It's very clear by now that the voters see things this way because, whether you like it or not, they continue to vote for her. All your complaining and CAPS-locks on DU won't change that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)If Hillary becomes President, that means you are.
If Hillary gets indicted or drops out, that means I am.
Truth will out. The process continues. In the meantime, your opinions do not get to override facts and reality.
She lied, she did not comply, and she hasn't been transparent.
Will America care? That remains to be seen.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Her supporters just don't seem to understand how this EXACERBATES her high untrustworthiness public opinion. If they're foaming at the mouth over a DUer making a damn TIMELINE they'll need straighjackets once Trump actually starts hitting her on this because he hasn't even warmed up yet.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Particularly pages 26-27, which explicitly say she did not comply.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is the rub. Hillary and her inner circle did so much government business off the books and then self-selected what to turn over to State. There is no way verify that the federal records were retained and their practice was in violation of the law.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)as they dig deeper that the OIG and access more people and documents.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Mission Accomplished: No records retained.
randome
(34,845 posts)Nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They are both bullshit non-issues that, at worst, will be a slight political hit for her, but distract people who should be concentrating on the bigger weaknesses of her candidacy from bringing them up.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Basement server sure didn't.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Again, that could be one possible reason. It might not be a great argument. Obviously, Hillary wishes she had not done it the way that she did. But the motives for doing so might not have been nefarious.
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Amishman
(5,557 posts)Less secure is less secure, this 'but no one would expect it' excuse is pure nonsense.
And her motives are pretty freakin clear from the report, her own words: 'I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible'. Those private emails were so important that she was willing to complicate her official duties in order to better shield them from any outside attention. It also shows you her priorities.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)There is no question about that.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Who both hid money from Whitewater.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)government transparency.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)"Walk three blocks, retrieve your phone from security check-in, go into the super secure room, use phone, turn phone back into security guard with check in procedures, then walk back three blocks to office."
As opposed to "use work computer at desk".
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Avoiding FOIA is another reason but there are other ways to avoid FOIA that I am sure she knew about. I just really think it was mainly for security and convenience.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)and to try and make that system simpler cuz you know better than ANYONE else speaks volumes about her attitude on regulation. She won't follow the law or the legislature as long as she thinks she can get away with it and it's 'for a good cause' (for her own cause)
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Could be as easy as "The IT department at State is shit, I need something that works now, so I'm going to go through outside channels." It breaks a bunch of regulations, but her intentions may not have been bad. That said, violating regulations has to have consequences, because they very often exist for good reason.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Ought to be a bumper sticker.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Not one I'd sport. She's shady as hell. I'm just trying to come up with a "least bad" explanation for the sheer thought exercise of it.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...to set up and run her private server. Yeah, sure, that makes sense... not.
If she was concerned that State's servers were insecure, she would have hired someone with expertise in computer security. And claiming she is ignorant of such things, just undermines her capability in general. She has, after all, called for a Manhattan Project to enhance the government's capability to spy on all of us. So which is it -- is she knowledgeable, or is she ignorant of computer security issues?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'll trust this before some "Berner" looking for a way forward:
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 Departments 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.
More at:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're free to do that, of course, but you're not correct in your assumptions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Darn near every big breach you hear about is from an organization with date security professionals.
bonemachine
(757 posts)www.hillaryclinton.com
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I have two email accounts open on my browser right now.
I have a work email and I have a personal email.
The work email is for work and the personal email is for friends and family.
If she wasn't allowed to use her personal email from work, tough shit. A lot of people aren't.
I bet she wasn't allowed to dick around on Facebook at work, either.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)and of course privacy...as state was hacked three times that we know of.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... If she had implemented equal or greater security measures on her home server but that doesn't appear to be the case.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)BootinUp
(47,143 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)... In pdf format?
And yes... They appear to have found quite a bit.
Lack of classified marking is not a mitigating factor but actually bumps up the level of offense.
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)... About the classification system.
It's already there but she downplays it and most folks don't know any better.
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Very rarely do I see anyone deny the facts of the matter.
The argument usually ends up being something along the lines of 'she deserves a pass for the greater good'.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...are you implying that all of this is a ... (gasp) ... conspiracy? I thought Hillary's supporters are against conspiracy theories? I guess it all depends on whose ox is gored.
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)what is so hard to understand about that?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the slimeball Issa did not refer this to the FBI.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/
(...)
We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesnt look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred.
"We dont do these because were curious," said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. "Theres a potential that a criminal violation took place."
(...)
"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said.
So it's all just one big conspiracy? Well all righty then...
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)then there is one. Thats generally how witch hunts work. You can ignore the obvious 2 year effort by the pukes if you want to though.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...people at State did, as part of their obligation to report potential security issues.
You are claiming that they did this due to public pressure. Others in the Hillary camp claim that the public neither understands, nor cares about this issue. Which is it?
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and I'm not sure who you are targeting as "wanting an investigation"? The fact is, there IS an investigation. By the FBI -- the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATIONS.
Sheesh. Why do you even bother replying with such content-free drivel.
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...you are the one who claimed: "When the public perception is that there should be an investigation then there is one." You think the FBI is investigating this due to public pressure? And yet, we are told every day by Hillary supporters that the public neither knows nor cares about this issue. So where is the public pressure coming from?
OTOH, you claim this is a witch hunt perpetrated by Issa. Sure, he conducted the Benghazi hearings, and yes, that was a witch hunt. Unfortunately for Clinton, though, it also brought to light the fact that Clinton was running her own private server, which included acting as an email server for her private email account, which she used for all of her department business. That is not a witch hunt, that is a separate issue that is now being investigated.
Sorry that is so hard for you to understand.
TTFN
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)There have been no findings to this point that they care about because there is nothing new since the Benghazi hearings that are of great import. Nothing that has stopped her from winning the Primary, and nothing that will stop her from winning the election. SHOULD the FBI investigation find something to be concerned about, obviously that would be a different matter.
As far as how these investigations got started, it would take a lot of blocking out of reality to ignore the fact that the Republican investigations have led to increased scrutiny of her emails which inevitably led to the discovery of the private server/private email account.
polly7
(20,582 posts)into her decisions. He already knew the players in the countries she was dealing with and had a long history wrt military involvement, etc.
dchill
(38,484 posts)Just like Barack.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...how cool.
But to address your claim, Obama's Blackberry is not an off-the-shelf model, but one that was eviscerated by engineers at the NSA. Clinton's Blackberry was off-the-shelf and retained all of the security vulnerabilities that she had been warned about. You can read all about here:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/22/technology/security/nsa-obama-blackberry/
In response to Obama's request, the NSA set up a lab where dozens of experts performed surgery for several months on a high-profile patient: the soon-to-be presidential BlackBerry. The course of treatment was to manipulate the device's innards to weed out potential threats to secure communication.
(...)
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)This is apparently a thing because the Secret Service had to make accommodations for the president when he took office for the same reason.
I don't get it, but my grandkids do.
dchill
(38,484 posts)So she used an off-the-shelf one anyway. The temerity and gall is breathtaking. And, I'm not on a first name basis with the President, but she is. Or was...
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...we appear to be in agreement on the Blackberry issue.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Sort of like the documents they kept trying to find in the Whitewater investigation.
When they finally found them they didn't really show anything, but the fact that they were missing allowed the GOP to make up all sort of stuff.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)She had a personal server so she could delete "personal" ones before turning the rest over to government archivists.
History is written in the words that Clinton chose to not delete.
QC
(26,371 posts)was playing Jethro Bodine, Double Naught Spy for HRC even after she had been explicitly directed not to hire him.
840high
(17,196 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)derp!