home

Indictments will be long: State sent unsecured "classified" e-mails during Bush Administration

A point I have tried to make a number of times on the "Eghazi: It's Classified!" "scandal" is that the originators of the "classified" e-mails were career State Department officials. Thus, I noted that the current US Ambassador to Bahrain William Roebuck originated a now "classified SECRET" e-mail that founds its way to Clinton's inbox after being forwarded by multiple careeer State officials.

Yesterday Josh Gerstein identified now "classified e-mails that were originated by 33 year State Department veteran William Burns.

Now today the AP reports what should have been obvious to any honest observer by now - State Department officials routinely sent subsequently classified information over unsecure e-mail:

The transmission of now-classified information across Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email is consistent with a State Department culture in which diplomats routinely sent secret material on unsecured email during the past two administrations, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

And here's the kicker:

five emails that date to Condoleezza Rice's tenure as secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration, large chunks are censored on the grounds that they contain classified national security or foreign government information.

Oh, here's the other kicker:

In a December 2006 email, diplomat John J. Hillmeyer appears to have pasted the text of a confidential cable from Beijing about China's dealings with Iran and other sensitive matters. Large portions of the email were marked classified and censored before release.

What Colin Powell did we don't know because he destroyed his e-mails.

Now I guess we can pretend Hillary is the evilest of them all, but it doesn't wash.

You'll have to write a pretty long indictment if you are intent on getting Hilary Clinton on EGhazi.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you. (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 03:54:11 PM EST


    If everybody, or most everybody, does it at State, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:09:43 PM EST
    that's persuasive to me, except that Clinton has her own server at home. Very interesting. I had always assumed that this was a fairly frequent occurrence at State, and probably not confined to Clinton or her aides/people, but BT's post makes it look ever more widespread and common.

    The private server aspect, tho, still makes the Clinton situation potentially different. Private email does too, but my gut tells me that the private server is worse than private email. Maybe it isn't. We'll see.

    Thx for the reporting.

    Parent

    Yeah, because using yahoo is better :) (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    All email is vulnerable (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    That is what John Kerry was talking about.....

    If it is sensitive or confidential--do not put it into an email.   Works for everyone:  students, professors, Secretaries of State, wingnuts....

    Top secret information should never be sent via a .gov email.....

    Parent

    Your "gut" tells you (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    Heh.

    Parent
    Yman, please name any other top US official (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:58:27 PM EST
    who has ever set up and used his or her own private server for the bulk of his/her emails in his/her government position. There aren't any, are there?

    Parent
    ... used a private domain name called gwb43.com for much of their email traffic, which was hosted by a server owned and controlled by the Republican National Committee, as well as other domains provided by the RNC. The stated rationale was that those officials and other employees could then avoid violations of the Hatch Act. A White House official told a congressional inquiry that Karl Rove used RNC email 95% of the time while he worked in the Oval Office.

    Parent
    Again, Donald, please (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    name any top US official that has set up his/her own server for emails.

    Where's your link, Donald?

    If even true, all those Bush officials presumably used the .gov address for the work activities, or most of them.

    Parent

    "Presumably" - heh (3.50 / 2) (#176)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 08:38:30 AM EST
    Your presumptions are at the root of your problem.  I deal with facts and evidence, bit the presumptions and "gut" of an extremely biased source.

    Parent
    Okay, then show me any presumptions (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 08:43:17 AM EST
    that you think were incorrect or unfair. I actually don't use many presumptions. I use facts and information from what I believe are credible articles and quotes. I also say "if" something turns out to be true or occurs, then "this" would likely result. It's one of the ways people conduct and defend investigations. It's also something commonly done on the internet.

    Parent
    It's also a way of making (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    ... specious, fact-free, evidence-free accusations based on what you want to be true, rather than what you can spier with facts and evidence.  It's smearing with speculation and innuendo.

    Parent
    Yman, however, that's not what I am doing (none / 0) (#193)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 06:46:23 PM EST
    Why would I want bad things to be true about the candidate I'm supporting at this point. Some of you seem to have this attitude that discussing possibilities, i.e. that the FBI might find something when searching the server, is too negative or disloyal, should not ever been mentioned as a possibility (even though it's being mentioned and discussed numerous times every day all over the universe), and must be trolling. My view is that some of you apparently just don't want to have a discussion.

    Parent
    Of course you are (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 07:54:54 PM EST
    I've had enough of your concern-trolling and specious claims offered with no evidence.  I'm also not interested in your "gut", your silly, baseless, evidence-free speculation, or your opinion of what others "seem to" or "apparently" doing (love those qualifiers).  But I will be happy to point it out when you make these baseless attacks.

    Parent
    Yman, then don't read it or respond to it (none / 0) (#198)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    I plan to keep doing the same, so get used to it. At least, when I read your stuff, I either respond or don't respond, but I don't complain and try to bash you.

    Parent
    Sorry, Green (none / 0) (#203)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    If you insist of making BS accusations without evidence and think you can get away with it by coating it in a qualifier (i.e. "If"), you should expect to get called on it.  Or, you could try making real arguments with actual evidence, but that's a bit harder.  Either way, you "advice" as to what you think I should do carries as much weight as your specious accusations, which is to say ...

    ... absolutely none
    .

    Parent
    Try this one (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    for starters

    Especially where it mentions that the gwb43.com was on RNC servers.

    Parent

    Oh, for Pete's sake, Green! (none / 0) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    Green26: "Again, Donald, please name any top US official that has set up his/her own server for emails. Where's your link, Donald? If even true, all those Bush officials presumably used the .gov address for the work activities, or most of them."

    Were YOU born yesterday? Karl Rove was officially appointed by President Bush in January 2001 as Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President in charge of policy development. That makes him a senior Bush administration official.

    And in that capacity as Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President, Rove chaired the White House Iraq Group, which was established in Aug. 2002 for the specific purpose of developing a strategy "for publicizing the White House's assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States."

    WHIG members included White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Ms. Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, White House legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio, White House communication strategists Mary Matalin and Karen Hughes, and Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief deputy James R. Wilkinson.

    Surely, since you're such a self-styled "expert" on issues a national security, you've heard of at least a few of those individuals, haven't you? Well, Karl Rove outranked them all. Is he now enough of a senior Bush official for you?

    The information about the Bush White House's use of gwb43.com and other RNC-registered domain names came to light as a result of the 2007 Justice Dept. and congressional investigations into the Dec. 2006 dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys by the Bush White House (one was fired earlier).

    Those eight U.S. attorneys -- all of whom had been appointed by Bush, BTW -- claimed that they had been summarily terminated for refusing Rove's demand that they specifically target Democrats in their jurisdictions for voter fraud investigations. Rove and other White House employees used gwbush43.com and the RNC servers in an obvious attempt to circumvent the Hatch Act and avoid outside scrutiny.

    It was a very prominent scandal, and further, millions of emails from those RNC subsequently went missing when the Bush administration was requested to produce them as part of those investigations.

    "Even if true"? Really? Unlike your "possible scenarios" which you've embraced and preached around here as though they were the effin equivalent of the Holy Gospels, these are all well-known and established facts and further, the U.S. attorneys story was prominently covered at the time in the media.

    As I am not your administrative assistant, I would suggest that you cease your trolling and use that time to look it up yourself.

    Jeez, what a ridiculous and tedious putz you are! I'm through discussing this with you. I think we've pretty well established that you have absolutely no credibility on this subject, or likely on any other subject, too, for that matter. So conversing any further with you is a complete waste of both my time and Jeralyn's bandwidth.

    Good day.

    Parent

    Oh please, Donald (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    Rove didn't create buy and assembly his own server for his own emails, and keep the server in his basement. The RNC created the system. The system was to help avoid violations of the Hatch Act. The system was apparently based on what Pres. Clinton or his people had done previously.

    Rove wasn't a high-ranking government official like a Secretary of State.

    Where's the link to the number of government officials/employers using that email address? That's what I wanted.

    Absolutely nothing came of the investigations you referred to, in terms of violations of law involving the separate non-governmental email system, according to what I read and recall.

    Jeez, you try to pawn off your speculation and stretching as fact. No, I wasn't born yesterday, and that's why I can see right through your posts and see the BS in them.

    Parent

    Here's the breakdown (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    Wiki

    But please note that it cites the interim report out of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which found, among other things:

    At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President's senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

    The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

    Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.

    There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.

    The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

    So, Donald's "authority" is the House of Representatives!

    Parent

    Here's a great timeline (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    Here's a great timeline (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    Thx, jb. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    Had not seen that detail previously. Am I correct that nothing ever came of any investigation on this matter? A very brief Google didn't show anything, but I didn't look hard. I believe the House was still controlled by the Repubs and Pelosi then. Correct?

    Looks like the Dems were on this type of email issue in the past, and now the Repubs are on it. One difference now is that intelligence inspector general and FBI are also on the email/record issue this time, and one of the people at the center is running for president, not a sitting president and some of this staff.

    Parent

    Keep in mind (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:45:12 PM EST
    There were multiple investigations about the email going on.  This led to the discovery that emails about the outing of Valerie Plame were not on the WH server, there were private emails used by Department of Education employees doing official business, the US Attorney firing scandal, Jack Abramoff was involved, etc.

    The tentacles of the Republican's use of private emails and non-governmental servers reached far  Many top officials lost their jobs (AG Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, AG Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson, Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys Michael Battle, Monica Goodling).  There were claims of executive privilege, Harriet Miers (remember her?), former White House Counsel and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton were held in Contempt of Congress, etc. all came out of this email controversy.

    Parent

    Why would it? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    She's released email - they did not.  They lost MILLIONS of emails that they admit pertained to the business of the United States.

    And yet - no one went to jail for that.

    Parent

    There are (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    some big differences between the situations. The Bush administration  apparently used private server to private server mails to conduct government business with apparently no attempt to preserve them.

    Hillary apparently used private server to .gov servers for conducting business, theoretically  at least these emails would be preserved on the .gov  servers and she also archived them on her side.

    There is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration was trying to hide their actions as some crucial communications were never "found".
    There is currently zero evidence that Hillary was actually trying to hide anything.

    All we have is hand wringing from the usual suspects who are certain Hillary has committed crimes, the same suspects who gave the Bush administration a pass for some far wider and deeper, and seemingly more "criminal"l by an order of magnitude at least.

    Parent

    Yes, but nothing came (none / 0) (#154)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    of the use of the private email system set up by the RNC, that would be similar to what the Clinton email investigation situation is. Archiving, violations of any rules or laws involving emails, transmission of classified information to 3d parties, etc.

    Parent
    BT, can you provide a link or cite to (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    the fact that Colin Powell "destroyed" his emails? I don't recall seeing that. I recall seeing that he said he didn't have them to turn over to State now. However, I don't recall the exact wording of what I've read.

    Powell hasn't been SS for 10 years. He's said he used private emails. He didn't have or set up his own server. Personally, I don't think Powell's situation is that similar to Clinton's. He was SS 10 years ago. He used private email, and not his own server, at a time when he wanted the State email system expanded and improved. No one asked him for his emails until fairly recently. He doesn't have them. Who has their emails from 10 years ago? I sure don't. My personal computers and devices are long since discarded, and my law firm has replaced it servers multiple times and presumably destroyed the old servers as a matter of course.

    Parent

    Colin Powell (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 07:35:48 AM EST
    Link

    Emphasis mine.

    "When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly," he said. "I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there's anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails."


    Parent
    When it comes to govt. technology, jb, ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 02:59:40 PM EST
    ... the prevailing characteristics appear to be redundancy and antiquity. For example, there is a standard form which the federal government requires organizations or corporations to submit either concurrently with or prior to any application for federal financial assistance, be it a grant or a loan, which is called the SF-424.

    This particular form was initially the brainchild of the federal Office of Management and Budget, which intended it for use by all departments and agencies. Yet over the ensuing years, many federal agencies have since created their own unique and respective version of this ostensibly standard form, and they will not accept an SF-424 from an applicant which bears the mark of any other agency or department.

    Further, a significant number of these same federal agencies are apparently unaware of the fact that we now have pdf files which are both individually fillable and savable to one's own hard drive.

    And so these agencies' online SF-424s are available in print format only. It's as though they're operating under the assumption that everyone keeps a Smith-Corona or IBM Selectric typewriter handy in the corner of the office for just these sorts of such occasions. (Well, I'll admit that I do, but that's beside the point.)

    It's not just the federal government that's guilty here. State and local governments across the country have also been slow to respond to or keep up with the advances in IT, particularly in the wake of cuts in departmental and agency allocations of funds due to the economic recession.

    Taming this multi-headed hydra as a means to ensure general consistency of purpose throughout government will be a necessary task for public officials, but it will also be a relatively thankless one as well.

    I accepted a voluntary appointment last year to a governor's task force that's presently reviewing the State of Hawaii's IT policy. And I must say, I'm amazed at how badly we managed to both underestimate the scope and breadth of this problem, and let it compound upon itself to the extent that we did.

    I mean, we still have two major departments operating with '90s-era mainframes, including the department which handles the state payroll! When they need to procure parts for these now-obsolescent machines, the IT guys have to go on eBay &etc. to seek them. It's ridiculous.

    Government IT issues across the country are presently a real mess, and it will require both a lot of personal effort and considerable amount of funding to get the systems modernized to contemporary standards.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Jb, that's my point. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:56:02 PM EST
    Not "retaining" emails is not the same as "destroying" emails. Feel free to provide citations to Powell having destroyed his emails.

    Parent
    Yours is a distinction without a difference. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 01:29:22 AM EST
    The bottom line is that none of his emails are archived at the State Department, as is and was required.

    Parent
    Nope, Donald, there is a big difference (3.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    between "destroying" and "not retaining"--especially for emails created 10-14 years earlier. It's surprising you can't admit that. It's interesting how you throw around terms like "target" and "distinction without a different", apparently without knowing what they mean.

    When was the archiving requirement put in place? Before the end of Powell's time as SS? I don't recall.

    Parent

    Oh, enough already! (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    You're clearly in troll territory, and you really ought to review the rules of this blog to acquaint yourself with the feelings of your host on that particular subject.

    Parent
    Please explain to me (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 07:23:12 AM EST
    How one would not retain their emails without destroying them.

    Parent
    Do you have your emails from 10 years ago? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    Assuming you don't, would you say you "destroyed" them? Emails don't last forever, as computers, hard drives and servers get old and get discarded or otherwise disappear. Third party servers are not owned or controlled by the email user. I assume they are eventually discarded by the company owning them, just like businesses dispose of old computers and servers, just like individuals dispose of, or give away, old computers.

    Discarding something takes an affirmative act. It generally involves intent. Intent is very significant under most criminal laws.

    Not having something, especially something like emails from a decade ago, generally wouldn't involve anything intentional (unless some intentional act to "destroy" occurred).

    Parent

    I have some emails from (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by sj on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 05:39:45 PM EST
    10 years ago. Actually, I have a series from 1999 which I have kept for sentimental reasons. They are there because I retained them and didn't destroy them the only way possible: by deleting them. I have never had an email account anywhere that would delete messages automatically. At one place of business, older emails would automatically be archived onto a different server and then I would be nagged to essentially clean it up. By deleting them.

    I suppose if an email server went totally belly up, some emails could get lost. As far as I know, the RNC never claimed such a thing.

    Tell me, Green: what was the process whereby emails sent to you would fall under "not having something" that involved something other than an affirmative act?

     

    Parent

    Um (3.00 / 2) (#153)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    A business wouldn't just "throw away" a server because it's old.  It would go through a very painstaking process of migrating the data from the old server to the new one.

    Parent
    Correct to some extent (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    Most businesses would migrate only current emails and documents as well as those specifically saved in a particular areas by employees. Old emails are routinely and periodically deleted by most companies, unless there is a specific reason or requirement to keep them. Then, I assume, the old server would be discarded (howe that would be done, I don't know). Normal employees wouldn't have any idea what happened to the old server, and wouldn't have directed that it be discarded or destroyed.

    Anyway, not relevant to what happened with the Clinton emails or server.

    Parent

    Not true (3.50 / 2) (#158)
    by sj on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 05:43:47 PM EST
    At all.
    Old emails are routinely and periodically deleted by most companies
    That is a flat out falsehood.

    With the specific exception of former employees. And typically even those are kept for a specified time.

    You are chattering and blog clogging and doing other troll-y stuff.

    Parent

    Nope, I don't agree (none / 0) (#162)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:59 AM EST
    Except for emails kept for regulatory reasons, and other specific reasons, emails should not be kept very long and are not kept. The length of time varies by company policy.

    Parent
    I was referring (3.00 / 2) (#164)
    by sj on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 03:04:58 AM EST
    to your cavalier assertion that "most companies" do something "routinely" -- simply because you want to continue trolling the same tired bull$hit.

    Parent
    Most bigger companies and many (none / 0) (#166)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    smaller companies have Retention Policies. They set and outline the policies regarding retention of emails and other documents. After identifying categories that need longer retention, often due to regulatory requirements, they then set the term or terms for keeping (and getting rid of) emails. After the policy is set and the time periods are known, the companies' IT department routinely get rid of aging emails.

    Parent
    The "Retention Policy" (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 02:38:08 AM EST
    Say the bigs say we keep stuff for two years......

    It is not a "retention" policy but a destruction policy....Not very nice.

    Parent

    Yes, some policies retain (none / 0) (#167)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    general emails for 2 years. Some 1 year. Some 6 months. Some 90 days. Again, that's not including categories that are required to be kept longer.

    Parent
    Corporate retention policies can mandate (none / 0) (#168)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    laddered intervals, up to infinite retention.  An email that becomes part of an engineering notebook, for instance, will be around for a long, long time.

    Litigation holds override all policies.

    Parent

    And some (none / 0) (#189)
    by sj on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 02:46:21 PM EST
    Yes, some policies retain (none / 0) (#167)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 09:51:17 AM MDT

    general emails for 2 years. Some 1 year. Some 6 months. Some 90 days. Again, that's not including categories that are required to be kept longer.

    (like almost everywhere I've ever worked) keep them until the recipient deletes them or the employee is gone.

    Parent
    Sj, then you must not have worked at big companies (none / 0) (#194)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 06:51:49 PM EST
    or at companies that have good retention policies. No good retention policy allows general run-of-the-mill emails to remain around very long and certainly not indefinitely. My firm, and I, help companies write retention policies frequently. Many or perhaps even most of the original retention policies were written by law firms, I believe.

    Parent
    Big companies (none / 0) (#205)
    by sj on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 06:25:57 PM EST
    Is a major, international delivery service company big enough for you?

    As for "good retention policies" I would say that is subjective.

    If your firm writes retention policies frequently I guess it is almost natural that you would think that what you redesign is standard, or at least de rigueur. At first I thought that was arrogant, but I think it's really more an inability to see outside of your own circle. Maybe. Wev.

    On the other hand it sounds to me -- a non lawyer -- that what your firm writes isn't so much a retention plan as it is a destruction plan. But nice job on the framing whoever did that first.

    (Reminds me of "Clear Skies Initiative" which "would [have offered] considerably more relief to the industries that pollute the air than to the citizens who breathe it.")

    As for what "you believe" it is simply what you believe. I personally believe you are trolling. Does that make me right?

    Parent

    Looking at my email just now (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    (One of them, at least).  I have some of them back to 2009.

    But then again, I am not required by law to hold onto any of them.

    However, I do work for a federal contractor at a federal agency, so yes, I may be required to preserve emails that are relevant to my job or that may fall under the FRA.

    Parent

    Hunter Thompson (none / 0) (#159)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 05:55:31 PM EST
    Used to shoot old computers, hard drives, TV's and more.  He had several powerful handguns, like Desert Eagles, and .44's with long barrels, that would knock you on your butt.  You had to keep your mind right if you visited Owl Farm.

    Parent
    Wasn't the point of visiting (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    Usually to NOT keep your mind right?

    Parent
    As my namesake sez, gotta have the right tool (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    for the job.

    I once had a clock radio that had driven us nuts a few times by not working.  My wife threatened to shoot it.  After we replaced the clock I reminded my wife of her threat.  So we took it out back and she fired a couple of rounds from a 20 gauge pump shotgun in its general direction - about ten yards away.  She hit it.  But the 20 guage had remarkably little effect on the plastic.  Tough stuff.  A Desert Eagle would have been a lot more fun.

    Parent

    Hunter S Thompson (none / 0) (#170)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    probably saved my life by writing this.

    "If you rode the Black Shadow at top speed for any length of time, you would almost certainly die. That is why there are not many life members of the Vincent Black Shadow Society."

    After I was discharged I located a Vincent White Shadow for a lot less than the one linked to and had enough cash to buy it.  But Thompson's wise words prevailed and instead I got  VW van.  Maybe the best decision I ever made.

    Parent

    ragebot, cool story and photos, (none / 0) (#186)
    by fishcamp on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    but I think the story may be about eight years old and I'd bet the prices on those bikes has soared even more.

    Parent
    And Colin Powell used Yahoo (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    I did not know who he had entrusted his emails to. But it came up in this same story on Dailykos that Colin Powell's private email that he used as Secretary of State was through Fricken Yahoo!

    Not much to say except Yahoo! Ride em cowboy! 8 seconds and a couple of distracting clowns is all you need to ensure the safety of the world :)!

    Parent

    With Democratic leaders being concerned (3.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    about Clinton's email issues and how she's handling them, it's interesting and surprising that some of you can't seem to even admit that she's got an email problem.

    "Democratic leaders are increasingly frustrated by Hillary Rodham Clinton's failure to put to rest questions about her State Department email practices and ease growing doubts among voters about her honesty and trustworthiness." NY Times article.

    Parent

    While she may have ... (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 30, 2015 at 08:36:11 PM EST
    ... an "email problem" because of patently dishonest people like you, who are freely promoting and disseminating a faux narrative, you have got a serious credibility problem due to your apparent lack of an ethical and moral compass.

    Parent
    Hey Donald, feel free to provide any quotes (2.33 / 3) (#175)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 30, 2015 at 10:11:54 PM EST
    from me that support your statement. I know you can't because I have done no such thing. You are a hypocrite. You are the one being dishonest. Put up or shut up.

    Parent
    I'm through talking to you, Green. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    Discussing this issue any further with you would be a complete waste of my time, since you're nothing but another intellectually dishonest troll who lacks a moral / ethical compass and freely traffics in willful misinformation, baseless presumptions and outright innuendo. You have no credibility here, save perhaps with Jim and zaitz. Way to go.

    And since it's readily apparent as to what your real motives are for doing so, which is nothing more than partisan politics, it's also highly likely that you'll continue to refuse to recognize the truth about this matter, even if the U.S. Dept. of Justice itself were to post it in two-foot high, neon-lit letters outside your front door.

    Have a good day.

    Parent

    That's not fair, Donald (3.00 / 2) (#191)
    by sj on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    You have no credibility here, save perhaps with Jim and [unconvicted]. Way to go.
    He also has credibility with Uncle Chip.


    Parent
    Donald, perfectly fine with me (2.00 / 4) (#192)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    I knew you couldn't back up what you were saying in general or about me--because what you were saying wasn't accurate. I figured you might one of those types who resorts to posts like your last one when you can't defend your position or back up your statements. Feel free to take your ball, if you have one, and go home.

    Parent
    Hillary's email "problem" (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    is the result of what she has done.

    Not what others have claimed.

    Parent

    Sanders' surging poll numbers (none / 0) (#179)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 09:37:04 AM EST
    Is that coming only from his rising popularity? Or, are Democrats just falling for the lies spread by the Republicans and the media regarding Clinton's email issues. Jeez, how can some people be so biased and blind that they can't recognize when their candidate has a problem. She happens to be my leading candidate at this time, but at least I can see that she has a problem and probably a significant problem.

    Parent
    I think more than anything, Clinton is (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 10:09:24 AM EST
    suffering for being an establishment candidate, and her image as a member of the establishment is being reinforced by a so-called controversy that is largely being driven by the media and by conservatives.  Clinton Fatigue, arising from the invocation of the Clinton Rules, has arrived early, and rather than give her a chance, I think a lot of people are just kind of moving on, considering other options.

    And that option is currently Sanders, whose message is resonating with a lot of people.  It is a populist, anti-establishment message that is more authentic than what we are hearing from Clinton.

    I think that when all is said and done, the e-mail thing is going to end up being a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing - or if it does signify anything, it will be that the massive amounts of information together with the complex rules and regulations for managing it and the inter-government in-fighting over what is and isn't classified and who gets to decide, have reached a critical mass that threatens to paralyze the system.  What they are finding out is that neither Clinton nor her staffers were rogues, flouting rules left and right while the rest of the government was minding its P's and Q's.  

    I am not suggesting that the "everyone's doing it" rationale is necessarily correct, but from what we have seen so far, the choice seems to be for the IG's offices to have to undertake a system-wide investigation and hold everyone in violation accountable, or they are going to have to let this particular investigation die a quiet death with an eye toward some kind of reform.

    What is happening with Clinton is exactly what I knew would happen, and exactly what I didn't want to have to be beat over the head with for months and months.  

    Is some of it her fault?  Yes - and even she admits that.  But admitting that her choice to have a private server was the wrong one hasn't satisfied the media, has it?  No...it made them wonder what else she's been wrong about that she hasn't admitted!

    Meanwhile, on the GOP side of things, utter nonsense and blatant racism, sexism and classism issues from them multiple times a day, and is largely going unchallenged.  Chris Christie wants to track "illegals" like FedEx packages?  Donald Trump's going to get rid of gangs, "like that!" Donald's going to snap those fingers and his will will be done, I guess.

    How does this make sense on any level?

    Parent

    Anne, that's a nice and nicely written (none / 0) (#183)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    post.

    Parent
    That reminds me (none / 0) (#188)
    by mm on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    of an old Jack Benny joke.

    Thief walks up to Jack Benny, points a gun at him, and threatens,

    "Your money or your life!"

    There's a long pause....

    Thief says, "Well?!"

    Benny shouts back,

    "I'm thinking, I'm thinking!"

     

    the choice seems to be for the IG's offices to have to undertake a system-wide investigation and hold everyone in violation accountable, or they are going to have to let this particular investigation die a quiet death with an eye toward some kind of reform.

    Point is, there really is no choice, unless destroying Hillary Clinton politically is the most important factor.

    Parent

    I think Sanders' numbers are surging (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    on the Demo side for the same reason Trump's are on the Repub side.

    People are just flat tired and disgusted of hearing the same BS being spewed over and over and when they elect someone, nothing happens.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 10:42:14 AM EST
    Polling suggests that Democratic primary voters/caucus goers are not that concerned with the email issue. There is a tremendous rise in anti-establishment sentiment in the electorate. Sanders like Trump appears to be feeding off it. Combine that with the solidly populist(old school Democrat) message from Sanders and he would be surging faux scandals or not.

    Parent
    Further, State Dept. spokesman John Kirby ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    ... confirmed yesterday that Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email address and server was not against the department's policy in effect at the time she served as Secretary of State. Of course, since none of this happened in the GOP's parallel universe, what does it matter?

    It also apparently never happened (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    in the universe of some supporters of Sanders.

    Parent
    It's become a bit pervasive (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    The other day a good friend of mine who knows better brought it up.

    It took me about 45 seconds to convince him it was a manufactured non-issue like Benghazi, but I was still disappointed.

    Parent

    As the old Persian proverb goes, ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:12:55 PM EST
    "Dogs bark, and the caravan passes." It's no use arguing with people who refuse to live the real world.

    Parent
    Updat that for TalkLeft and the 21st Century (none / 0) (#169)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:32:46 AM EST
    Dogs barf, and the Wingnutz lap it up...

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 09:24:18 PM EST
    That works, too.

    Parent
    but, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    6,529 wrongs don't make it right. That will be the next thing you hear.

    ....wha Oculus said

    It was all (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:41:41 PM EST
    a nothingburger from the start and now it's unraveling. So 33 years ago it was the Reagan Administration doing this. When you build a stupid argument based on speculation this is what happens.

    Will NY Times pick up this story? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Coral on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 06:38:33 PM EST
    Their reporting on the e-mail "scandal" has been scandalous.

    Thank you, BTD!

    While the judgement of people (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:02:45 PM EST
     who sent information that anyone should have known should have been classified should be called into question and their continued employment and possible election to high office placed in the nearest trash can... that is only one issue.

    The second is taking previously classified emails and changing the classification and sending them over unsecure networks. That is a clear violation and anyone doing so should suffer severe legal sanctions.

    The third is improper storing and/or handling which also carries severe sanctions.

    The FBI is now looking at all of this.

    Some folks are going to jail.

    Call me when Petraeus is in jail (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    Call me when Hillary is his cellmate (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    But someone will take the fall.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:49:00 PM EST
    well, if you're going that silly route there needs to be a lot of people in jail. Do you think we could dig up the corpse of Reagan and put it in a jail cell?

    Parent
    Only with the live Ollie North (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:55:31 PM EST
    Haha (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    good one!

    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    that whole thing about somebody stripping the classification out of an email and sending it is pure fantasy cooked up at Fox News. But then you'll believe anything.

    Parent
    Ga6, perhaps true, but how do you know that? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:11:02 PM EST
    Can you provide a link or cite?

    Parent
    You know better (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    You are asking her to prove a negative.

    The burden is on the person making the accusation--especially an inflammatory one like this.

    since you like putting on your lawyer hat.

    Parent

    No, MKS, I'm just asking (none / 0) (#112)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:00:41 PM EST
    for a citation. A blog poster's statement on that point is not meaningful. If the statement is prefaced with "I don't think", then I'm okay with that.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    I thought the standard was what your "gut" tells you.  Suddenly, you want evidence.

    Parent
    Oh, for crying out loud, Jim, ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:29:23 PM EST
    ... how many times do you have to be told, per the Justice Dept., that the FBI inquiry is NOT a criminal investigation? From the Washington Post (August 11, 2015):

    "The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target."

    So, it looks like it's boiler plate time again:

    "Once again, you (a) are trafficking in misinformation; (b) don't know what you're talking about; and (c) are simply parroting the empty rhetoric of the professionally outraged GOP provocateur class."

    Stop wasting both our time and Jeralyn's bandwidth.

    Parent

    Donald, do you know what not being a target (none / 0) (#35)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:17:23 PM EST
    means? It means that the investigator/prosecutor isn't focused on you and not about ready to indict you. It doesn't mean they are not looking at you, or there's no criminal investigation. I don't see anything in the WaPost quote you provided that indicates that there isn't a criminal investigation. Not saying there is; just saying your quote doesn't support your conclusion.

    Parent
    ... when it comes to baseless speculation. Contrary to what you may believe, most of the people who comment here are in fact quite intelligent and fair-minded. Strictly my observation here, but I tend to believe that we are not a stupid people at TL. While we are generally tolerant of diversity of thought and opinion, we also tend to not suffer fools lightly when they seek to play us for the same, as you're doing.

    So, please cease with your condescending remarks, because neither I nor anyone else here were born yesterday. Given what you've written about this subject and at least from my perspective, yours appears to be a somewhat inflated opinion of your own legal intellect, because you increasingly sound like some weasel who could be on the payroll of the Heritage Foundation.

    As for myself, I worked for House leadership at a senior level in our state legislature for over a decade, and before that I was chief clerk of the Senate Judiciary Committee for three years. I'm not an attorney, but I like to believe that I generally know my way around because unlike you, while I didn't practice law, I actually wrote it.

    As far as any "criminal investigation" is concerned, there is none at this time for the simple fact that the IG's referral to the Justice Dept. was not criminal in nature. Not all FBI inquiries necessarily involve criminal investigations and absent any evidence or public statement by Justice Dept. officials to the contrary in this case, you really need to stop presuming otherwise, at least here.

    Hillary Clinton stepped down from her post as Secretary of State over two years ago. It's already been established that she was not in breach of any standing federal laws or regulations prohibiting her use of a private email account or server, because there were none in place at the time she held the office.

    Further, it has also been established that Mrs. Clinton was the recipient of the emails in question, and was not their originator or disseminator. Still further, all of the emails presently in question apparently originated within the State Dept. itself. Finally, none of them were duly marked as either "Classified" or "Top Secret," either at the time they were initially written by department personnel, or when they were subsequently forwarded by senior officials to Madame Secretary.

    So, since it's been established that Mrs. Clinton obviously had authorization to use private email in her conduct of State Dept. business, and since there's also no evidence that she knowingly emailed any classified information, I think we can safely conclude that:

    • The present questions about the retroactive classification of content of these emails were likely triggered by the media's FOIA requests; and

    • Such questions would have arisen naturally as a matter of course and protocol, regardless of whether or not Mrs. Clinton used a private server -- which, again, was not prohibited at the time by either law or regulation.

    So, the primary issue that's presently before the FBI appears to center on how Mrs. Clinton's emails were handled as they were being reviewed and prepared by the State Department for public release, per those aforementioned FOIA requests.

    As BTD has already covered in detail in numerous posts at TL thus far, the Intelligence Community IG has insisted -- albeit questionably, in BTD's estimation -- that some of the material in these emails should now be considered retroactively as classified.

    For its part, and as BTD also noted, the State Dept. obviously begs to differ with the IC's interpretations, as demonstrated by the fact that as of this writing, some of the emails in question are still online and available for public perusal at the department's website.

    And that, in a relative nutshell, is the Great State Dept. Email Kerfuffle which is presently before us, at least as far as I understand it. Unlike you, I'm not speculating breathlessly and endlessly about either material content or personal motive, because there's no evidence to support any such suppositions as you've thus far posited.

    Unlike you, I'm not impugning the integrity of anyone who may be involved, whether directly or tangentially, because I lack both the necessary professional standing and the requisite due cause to do so.

    (As for your own integrity in these discussions of this particular matter, please be advised that you are rendering yourself an increasingly conspicuous and tempting target.)

    And unlike you, I'm doing my level best here to not get way ahead of myself, and I won't say anything that can't otherwise be supported by any rational reading of the available evidence (or lack thereof, as the case may be) as it presently stands -- emphasis on the word "rational."

    I further refuse to worry about anything over which I have no control. While I'm fairly confident in what this Justice Dept. inquiry will eventually conclude, I'm also content to let the chips fall where they may because I happen to believe in the rule of law.

    Why can't you do the same, and stop chasing your own tail?

    Parent

    Gosh (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    As far as any "criminal investigation" is concerned, there is none at this time for the simple fact that the IG's referral to the Justice Dept. was not criminal in nature.

    Let me see, I refer something to the JD who investigates possible crimes.... but "criminal" can't be used.....

    Donald, that's the best example of parsing, dodging, ducking, hiding and reframing that I have seen in years.

    Congrats.

    Now, if we only had some eggs we'd have some ham and eggs of we had some ham.

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:57:04 AM EST
    don't know about the ham and eggs but you sure deliver the baloney. There has been absolutely no mention of a criminal investigation by the JD, IC-IG, FBI or any credible news outlet. It was originally and remains a non-criminal referral, despite your constant desire to make it otherwise.

    Parent
    LOL, you're whistling past the graveyard (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:59:57 AM EST
    If (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    the only thing I need to be afraid of is your zombie ideas, I might just stop and have a picnic.

    Parent
    LOL some people are going to jail (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    the way Mitt Romney would be elected President and the way human activity influenced climate change is a hoax..

    Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking.

    Parent

    Don't be an a$$, Jim. (1.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    I realize that it's difficult for reality-challenged individuals such as yourself, but if you want people to stop rolling their eyeballs at you every time you open your mouth, then you really do need to work with actual facts as they are, and not as you might otherwise wish such facts to be.

    Because otherwise, I'll keep trotting out the ol' boiler plate response to your delusional rants:

    "Once again, you (a) are trafficking in misinformation; (b) don't know what you're talking about; and (c) are simply parroting the empty rhetoric of the professionally outraged GOP provocateur class."

    Adios.

    Parent

    Donald, calling me an a$$ (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    is a bit beyond the vale.

    But it proves again that you know that Hillary is in big trouble so you try and deflect with personal insults.

    So I thank you for demonstrating what you are.

    Parent

    ::sigh:: if only (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    is a bit beyond the vale.
    ...you mean that you were actually communicating from beyond the veil...

    Possibly you meant "beyond the pale". But that couldn't possibly be right because that would mean you are the most dishonest, insultiest hypocrite on this site.

    Oh. Right.

    nevermind.

    Parent

    Thanks sj (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:57:32 PM EST
    I really need a secretary... do you do coffee and dry cleaner pick up and delivery.

    The pay is low but you will have an opportunity to learn some important life lessons.

    Parent

    Psssstttt ... Jim (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    As someone who used to work at DOJ, let me break a secret to you.  They do a lot more than investigate potential crimes.

    Parent
    Green has said (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    he works for a "large" law firm.  And he referred a client to Ted Wells.  Sounds like a DC firm, but who knows.....

    So, I do believe that Green is not on the payroll of the Heritage Foundation.

    But I think his Risk Management Committee would be none too pleased that he is talking about his work here on this forum....name dropping to boot.

    Parent

    I never said that Green was employed by ... (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    ... the Heritage Foundation. Rather, I said that he sounded like the type of weasel that the Heritage Foundation would employ. I apologize if I caused any confusion here.

    I figured that he works for a private law firm, and yes, I would agree with your observation that his bosses at the firm would likely not be too pleased with his references to either his work with that firm or its clientele, regardless of however obliquely those references are made.

    In the legal profession, the rules in place regarding confidentiality exist for some very good reasons. and let's face it, there are some people out there in the blogosphere who live only to put two and two together, and then rush to tell everyone how they got to four. In that regard, why should one make any otherwise unnecessary trouble for one's own self?

    Those of us who are not attorneys are obviously under no such similar constraints professionally, although in any references to our own respective work product or employment, discretion is probably the better part of valor.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Some of you don't have clue (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:06:51 PM EST
    Making a general comment about a completed matter (and without even identifying the matter) and mentioning a lawyer who was hired for an aspect of the case, is not confidential material, and no risk management person at any law firm would even blink. Someone was talking about how smart TL posters are, but those making this comment are disproving that point.

    Parent
    When you find yourself in a hole, ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 01:50:53 AM EST
    ... you really ought to stop digging. Nuf ced.

    Parent
    Ah, I don't think so (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 08:42:25 AM EST
    I think the partners in your firm would be more than a little squeamish that you are talking about your clients here.   Sometimes the dots can be connected, you know.

    And you of all people should know better.  You are constantly voicing your concern (as a troll) that Hillary was careless with confidential information.  But you name drop about a criminal referral to impress us?  Not so good.

    And, do you really believe the duty of confidentiality ends once the case is concluded?  Really?  You should know better.  The duty does survive the conclusion of the case. Good grief.  

    Parent

    Nope, not true (none / 0) (#135)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 12:40:02 PM EST
    What client was I talking about? Ted Wells was hired for someone who wasn't a client. LIke I said, you don't have a clue, MKS, nor does Donald on this one.

    Parent
    You're skating on thin ice here, counselor. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    You shouldn't be discussing the private business of others like this, even opaquely, regardless of whether it's Ted Wells or anyone else. It's a matter of ethics, and the less said by you about it, the better.

    Parent
    No doubt, is trying to (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    carry water for the Heritage Foundation.

    I agree with you.

    Parent

    You just stated why (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    Hillary actions are so despicable.

    let's face it, there are some people out there in the blogosphere who live only to put two and two together,

    Thanks.

    Parent

    You're out of your league here, Jim, ... (1.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:24:25 AM EST
    ... and trying to punch way above your weight class.

    Parent
    Honestly, Donald, (none / 0) (#107)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:54:22 PM EST
    you apparently don't know what being a target means. That's pretty funny. And you write such long-winded emails avoiding the subject and without providing not much substance. You don't know if there's a criminal investigation going on, and neither do I. At least, I can admit it. And as for being condescending, you are the one being condescending, not me.

    Parent
    You quite obviously have no idea as to the parameters and scope of the Justice Dept. inquiry, never mind knowing who is or isn't a target, or even if there's a target at all. Having a JD degree does not automatically make you an expert in such matters.

    Yman is a well-renowned criminal defense counsel who likely has considerably more experience in these matters than do you. Further, he worked for the Justice Dept., and he's quite obviously not agreeing with your continued bluster on this subject. You have no business dismissing his opinions as though he was still in law school.

    And speaking of law school and for myself only, I'm really starting to wonder if you ever took a class in ethics, given your determination to impugn the integrity of Mrs. Clinton without any due consideration of the actual facts as we know them to be at this time. You want to channel the ghost of Roy Cohn, counselor, you really ought to do it somewhere else.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Roy Cohn--ouch (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 08:45:22 AM EST
    That's an infamous name out of history.

    Parent
    I have no respect for attorneys who hide behind their standing as an officer of the court, while publicly impugning the integrity of others without due cause, save only for their cheap and trashy politics. And that's become the case with Green here.

    Roy Cohn was an entirely malevolent, unscrupulous and deceitful individual who gleefully and willfully ruined people's public reputations for sport. Further, he skirted ethical boundaries for years. Three months before his death from AIDS in August 1986, he was finally disbarred by the New York state judiciary on four specific counts of misconduct that were, in the Court's own words, "unethical," "unprofessional" and "particularly reprehensible."

    I'm not implying that Green's necessarily on par with the odious (and thankfully deceased) Mr. Cohn -- not yet, anyway. But he's on a very slippery slope, as far as I'm concerned, if he's going to repeatedly invoke his status as an attorney to offer scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations about someone, and further do so with apparent impunity.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    And I do not like many lawyers....for reasons stated....

    Parent
    Unless and until (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 12:10:07 AM EST
    one becomes a target of a criminal investigation, it is premature to accuse someone of a crime, no?

    Parent
    Not when utterly irrational emotion (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    and a hated enemy are involved..

    Parent
    but they don't erase (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:17:15 PM EST
    Maybe the state department sends lots of emails on private servers but they don't wipe half of them clean and ask people to "trust me" that the other half was clean.  The only person who did this since Nixon was Lois Lerner.  Even the Rose Law Firm records eventually came up, albeit years later.

    Oh, baloney. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:35:01 PM EST
    Guess you've forgotten about the millions of e-mails that ran through RNC servers during that Bush administration that just vanished into thin air, never to be recovered.

    "Trusting" there was nothing to see there was apparently what we all had to do, because absolutely nothing ever came of it.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    Daughter: "But Mom, everybody is doing it."

    Mom: "If everybody robbed a store would you?

    Daughter: "Yes, if it helped me do what I want."

    Mom (sighing): "Hillary, I don't know what I'm going to do with you."

    ;-)

    Parent

    Not the point, jim. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:33:21 PM EST
    The point is the hypocrisy, and the selective outrage.

    I can't decide if you constantly miss these points on purpose, or if you just can't help yourself.

    Look out!  Woooosh...there goes another one now!

    Parent

    It's purposeful (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:12:02 PM EST
    Well, ..

    ... at least for Jim's sake, I hope he does it intentionally.

    Parent

    yes, anne (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:00:04 PM EST
    I get the point that you want to change the subject.

    Parent
    I'm surprised that you even noticed, ... (1.00 / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 09:26:59 PM EST
    ... given that you're always so busy moving the goalposts here.

    Parent
    do you wish (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    do you wish to explain why the Reuters analysis is in error?

    Thanks!

    Do you wish to READ the post (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    BTD wrote that addresses your issues?

    You don't have to agree with his assessment, or his conclusions, but for the love of God - you do love Him, right? - please stop beating this horse: it's dead.

    Parent

    He won't stop (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sj on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    as long as people respond. D@mn me, I knew that and I still fed it.

    Parent
    Actually this one seems fine (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    with responding to himself

    Parent
    D'oh!!! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 03:01:07 AM EST
    So many right-wing piñatas here, sj, and so little time. Let's put our bats down, and I'll mix us a pitcher of margaritas.

    ;-D

    Parent

    "I'm not dead yet... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:01:05 PM EST
    Anne thanks (none / 0) (#113)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:05:27 PM EST
    Anne

    I was not aware that BTD had written a post specifically on the topic of the recent Reuters analysis and I thank you for pointing me to it.

    However, after reading the analysis of BTD, I think that that analysis is demonstrably poor . . . as for instance, in this area . . .

    BTD writes,

    >Treated what way? Confidentially? Or routed through >classified systems? I think it is the former, not >the latter. I do not believe foreign governments >generally have the expectation that their >communications with the State Department will be >routed through classified secure systems.

    Foreign governments which give to the USA information that they also and at the time consider to be "given in confidence" expect that the USA will treat that information as classified.

    It surely happens that as part of some conversations, some French fellow and some American fellow may refer to or discuss publicly known events, such as terrorist attacks or the praiseworthy and heroic action of some Americans in stopping the fellow who got on the train with the intention of shooting up some people.  Information which is already pubicly known can't be a matter of a confidential communication, except perhaps in certain details, if there are details related to say, spies and their activity as related to a publicly known event or action.

    I am sure that some French gov people discussed with American gov people their thanks for American aid with the fellow on the train . . .  No one supposes that such thanks or even general discussion of the Muslim attacker is confidential and classified.

    However, there are times in which some foreign gov has learned things by their intelligence agencies which they wish to share wish US officials . . . and they share such information confidentially and expecting it to be classified . . . and subsequent to classification, or due to automatic classification, to be treated in secure ways.

    How obvious.

    Parent

    "Everybody does it" is not a defense (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Payaso on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:15:07 PM EST
    If you don't believe me, try using it the next time you get a speeding ticket.

    Dick Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 07:58:53 AM EST
    calls  Hillarys  handling of emails 'sloppy and unprofessional' conviently forgets this
    The White House possesses no archived e-mail messages for many of its component offices, including the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President, for hundreds of days between 2003 and 2005, according to the summary of an internal White House study that was disclosed yesterday by a congressional Democrat
    .

    It will come as no surprise to most that the big offender is the man at the center of the most virulent scandals, and the missing email traffic relates just to those dates in which a federal prosecutor would have the most interest. Vice President Dick Cheney's office destroyed its emails, in violation of the requirements of the federal records act and potentially criminal law

    Why is this man still free, much less still allowed to spew his venom unchallenged?

     A Rhetorical question of course, IOKIYAR, as usual.

    What's missing here? (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 06:40:30 PM EST
    Did the State Department just, publicly, announce that classified government information may be treated as one would when sending birthday greetings to a relative?

    Seriously, where's the rest of the story? It's long been apparent that there were problems in how official communications were handled. The dispute between The IC & State as to what should, and, should not, be considered, "classified," was an embarrassment to our entire National Security apparatus.

    This can't be the end of the story.

    You're not (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    understanding. There is a separate system for classified information. The emails that were sent around were unclassified. They were marked unclassified. They were sent on an unclassified system. They are only now being retroactively classified with lunch meetings and the sort having classified stamped on them because as long as they have classified stamped on them they don't get released under a FOIA request. It's really all about FOIA requests.

    Parent
    This has nothing to do with markings (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:37:11 PM EST

    It has to do with content. If an email describes the ICBM targeting list, the number of drones currently operating over Iranian nuke sites, or what Putin and Merkel discussed in their latest private phone conversation, the markings are irrelevant. Indeed, failure to ensure proper marking is not an excuse.

    Parent
    If you are the one sending (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    the email, then perhaps....

    Parent
    So where's your evidence that any of those emails (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    that under the terms of your straw boogeyman argument contain ICBM targeting lists or the number of drones operating over Iranian nuclear processing sites or the secret transcripts of Putin's conversations with Angela Merkel... Where's your evidence that those exist anywhere but in your damp and fevered imagination?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    its more like this;
    Neither of the two emails sent to Hillary Rodham Clinton now labeled by intelligence agencies as "top secret" contained information that would jump out to experts as particularly sensitive, according to several government officials.
    Even the experts could not spot "top secret" contents just by reading the emails.

    Parent
    This can't be the end of the story. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    This can't be the end of the story.

    It's not.

    There is a long way to go.

    What just occurred is the "They have been doing this for years defense",

    So indict everyone for the last 12 years.

    The State Department is in a massive CYA mode.

    We will get a lot of real information when the FBI investigation concludes, unless its "classified"...Lol

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:51:52 PM EST
    the end of the story. Sorry. No dice. It was always a nothingburger and the GOP should know by now that nobody is going to continue to listen to their BS. Go back to calling all Hispanics rapists.

    Parent
    Go back to calling all Hispanics rapists. (none / 0) (#21)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:01:44 PM EST
    Go back to calling all Hispanics rapists.

    What are you talking about? Have you been drinking?

    Parent

    Haha (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:02:32 PM EST
    good one.

    Parent
    GA, I think I have read everything (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 05:17:43 PM EST
    that he has posted on TL and he has never made such a comment.

    Really, you have highly and falsely insulted him and should apologize.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    I'm talking about your leading candidate for the GOP nomination.

    Parent
    Do you mean our next President? (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    Everyone knew that Trump was not talking about all persons who are here without the knowledge or consent of the authorities.

    Just like everyone knew that Hillary was comparing Repubs to terrorists....

    :-)


    Parent

    It will be interesting (none / 0) (#25)
    by mm on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    to observe how far they are willing to take this political witch hunt.

    If history is any judge, republicans will be willing to burn the State Department to the ground in order to get Hillary Clinton.

    So indict everyone for the last 12 years.

    Brilliant.

    Parent

    The fact is that state department officials with (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    a very broad brief simply cannot do their jobs if they cannot communicate over unclassified networks. Maybe many folks here have no idea what a PITA networks secure enough for classified data are - the officials would essentially only be able to communicate with their own team of cleared individuals, which is the opposite of what the state department should be doing. So I can see why they have running disagreements with security agencies about what data should be classified and what should not, and a 'culture' of handling things a certain way.

    You either have a state department whose business it is to communicate, or you don't. Seems to me the usual suspects are always on the side of more restrictions in everything. 'Why do we need a state department at all?' will I'm sure be the next question.

    Parent

    Sec State Kerry (none / 0) (#14)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    Has stated he works under the impression that all of his e mails are read by hackers.

    If that is the case, he is not putting any classified information in his e mails, I trust.

    So, are the government e mails secure? If not, please do not send classified information through e mail.

    And maybe have clearer definitions of classified, and what exactly is e mail allowable.

    Parent

    it varies (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:52:57 PM EST
    Regular government email is no more secure than your gmail account. There are special secured networks at different levels for secret and higher classified information

    The AP article linked, describes it, quoted below

    Clinton also had access to a classified messaging system, but it's not widely used at the State Department. Most department officials in Washington and at embassies have on their desktops a classified network that goes up to "secret" level. A small number of State officials, including the secretary, can use a third system that goes up to "top secret" level in special secure rooms.

    But even the middle-tier "secret" network is cumbersome for many in the agency, said officials who would not be quoted when discussing internal security policies. Only a few top officials in Washington are able to read classified emails outside the department's headquarters. Most ambassadors can't open their accounts from home. Officials in the field may have no access at all.

    Lots of State Department information is meant for use, sharing and interaction with foreign officials, the vast majority of whom aren't authorized to receive classified U.S. material.



    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:59:21 PM EST
    I read the article, and to me , it appeared that it was "inconvenient" to use the secret network.

    Well, either the culture had best change in the State, and also perhaps make it a little else inconvenient, provide  more terminals for secure transmissions.

    Parent

    My preference would be to change the culture of (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    the security state, but if things go your way instead, I'm sure there are several contractors willing to gobble op the several hundred million dollars it would take to make the state department and all of its field offices as secure as the pentagon and military bases. And we can just stop pretending we are interested in working with other countries in a diplomatic way.

    Parent
    Everybody did it! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:23:15 PM EST

    A great defense. It would have been even better if she had not claimed to have not done it at all.

    The issue is the policy (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:55:25 PM EST
    in effect at the time.  If everyone was doing it, then that helps to establish at least the de facto policy.

    Parent
    Perhaps in part (none / 0) (#81)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:43:58 PM EST

    In the end it's the de jure policy that lands you in the slammer. Note the prior prosecutions.

    Parent
    No violations of de jure policy (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:47:19 PM EST
    either.  

    No violation for setting up a personal server.  No violation for receiving emails that are later determined to be classified.

    Those are the present facts.

    Parent

    with a Christian background (none / 0) (#36)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    With a Christian background,

    everybody I know is trained to regard themselves and others as sinners and liable to err.

    so, when we read of HRC and her email situation . . .
    and we think HRC is a sinner and liable to err like all the rest of us humans . . . and you just make the guess that she did not follow the law by neglect or being careless . . .

    Cheney and his friends broke the law by outing Valerie Plame and I am mad at him and them for that . . . Cheney hurt people . . .

    If you sin and/or err and/or break the law, how do you respond when you are confronted with the fact that you have done so?

    Well, HRC is being confronted with the fact and she isn't doing very well in the mea culpa area . . . we aren't confronting the Bush admin officials and we don't really know how well they would do at admitting error and wrong . . .

    HRC is running for pres and Rice is not . . .  HRC is running for pres and Bush admin officials are not . . .

    we don't have any strong interest in hearing how good the bush admin officials are at admitting wrong when confronted with the evidence or fact of wrong-doing or lawbreaking--though we already know that about half of them are crooks and liars, based on how they handled a dozen other things, from Valerie Plame to Katrina to Iraq.

    If any bush admin officials who sent intel on unsecured email servers run for Pres, let me know and lets ask them about keeping the law . . .

    Your entire premise fails because (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 06:55:08 AM EST
    Clinton has not broken any laws; she has nothing to admit to or apologize for, so why are you demanding that she do so?

    As for what other, former government officials did in previous administrations, it is being pointed out not to justify anything that's happening now, it's to show how hypocritical conservatives/Republicans are about demanding accountability and investigations and criminal charges because there's a Clinton involved and they don't want her to be president.  When millions of e-mails were being sent over private, RNC servers by members of the Bush administration, there could not have been less interest by Republicans or the people who supported them.  So what's different now?

    Well, there's a Clinton involved, so the Clinton Rules must be invoked.  

    I don't know what you're reading, but you sure don't seem to be checking out the numerous citations and links that shoot holes in the breathless theories of Republicans desperate to find a way to destroy Hillary Clinton.

    Finally, no one here needs a disingenuous religious lecture, especially one that invokes Christianity to justify more hypocrisy and ignorance of the actual facts.

    Parent

    Nor is the "sin" of unprotected email (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    mentioned anywhere in the ten commandments.

    This thread just got a lot weirder.

    Parent

    there is a law (none / 0) (#43)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:32:41 AM EST
    there is a law that says to not store classified material at an unauthorized location.   Does that include your email server?  If so, Clinton and a bunch of bush admin officials probably broke the law.

    There is also the destruction of evidence question/problem . . .

    You folks might recall that a few months ago, I stated I was not happy with the law that would make it a crime to clean your computer or its history or whatever and linked to the story of a guy who was convicted .  . . and one or more of you responded that the law was a good law . . .

    Do you now remember that law or shall I find the posts and the actual law and link to it as well?

    Oh, I see now right here what it is and says . . .

    Clearing your browser history can be deemed 'obstruction of justice' in the U.S.

    What could land him 20 more years in prison -- where he has been since his arrest -- are the charges that he deleted video files from his computer and cleared his browser history in the days following the attacks. . . .

    As a result of this alleged behaviour, Matanov was charged with one count of "Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records, Documents, and a Tangible Object in a Federal Investigation" --  which carries with it a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. . .

    Do you now believe that there is such a law?  Does it apply to wiping clean the email server with a cloth?

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

    Matanov's is the latest, and perhaps most high-profile, non-corporate court case to spark conversation around a U.S. law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

    Enacted by Congress under President George W. Bush in 2002 following the Enron scandal​, the law essentially makes knowingly destroying or concealing any record that could be part of a federal investigation punishable by up to 20 years behind bars.

    Parent

    discussion of the computer file law (none / 0) (#44)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:34:59 AM EST
    "Prosecutors are able to apply the law broadly because they do not have to show that the person deleting evidence knew there was an investigation underway," she wrote. "In other words, a person could theoretically be charged under Sarbanes-Oxley for deleting her dealer's number from her phone even if she were unaware that the feds were getting a search warrant to find her marijuana. The application of the law to digital data has been particularly far-reaching because this type of information is so easy to delete."

    Parent
    the Feds want your data . . . (none / 0) (#45)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:38:20 AM EST
    Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury agreed, telling The Nation that the U.S. government wants and believes it deserves access to all online data for policing purposes.

    Speaking about Kernell's case, he said that the government's "underlying theory" is this:

    "Don't even think about deleting anything that may be harmful to you, because we may come after you at some point in the future for some unforeseen reason and we want to be able to have access to that data. And if we don't have access to that data, we're going to slap an obstruction charge that has as 20-year maximum on you."

    Parent

    Clinton appears to have goofed . . . (none / 0) (#47)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    Clinton has repeatedly denied that she ever sent classified info.

    "I am confident," she said last month in New Hampshire, "that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received," Clinton said.

    the state department IG says otherwise.

    Apparently the US sec of state could not tell which info was class or not at the time she included it in emails . . .

    That would make her incompetent and probably a liar . . .

    Parent

    False dichotomies (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:16:35 PM EST
    The fact that you have trouble with facts and logic doesn't mean she's either one.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 08:58:55 AM EST
    the state department IG does not agree. The IG is trying to retroactively classify emails. However that little detail seems to be continually lost on our resident concern trolls.

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#52)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    I am not immune to evidence and reason and reasoning.

    Would you mind sending me the link to read from a news source we both regard as reasonably reliable? cnn, abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews and sometimes also msnbc news if there is such a thing?

    Parent

    You really (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    should just read what BTD wrote in the post. Honestly he answers all your questions but you keep positing these discredited theories.

    Parent
    would you feel bad (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:23:54 AM EST
    Would you feel bad if I have read his "post" and I found his analysis unpersuasive for reasons I gave and which seem to lack substantial refutation so far?

    Parent
    does reuters count with you? (none / 0) (#53)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    Scroll (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    to the bottom of the article and you will find the truth (my emp.)
    Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize

     it's so common they have a name for it
     
    The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.
     All you Hillary haters are screaming the "store is on fire" for what is essentially just a "clean up in aisle 5".

    Parent
    That is (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    an old story that has since been debunked. The story did not understand that it was retroactively classified information and was saying if it's classified now it was classified then which is not the case.

    Let me say this is real slow: THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE BEING CLASSIFIED NOW IS BECAUSE OF FOIA REQUESTS. IF THEY ARE STAMPED CLASSIFIED IT MEANS THE PUBLIC CANNOT READ IT.

    And one of those emails they are claiming is classified has already been released to the public. So if you go online and read that email you are guilty of reading classified information and if you talk to anybody about it you are guilty of disseminating classified information according to your own silly standards.

    Parent

    Great picture of Hillary though (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:23:19 AM EST
    /s

    Parent
    us rules are (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    that is an old and debunked story. What you're positing is that foreign countries are knowingly sending classified information over an unclassified system. Do you realize how patently ridiculous that is? So apparently all foreign countries that exist in the entire world don't know that you don't send classified information on an unclassified system.

    Pure bunk.

    Parent

    old and debunked? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    >That is an old and debunked story.

    It is on the reuters website with a date of 8/21/15.

    >What you're positing is that foreign countries are >knowingly sending classified information over an >unclassified system.

    Friend, you appear to be so ignorant as to not know the meaning of the term, when used by those with security clearances, of "foreign government information."  The term refers not to info that foreign gov officials send among themselves on unsecured channels, but to information given to, say, a us secretary of state by her British or Russian or French or Iraqi counterpart, while also given to her or him in confidence.

    Such material/information/statements are to be automatically regarded as classified, if not otherwise publicly known, even if only to protect the idea that the French secretary of state or that equivalent person can share info and ideas with the US sec of state in confidence . . .

    >Pure bunk.

    Yeah, the reporters who write for reuters are fools and I am a troll who read their reports and links to them . . .

    Parent

    So, now Reuters is the final arbiter of ... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    ... what gets classified in the State Dept., and not the folks at the State Dept. themselves? Again, this was internal email traffic, and any need for retroactive classification of the hard copies provided to the State Dept. by Mrs. Clinton occurred when FOIA requests to see them were first filed by members of the media.

    The media keeps accusing Mrs. Clinton of changing her story, when hard truth be told, she's actually been remarkably consistent in her recountings and recollections. Rather, it's the media itself -- in concert with GOP congressmen -- which has been consistently and collectively guilty of shapeshifting the parameters of their own coverage, moving the goalposts on Mrs. Clinton repeatedly in order to keep the spotlight relentlessly upon her.

    Along the way, they've studiously avoided any mention of similar and relevant past conduct by others, which would otherwise tend to undermine their increasingly specious claims that there's somehow a there there regarding Mrs. Clinton and her emails. Their resolute maintenance of this sort of obvious double standard is the so-called "Clinton Rules" in action, on steroids.

    It is a fact that Mrs. Clinton's immediate predecessors at State, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, also had private email addresses with which they conducted affairs of state respectively. Yet that doesn't seem to matter here.

    Further, Mrs. Clinton is the only one of the three to have fully complied with the government mandate to turn over all SD-related emails for archival purposes. But that, too, apparently doesn't matter.

    Still further, Gen. Powell not only apparently violated department protocols by not turning over all SD-related emails at the conclusion of his tenure, he also destroyed those emails. That fact is also somehow conveniently overlooked by the media in its collective rush to judgment of Mrs. Clinton.

    Finally, senior members of the late Bush administration not only regularly conducted government business using private email addresses, their work was being stored on the Bush campaign's own servers in obvious circumvention of federal archival guidelines. Is that a relevant fact in this discussion? According to the "Clinton Rules," no, it isn't.

    When the Justice Dept. began an investigation in 2007 into the suspiciously timed firings of eight U.S. attorneys by the White House, over 5 million administration emails mysteriously disappeared from those same Bush servers, even though much of that correspondence was under federal subpoena. Are we presently hearing any recollections in the media about that? No, we sure aren't.

    And back then, did we hear any of the same Republicans who are presently squawking about State Dept. emails, raise a similar hue and cry over what appeared to have been a conscious and deliberate act on the part of someone in the White House to obstruct a federal investigation?

    Of course not. Rather, they tended to dismiss the investigation as nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, never mind that it was Bush's own Justice Dept. which had commissioned the inquiry.

    So, here's my three-fold prediction. First, the Justice Department will eventually determine that no wrongdoing occurred in either the initial storage of Mrs. Clinton's emails, or their subsequent handing by the State Dept. in response to the FOIA requests.

    Second, when that conclusion is rendered, it will merit only a relatively small article in the New York Times and Washington Post that will be buried in each paper's midsection, so as to not draw widespread public attention to the likelihood that the media has been cloaking us with a relentless stream of bong smoke on this matter for the better part of a year.

    And third, that FBI conclusion will not only merit little or no mention at all on either Fox News or any of the right-wing and GOP-friendly media sites and blogs, those particular sources will continue to refer to this matter as a so-called "Clinton scandal," a la Whitewater and Vincent Foster's suicide.

    And those Republicans who are compelled to respond to the dismissal of their partisan narrative will no doubt insist that the entire Justice Dept. inquiry was nothing but a whitewash.

    And so it goes, and will likely continue to go. Because after all, it's all in accordance with the "Clinton Rules," you know?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    supposedly . . . (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    Supposedly the intelligence community as a whole has a set of rules which governs in general the usual facts or things to be classified . . . and if we go by those rules, then, confidential communications from other heads of state or secretaries of state of their equivalents is to be automatically regarded as classified . . .

    Do you affirm or deny it?

    and reuters says that there are 30 threads in which such confidential communications were discussed.

    Are you denying either of these facts?

    I am sure that Bush and Cheney and Powell and others did a lot of wrong and stupid things.  I am half-happy about some of his Supreme court choices, but otherwise, the Bush presidency seems to have been disastrous . . .

    I am not sure if we should suppose that Bush stole the election or that God gave it to him . . . or both  . . .

    Why do you wish to remind us of the fact that Bush and company were crooks?  Do you think I do not already believe that?

    The Bible has a saying "Trust not in princes."

    HRC's story has changed from she did not transmit any classified material via her email to she did not transmit any that was marked classified or that she knew was classified.

    OK, well, going by the basic rule re "foreign government information," then, HRC would have to be ignorant and incompetent for that defense to fly.

    You believe that by reminding me of disappearing emails re the firing of the US attorneys that that somehow exculpates Clinton?

    Where I am from, why not just admit the wrong done . . . though I suppose you could take the Bush approach . . .

    "Mistakes were made."

    Parent

    The IC is not the final arbiter here, particularly over the State Dept.'s own internal communications. And as an institution, the State Dept. has been around one hell of a lot longer than the IC.

    Parent
    Further, Mrs. Clinton hardly needs ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:54:24 AM EST
    ... any "exculpating," given that the present Justice Dept. inquiry is non-criminal, she hasn't be charged with any crime, and she's not the target of any investigation except in your own very fevered imagination.

    Parent
    NPR weighs in . . . (none / 0) (#130)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 09:41:03 AM EST
    NPR, another part of the vast right wing conspiracy, weighs in . . .

    What's remarkable about that answer is that she wasn't asked in the preceding question specifically about classified emails, but offered that answer anyway. There's a reason for that. It would be illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server.

    The day after Clinton's news conference, the New York Times reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely" that Clinton didn't email at least something classified. . .

    Oh, well,

    As you say, HRC doesn't need exculpating because she has not been charged   . . .

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 09:55:46 AM EST
    already been determined that her server was not "unauthorized", anybody who continues to bring that up is in deceased equine territory and should be ignored.

    Parent
    fine, no problem (none / 0) (#133)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    At one point, HRC said that she had sent any classified material using that email . . . or maybe it was hadn't sent or received

    then her story changed to she hadn't sent anything marked classified or that she knew was classified  . . .

    On and off for 2 weeks I carried around, openly in a holster in public, an unloaded airsoft and I just found out the SMC prohibits the carrying of an airsoft "gun."  Hey, it looks like I actually broke the law--a probably foolish and doubtfully constitutional law--but it appears I did and while I did, police in my presence ignored the violation, to the degree that they knew of it . . .

    It is easy to accidentally break some laws, especially when you are not thinking about all the consequences of what you are doing or have not read all the laws recently . . .  You don't always have to be prosecuted for every law violation  . . .

    but it is that Clinton defense of herself is making things worse for her . . . she is getting herself convicted as a liar, incompetent and a fool, rather than an ordinary lawbreaker . . . and she is making herself into a liar in public . . . it seems to me . . .

    Parent

    She hasn't broken any laws. (4.25 / 4) (#134)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    What's really going on here is an effort by people with no training or legal education, no experience in or with the intricacies of intra- and inter-agency politics, rules and regulations, and with an obvious agenda, to begin with the premise that she broke some laws and then manipulate information, statements, statutes in order to justify that premise.

    And lest you think that others here are doing just the opposite, and that's just as bad, I should remind you that this is a legal blog that is wholly and unutterably committed to the principle of the presumption of innocence.  You remember that one, don't you?

    My hunch is that you are someone who routinely dares the authorities to take action against you for openly challenging the laws of your community.  You break the law - I'd guess there's nothing "innocent" about your doing so - admit to doing so, as a way to challenge those laws. Is that necessarily a bad thing?  No.  But you seem to have ascribed to Clinton that same mindset you have about the laws, and there is nothing - and I do mean nothing - that suggests she shares that approach to the law.

    For some reason, you seem to have latched onto TL as a venue for your disingenuous schtick, batting your rhetorical eyes and putting on a fake, "who, me?" attitude.  Eventually, after you are challenged enough, we see the real you, and it completely strips (ooh, there's something you can get behind, huh?) all that away.

    By the way, is there room in your thong for your air-gun, or is that just a euphemism?

    Parent

    we don't know for sure (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    I don't think we know with absolute certainty that she broke laws or did not break laws re the storage of classified info on unsecured email servers.

    I believe she did . . . and I am happy to also believe that a bunch of Bush officials and others before them probably did the same thing.

    The evidence and the circumstances make it far more likely than not that Clinton broke the law.  the current defense of BTD at the top of the thread that many others before Clinton did the same thing IS PROBABLY RIGHT . . .

    but Clinton's defense isn't that she just did what her predecessors did.  HRC's defense originally was that she didn't send classified info and now that has morphed into she didn't send anything marked classified or known to be classified  . . .

    If HRC didn't know that "foreign government information" is presumed classified OR that she was sending along "confidential foreign government information" in some of her emails

    then

    HRC

    IS

    A

    FOOL

    and

    HRC is terribly incompetent.

    So, why are you happy about HRC's chosen defense of herself?

    Parent

    She hasn't? (none / 0) (#165)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 06:44:17 AM EST
    At this point, given that you haven't read the emails of HRC . . .

    it would take your having the wisdom and knowledge of God to say that . . .

    unless what you mean is

    you personally are going to presume she hasn't broken any laws

    on the basis that

    presuming should be sufficient for making the title of a blog posting declaring her innocent?

    also, there seem to be a lot of the emails that no one has read except for hrc and her team which deleted them.  You mean you know that hrc told the complete truth and acted honestly and sorting out all the emails to turn over and which to delete?

    You know that . . . and I don't . . .

    You speak of people who haven't had any legal training . . . perhaps you are referring to me--ha!--and perhaps you are referring to a bunch of Republican senators?

    if and when a policeperson or an FBI guy studies the evidence and then sends over to the prosecutor a criminal referral--is it invalid because the policeman or fbi man is "not a lawyer"?  Not necessarily.  Even ordinary people can spot some crimes and correctly identify the suspect based on evidence and correctly identify the evidence implicating the suspect.  

    Police people have some basic legal training . . . and of the two of us, I was talking with an SPD officer for about an hour in September 2014 on a variety of topics, for a friendly meeting . . . and among other things, the rule of lenity came up . . .

    and it turns out that this fellow did not know the rule and how it would be applied . . . and he said, well, in any case of doubt or uncertainty, a policeman will tend to seach, seize, act etc and let the courts sort things out . . .   So probably police by training and inclination, behave oppositely to the rule of lenity . . . and there is a purpose for that . . .

    If it helps . . . 25 years ago, I went to a particular interesting church.  We had church services 3 times a week and church lasted between 2 and 6 hours.  The church had a school and a 4- year Bible college . . . and the teachers of the church loved to find controversial ideas and then, evaluate them by the Bible and argue for and against them  . . . and now--by fluke no doubt--some of my friends and acquaintances from church work in law offices . . . not as lawyers per se . . . but we make useful clerks . . .

    List all the evidence and reasoning for an idea . . . and examine and explain why all contrary evidence and reasoning against it does not lead to the conclusion allegedly wrongly held . . .

    Yeah--I can't imagine what other profession does something like that . . .

    Oh . . . the "rule of lenity" has a parallel in theology and hermeneutics, where it is called a rule of hermeneutics saying, "No ambiguous text can be a prooftext."

    Parent

    Whatever Cheney and friends (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    may have done otherwise, they did not "out" Valerie Plame.

    While my column on Wilson's mission triggered Libby's misery, I played but a minor role in his trial. Subpoenaed by his defense team, I testified that I had phoned him in reporting the Wilson column and that he had said nothing about Wilson's wife. Other journalists said the same thing under oath, but we apparently made no impression on the jury.

    snip

    In fact, her being classified -- that is, that her work was a government secret -- did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former deputy secretary of state Armitage)

    Robert Novak

    SP Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was from his first day on the job. Libby was a sacrificial goat.

    Thought you'd want to know.

    Parent

    There were (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    multiple leakers to multiple reporters, Libby spread the word to Armitage and others in government and the press including Judy Miller. The Armitage leak was the one that got published but there were definitely others and they almost certainly came from Cheney's office via Libby. Libby was convicted of several crimes, a fact you studiously ignore.

    Parent
    did you see Presumed Innocent? (none / 0) (#119)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 02:01:50 AM EST
    Did you see "Serial Mom"? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 03:08:01 AM EST
    Clinton emails (none / 0) (#197)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 08:34:52 AM EST
    Clinton emails

    Some of the just-released missives deal with Iran, Israel and Russia, reports CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

    Cordes points to one exchange in which Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan tells Clinton he can't forward her a document she wants because it's "on the classified system."

    Clinton writes back, "It's a public statement! Just email it."

    Sullivan responds, "Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it."

    So then if she was not hooked up to the classified system, then how did she send and receive classified information?

    On (none / 0) (#204)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    the classified system of course, obviously one or both of them did not have access to a secure device at the time of the exchange. By their nature the secure "terminals" are much less available and portable.

    What I see is the "Get Smart" aspect of the whole classification system of the government. The Secretary and a top deputy can not access a public statement because some functionary has decided it was "born classified".

    Note: Hillary was using her power to declassify a document as she saw fit. Chew on that.

    Parent

    Hillary's magic wand -- (1.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 06:34:37 PM EST
    Note: Hillary was using her power to declassify a document as she saw fit. Chew on that.

    If that were the case, then why didn't Godmother Hillary just wave her magic declassifying wand over Jake Sullivan's document, say the magic words, and declare it declassified?

    The bigger question however is whether Hillary ever got this document at all from Sullivan.

    Remember it was classified and she said that she never received classified information on her email.

    And yet her she is trying to get Sullivan to violate the law by sending her a classified document to her private email.

    If the system would have allowed it, she clearly would have received it.

    Choke on that one.

    Parent

    Question: (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by sj on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 06:41:14 PM EST
    Does it hurt? Not being able to think? I think it would hurt.

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#207)
    by sj on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    So then if she was not hooked up to the classified system, then how did she send and receive classified information?
    as you have been told endlessly: she didn't.

    It. Was. Classified. Retroactively!

    ...It occurs to me that the reason you keep asking this same question (and running out of various ways to do it) is because you don't know what "retroactively" means. That's the only possible scenario. So here is the definition of "retroactive".

    Okay, maybe there is another reason why you keep asking the same question even though it has been answered time and again. So for your convenience, here is the definition of trolling. e.g. pretending she sent classified information when you know she didn't.

    In other words, trolling.

    Parent

    (Sigh!) It's margarita time. (none / 0) (#209)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    On second thought, after considering the sheer volume of disingenuous and clueless right-wing posts in this thread, perhaps I should simply dispense with the Triple Sec and lime juice altogether, and just do Cuervo shots.

    Whistleblower (none / 0) (#210)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 01, 2015 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    Clinton email markings changed to hide classified info

    At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public, Fox News has learned, in what State Department whistleblowers believed to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state's server.

    The changes, which came to light after the first tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, was confirmed by two sources -- one congressional, the other intelligence. The four emails originally were marked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department.

    But after a second review by the department's legal office, the designation was switched to "B5" -- also known as "deliberative process," which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch. Such discussions are exempt from public release.  

    The B5 coding has the effect, according to a congressional source, of dropping the email content "down a deep black hole."....

    A search of this week's 7,000-page release found 694 emails with the B5 coding, about 10 percent of the total.

    Special thanks to sj for reminding me of this article --

    Appoint a special prosecutor (none / 0) (#211)
    by Payaso on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 05:27:55 AM EST
    and go after ever single one of them.