Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hillary: Too Risky a Candidate? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Hillary: Too Risky a Candidate?
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In light of the various scandals in which Hillary has been associated so far, one would think that her candidacy might have come into question by now. But given her credentials, political background, and the recognizability of her name she is still a leading figure in Democrat circles. But aside from asking whether she'll win, a different question we might ask is what will happen once she wins? If these scandals have real weight to them, with possible criminal implications, might these not serve to undermine national security? Here's one example related to the private email scandal:

http://i.imgur.com/zpemRCk.jpg

Here we see what ought to be conclusive proof that Hillary is guilty of a felony (failure to protect national security information). But in the real world we know that a) high-ranking people are immune to the kinds of prosecution that would bury a nobody, and b) it might be hard to go after her for something like this during a Democratic presidency where should would have political protection.

But what if she wins the Democratic nomination and then the Republicans go hard-ball after her with this? What if they're saving it until she's the candidate? After all, if they play the ace now someone else might take the nomination and potentially become a Dem President. But if they wait they can destroy the chances of a Democrat President.

And we can even look at this from the other side: If even the Democrats, for the sake of argument, recognize that she's guilty they and the Republicans might both be content to let her become President knowing then that they have ample blackmail power over her to pull her strings when they really need to. I can't think of a greater national security risk than having a President who is beholden to agents from both parties to serve their agendas rather than her own conscience, on the threat of prosecuting her for crimes should be refuse to play ball. And if she really is guilty of the crimes then that kind of threat is not even illegal; it's not legally criminal blackmail to threaten to expose a crime. So if she becomes President and is compromised for real she is theirs. In fact, this would increase the odds they'll support him since having someone you control in office is worth far more than having someone merely politically on your side but of their own council

Is Hillary too great a risk to allow to run for the Democrats? We have Whitewater in the past, the email scandal (with some very fishy activity by her and some evidence to boot), the plutonium sale scandal involving huge 'donations' to her and Bill's nonprofit, and the list goes on. This goes way beyond Bill and Lewinsky undermining his Presidency; this stuff is legitimate shady business. Do Democrats really want to see another Clinton Presidency mired from start to finish by protracted legal battles? What Obama got from the Republicans is nothing compared to what this would be like.

[ August 12, 2015, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of all the illegal and otherwise sketchy things she's been involved in and given a pass on, why would illegally handling and exposing classified documents be any different? If she becomes the nominee, the media will ignore it and if they can't they'll spin it and do the usual character assassination drill on anyone that squeaks. If Hillary wins, the IRS, FBI or TLA of your choice will silence whoever the media missed.

I expect history to repeat. You should too.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The legality of conducting business against America's interest may be fuzzy, and the Whitewater affair is ancient history. Receiving questionable donations to a nonprofit is also not only legally fuzzy but is commonplace among political people. The difference here is that mishandling classified info is a cut-and-dry felony, and so anyone wishing to pursue this presumably could do so without it otherwise dragging their own candidates into it like attacking fundraising methods would.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lot of this analysis assumes that Hillary is guilty of some major crime or another. And, unfortunately, with the current Republicans in office, one can't really be sure of it.

Just look at the all the BS Republicans have been spreading about Obama. Benghazi alone should prove it: an accusation that went from "the POTUS callously held back help while listening to his ambassador get murdered" to "he didn't admit it was a terrorist attack soon enough." [Roll Eyes] And they are still spending millions of dollars to investigate it.

Frankly, I feel Republicans have no credibility when it comes to supposed Democrat "wrongdoing."

So with all this crying wolf from Republicans, I can't see much opportunity for actual blackmail. [Smile]

Given that, though, I expect that Republicans will still continue this campaign of misinformation to make Hillary look bad. And, admittedly, the Clintons aren't shining examples of probity. [Roll Eyes] I don't know why Hillary decided to break the rules to use her own e-mail server, and so far she hasn't given a good reason. Which only allows wild speculations from those who want to bring her down.

The main problem, though, is that there really isn't any good alternative to Hillary at this time. Sanders has the most enthusiasm among the liberal sector, but with his "socialist" label, I think he'll get a huge pushback. And the other guys just aren't very well known or charismatic.

And Hillary is supported by all sectors of the Democratic party, including the liberal wing.

So unless another Obama shows up, I don't see anyone else who could take the nomination.

And even Hillary is preferable to the bunch of clowns who are vying for the Republican ticket. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if there was behind-the-scenes meddling to make sure no other Democrats got a high enough profile to make a run for President. The best way to win is to make sure you don't have any competition.

At this point, it doesn't seem like Clinton is a particularly good candidate. As Wayward pointed out, she seems to be the only competitive one from the Democratic Party. Even if most democrats would prefer to support someone else, they'd have to hear about that person first.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well the contrast of, one front runner compared to the clown car who can't even fit in one debate does make a point all by itself.

The attacks on Clinton really do seem to be too much the boy who cried wolf to be a credible threat. Which is a bummer because now if something legit that should wipe her out as a candidate pops up, nobody undecided or leaning towards her is inclined to believe it.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Given that, though, I expect that Republicans will still continue this campaign of misinformation to make Hillary look bad. And, admittedly, the Clintons aren't shining examples of probity. [Roll Eyes]

I don't think it takes being a Republican or merely trying to smear her to make Hillary look bad. I agree with some of your points though and I'm not surprised at all that she is the leading candidate. But there's a difference between a smear campaign like Benghazi and between simply prosecuting a blatant crime. You saw the difference during Bill's Presidency when they tried to smear him all they liked and it never stuck, whereas the minute he committed a cut-and-dry crime (perjury) they nailed him for it. Here we have a Presidential candidate who has already made this misstep, and it was of a nature of potentially far more importance to national security than lying under oath about a silly affair.

By the way there are multiple levels of how one can assess her use of the private email server. Giving her all benefit of doubt she simply breached protocol due to feeling she was above the rules; already not great but not a national security issue. Giving her less credit we could say she was sloppy and irresponsible and perhaps some emails containing sensitive information were seen by the wrong people. Giving her no ethical credit at all it could look like she deliberately kept her emails off the record to hide what was in them and to use her office to conduct business that would not pass legal muster.

Whichever of these it was, she definitely broke the law and if I was hoping for a Dem President who could stand by their values I'd be quite concerned about someone who was already compromised in this way.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't been following that close, partly because I DO see it as another smear campaign.

Has it been confirmed or even alleged, that she sent sensitive (top secret?) info and it was seen by "the wrong people"? Was her security lacking on this private system?

I'm not trying to down play the seriousness of not following the law, but that is entirely different than accusing someone of causing a security breach.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I haven't been following that close, partly because I DO see it as another smear campaign.

Oh, there's no doubt that it's a smear. But simply having a partisan agenda doesn't make the accusation suddenly false or irrelevant. It's true that crying wolf has the counter-productive effect of causing certain people to disbelieve future accusations unless ample evidence is provided.

On the subject of this particular scandal Hillary had stated previously that she wasn't using her private email for the transmission of classified material, and as of two days ago the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community had identified various emails in the batch Hillary turned over classified as Intelligence Community information (a legally important distinction) even including "top secret" material. Some defenders of Hillary have claimed that the material was only deemed classified at a later date after she sent it, although I've heard from elsewhere that the law regarding classified information is that people with clearance are expected to use good discretion and to keep up security on information that isn't even yet dubbed as officially classified. Beyond that, the Inspector General also identified two emails that were officially classified before Hillary sent them through her private email.

Since this presumably has just come to light it may change the subject from being a smear allegation to being a hard fact. I thought the issue was potentially serious before, but if there is real evidence then that is something her enemies can use against her (or her 'allies', for that matter). And this doesn't even broach the issue of the emails she declined to disclose, which we can't legally discuss but which was a pretty weird thing in its own right.

Note that my personal issue here isn't that I suddenly think she's crooked; I thought that before but took it for granted as par for the course. What I find concerning now is the possibility that tangible evidence against her will lead the way to political mischief and lack of governance. I'm guessing the DNC will ignore this and continue to back her, since they have too much invested in her already to change horses now even if they perceive a threat. The question is whether they know they're taking a risk that could seriously backfire.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

I've not dug too deeply but my understanding is that the classification requirement is required to be stamped/present upon initial distribution. If it isn't then it is the original distributor that is at fault, not the subsequent distributor (which makes a lot of sense - the individuals receiving the documents get tons of documents a day, and tracking which is and is not lawfully a secret on their own would be an impossible burden).

So as long as nothing she distributed had an official stamp/notification - she is probably legally clear - thus contrary to your assertion she did not 'definitely break the law'.

[ August 13, 2015, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After more than 20 years of a Republican playbook in which the goal is to generate the perception of a scandal to drive down the popularity of their opponents and to force them to play defense, I think this is actually a case where the burden of proof is on the accusers. As with some of our conservative colleagues here, they never acknowledge when their stacks are bogus, they just ride one bogus Benghazi meme until it falls exhausted to the ground and they jump on another. I have not made any decisions about who I will support, but whatever Democrat is nominated will get a full court smear campaign. If Republicans will go after a decorated war veteran like Kerry with the swift boat campaign, there's no limit on what else they will do.

I have not been following emailgate closely, but I did see an article on how atrociously bad the New York Times article was on this issue, followed up by a weird non-acknowledgement mea culpa

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR,

Here is a statement made by the two IG's subsequent to the filing of the letter I posted above:

quote:
The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
This means the information was already labelled as classified and Hillary, when she included that information in emails on her private server, didn't mark that the information was classified (so two mistakes at once; including it, and failing to mark it). Even granting my middle scenario where she's just sloppy or irresponsible that's not really an excuse. Lower-level personnel can go to jail for breaches in security with information.

By the way the joint IG's specifically did not call for a criminal action against Hillary for this, and their notice was apparently for the purposes of counter-intelligence. But their satisfaction with merely reporting the incident and leaving it alone doesn't mean that no one else will decide to do something about it at a later time.

In my view as far as 'corruption' or criminal activity go this affair looks to be possibly serious, but possibly trivial as well; the difference largely resides in what was in the emails she deleted, which I guess will never be proved either way. But as with the Bill Clinton impeachment proceeding, one small legal misstep is worth more to their enemies than a handful of major scandals and no proof.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If this mess gets played out before the election (or even the primaries) I think President Clinton would have a pretty solid defence in that the voters knew about it and elected her anyways. It won't stop the GOP et al. from whinging about it endlessly, but it'd probably wouldn't interfere with actual business.

Well, not more than the rest of whatever scandal-mongering they get up to.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

she needs to have 'knowingly sent or received' classified information inappropriately for it to have been a breach of the law.

(Generally that requires that the notification of the classification be upon the document that is dissemeniated).

It isn't clear that she was the individual that sent the material, only that it was on her server (From what I've been able to find the implication is that she had not sent the information but it was something she had recieved).

It isn't clear that it was in fact classified at the time or is in fact classified (the same information can come from different sources - and thus it can pertain to a classified matter and be classified coming form one source, and yet be not classified from the other source.)

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I read a document labled classified/top secret and then paraphrase it or portions of it in an email correspondance and don't follow the procedures, it's still going to be a breach of the law AFAIK.

We aren't talking about attaching a classified PDF to an email from the sounds of it.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, there's no doubt that it's a smear.
I'm glad you acknowledge that, Fenring, because it means you recognize that your sources could be biased and may omit pertinent information.

Which makes me question where you got your quote from you last post.

Because it seems to not address an important point: who originated those e-mails?

Did Hillary write them, forward them, or just receive them?

If she wrote them, then she was negligent (although perhaps not criminally so).

If she forwarded them, then she has little culpability, since the e-mails were not labelled as classified, and there would be little reason to believe they were.

If she simply received them...well, that's pretty obvious. [Smile]

I ask this because per Media Matters, a State Department spokesman said:

quote:
"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said Tuesday. "They were not marked as classified." [NBC News, 8/12/15]
Now, I can't tell if these two e-mails are part of the four that were mentioned in your quote. But there is nothing in that quote that indicates whether Hillary originated those e-mails or not.

So when you know a smear campaign is going on, it is a good idea to withhold judgement until all the facts are in. Because it is too easy to not have one or two pertinent facts that can change the whole situation, especially when those facts can be withheld by the smearers.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
If I read a document labled classified/top secret and then paraphrase it or portions of it in an email correspondance and don't follow the procedures, it's still going to be a breach of the law AFAIK.

We aren't talking about attaching a classified PDF to an email from the sounds of it.

That sounds right to me. The IG's made it sound like she included information from documents marked as classified in emails she wrote, but did not attach the actual documents in question.

LR: If people who know she has security clearance are sending her classified information by email, and she has chosen to use a personal email server rather than an official one, that's on her. How can the sender know she's breaching security protocol? And if it's the case that it's emails she sent (the IG's said "transmitted", which sounds to me more like 'sent' but it's not 100% clear) then ignorance is no excuse if she has already chosen to ignore security protocol. Security-cleared personnel are expected to know the sensitivity level of what they're sending, although there's some off-chance that someone previous to Hillary failed to mark the material as classified and passed it on to her, who then passed it on again not knowing any better. But this is one more reason to stick to security measures - as a redundancy against mistakes.

WS: Are you seriously questioning my 'sources', which are Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community? Because I've quoted no one else except them in this thread. If you think they're biased or unreliable then I can't help you with that, except that since they decided to leave her alone with the matter it would seem more like they don't have any bias against her. I'd also like to reiterate that it seems evident nothing of major consequence was in those two/four emails, and so based on this alone the issue is one of security protocol rather than national security. But again - the issue with Bill Clinton was lying about an affair, so obviously the seriousness of the situation has less bearing on legal consequences compared to definitive breaches of the law.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are these the same emails where State and the ICIG are having a pi$$ing match over who gets the last word on what is classified?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This issue is bizarre. The private server is really indefensible. If Hillary were a Republican you'd be calling for her head, concluding the server had secret deals, looking for life in prison and international war crimes charges.

This is not a conspiracy. This is a candidate who doesn't believe the laws apply to her, period.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know if that's true Seriati. I think part of why I'm not calling for her head is because it's indefensible. It's down right nonsensical. I'm all but positive she'll walk out of this unblemished.

I don't think it's QUITE the same as "the laws don't apply to me". I expect it's a lot more, "I know the system better than they do and it's fuzzy enough I can do this and get away with it." This is still a distressing attitude but I can't believe she is dumb enough to have made such a mistake nor that none of her advisers or people needed to set this up wouldn't have taken her aside and said, "Hold up, you CAN NOT do this!"

That this is something she shouldn't have done I agree with. That she would lose a case if it went that far, I don't.

Now if I'm wrong, and it's a combination of breaking a law out of ignorance of both herself and the staff she surrounds herself with... well then I hope it does torpedo her campaign. A president can't know everything but they better damn well know when to ask the right questions of the right people.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What would be "risky" is for anyone involved in investigating this, taking a plane trip or spending time in jail.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
In light of the various scandals in which Hillary has been associated so far, one would think that her candidacy might have come into question by now. But given her credentials, political background, and the recognizability of her name she is still a leading figure in Democrat circles. But aside from asking whether she'll win, a different question we might ask is what will happen once she wins?

And I saw one of the beast's heads as it were wounded to death; and the deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered at the power of the beast. [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What would be "risky" is for anyone involved in investigating this, taking a plane trip or spending time in jail.
Now THAT would make for some scandal durring the primary season.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
What would be "risky" is for anyone involved in investigating this, taking a plane trip or spending time in jail.
Now THAT would make for some scandal durring the primary season.
The acts of the Clinton's homicidal blue fairy godmother have never made much press before.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I don't think it's QUITE the same as "the laws don't apply to me". I expect it's a lot more, "I know the system better than they do and it's fuzzy enough I can do this and get away with it."

My personal opinion, and it's opinion, is that her experience in the White House and politics in general has taught her to be paranoid of self incrimination. You can see the same thing from people who've been sued multiple times.

I think she made a conscious and intentional decision that any consequences from the illegality of her actions would be less destructive to her long term career goals, than allowing her "opponents" access to her records. If you presume good faith on her part, it's because she believes they'd twist her words and no one can guard there words 24-7. If you don't, it's because she knew she'd be doing things that people wouldn't like and rightly be held accountable (not necessarily illegal by the way, just unpalatable). But in any event, it reflects a complete disregard for the law applying to her, where it applies to everyone else that has to work under those rules in government.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


she needs to have 'knowingly sent or received' classified information inappropriately for it to have been a breach of the law.

You really think she had no idea. Really? Secretary of State, all 30,000 emails unclassified. That's what we call "implausible deniability". [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

quote:
This issue is bizarre. The private server is really indefensible.
Colin Powell and his predecessors also used private email instead of a government email address. I think it is insane that that was the practice, but claiming she did something anomalous or unusual for a Secretary of State is apparently incorrect.

quote:
If Hillary were a Republican you'd be calling for her head, concluding the server had secret deals, looking for life in prison and international war crimes charges.
I don't think anyone has made that accusation against Colin Powell - so obviously your supposition is wrong.

Rafi,

quote:
You really think she had no idea. Really? Secretary of State, all 30,000 emails unclassified. That's what we call "implausible deniability".
Apparently there was a strict policy of not sending classified information via email.

Since email is about the least secure method of information transfer hopefully none of the agencies deliberately send classified information via email. So no, it isn't implausible that she had full expectation to neither send nor receive classified information via email.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, if what you say is true, how would you address Seriati's other assertions:

Seriati: "This is not a conspiracy."

Seems to me that if reports bear out that Clinton's staff systematically stripped some of the doc of their top secret markings before forwarding to her server, that Seriati is being too generous; there would be evidence of conspiracy.

Seriati: "This is a candidate who doesn't believe the laws apply to her, period."

If this assertion doesn't apply to the initial act for reasons that you described, LR, would it not apply to the stonewalling, attempts to wipe the server once it became clear that it would be called up as evidence, etc.?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Has anyone here ever had a security clearance? Or does anyone have any background knowledge about handling classified information?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seems to me that if reports bear out that Clinton's staff systematically stripped some of the doc of their top secret markings before forwarding to her server, that Seriati is being too generous; there would be evidence of conspiracy.
The report was that email messages contained discussion of the documents in question without a security warning, not that the documents themselves were stripped of warnings. That is to say: the assertion is that discussion of classified documents should be considered just as classified as the documents, and they failed to respect that additional precaution.

(Also, for Blackberry and other full account integrated devices, what she did was close to standard practice at the time for people that had multiple accounts and wanted them all to pass through one device. It took another year or two before account switching on such devices was finally implemented and adopted widely enough for the practice of filtering everything through a single account fell out of use.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, one probably isn't supposed to admit to one's security status.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you seriously questioning my 'sources', which are Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community? Because I've quoted no one else except them in this thread.
Does that mean you selected those quotes yourself after having read the IG's report? If so, I applaud you. It must be pretty dry reading. [Eek!]

However, if you took the quotes from someone else who had read the report and selected those quotes, be advised that (like the recent Planned Parenthood videos) the quotes may have been selected to convey a specific point of view, while omitting other quotes that would dispute that POV. Which means any conclusion you may come to could be biased because of lack of full information.

And even the IG's report may not be conclusive. Did he identify whether the classified information orginated with Hillary or with another source that sent it to her?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WS, it's not rocket science. The first link is to a short memo which you can obviously see appears in full. The second quote I provided was from a joint statement released by the two IG's, and I selected a portion of it to quote. Here's the complete statement:

quote:
Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG [attached].
The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral––it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.

Does that change anything for you?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a statement from John Kerry related to the Hillary issue:

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-i-write-emails-assuming-that-russia-and-china-are-very-likely-reading-them-2015-8#ixzz3ijNTdLcj

Apparently he takes very serious the issue of possible security breaches, and assuming he's not off his rocker then it makes it all the more damaging for someone like Hillary to use a private email server as her official Secretary of State email.

Overall I'm not trying to build a case against Hillary, but rather trying to suggest that a case can be built against her to ruin her campaign or her Presidency. I would call the absolute worst case scenario the one where Jeb Bush is President, and allowing Hillary to be sabotaged at a critical point will only help this to happen. If this issue does turn out to be very serious then the DNC needs to seriously consider switching their focus to another candidate.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd feel much better about the legal and regulatory aspects of this if I could be certain that she'd actually be charged if she broke the rules. I mean, if she were running for Parliament I'd prefer to vote against her on the basis that she puts her own political interests so clearly above national interests (and the historical interest, damn it! Will no one think of the historians?!). It would be much easier to then just drop the rest of it with "if she broke the law, she'll be charged," but I'm pretty sure she won't be charged unless notorizes a confession first.

Fenring, considering all the emails that have been leaked over the last few years, it's probably good practice to assume someone else will be reading your email at some point.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does that change anything for you?
For me, not really, since it doesn't specify where the classified information originated from, just its existance. So I still cannot come to the conclusion that she is responsible for putting classified information into unsecured e-mails. It is premature to come to that conclusion at this time.

And she certainly cannot be held responsible for receiving or forwarding unlabeled classified information if it came to her on an unsecured e-mail account from someone else.

So I will continue to withhold judgement on whether she actually committed a crime or not until all the facts are in.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The real problem is that there is no other real choice. If Hillary is guilty charge her now so someone can step in to take her place (besides Biden or Sanders) that has a chance of winning. I don't like her but the thought that the next Supreme Court justice will be chosen by one of those running on the GOP ticket scares me. 5-4 in most cases is bad but 6-3 is a nightmare.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

that was my point to Rafi - emails are not secure, thus it would surprise me if she knowingly allowed classified information to be shared via email and as stated she had a policy against it.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Fenring,

that was my point to Rafi - emails are not secure, thus it would surprise me if she knowingly allowed classified information to be shared via email and as stated she had a policy against it.

'Knowingly' would be hard to show unless there was an email where she stated verbatim she was sending classified information. All you're ever likely to see is facts about what she did, not what she intended to do. Again, I don't know if using a personal email server actually compromised security in any way, but not sticking to protocol could be interpreted in many ways, as I mentioned above. Some interpretations can be more or less generous than others. There is some incentive to give her less credit rather than more, since it just can't look good to have finally handed over her server only for the IG to find it had been wiped clean professionally. But even giving her all benefit of doubt there definitely was classified material on her personal server, and it really had no business being there.

Even if you were to argue that no email is safe anyhow, even pentagon email, then that's on them and their measures if they get hacked; but it's not up to an individual to decide to ignore the security in the first place and use their own method.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

the 'protocol' for previous Sec State was the same things she was doing. It was only after she left office that the rules changed.

quote:
But even giving her all benefit of doubt there definitely was classified material on her personal server, and it really had no business being there.
Actually there isn't anything definite about that. As stated above there is a turf war between agencies, and one agency considers certain materials to be classified and another does not. Similarly as I said above - if it did not come from a classified source, then again it wouldn't be classified even if it is consistent with information that is classified - the chain of information is important. There is a lot of open source intelligence, that when put in a classified report - is classified. If you copy the information from the open source - then your usage is not classified. If you copy it from the report - then your usage is classified.

We really have no idea what the specific documents or excerpts or summaries of documents are being claimed to have breached classification. Whether it is a actual material breach, or not. If it was, we don't know the source of the breach. For instance, if someone forwarded her a copy of a document that had been leaked to wikileaks. Then it would be a breach, and yet nothing wrong would have occurred.

quote:
Even if you were to argue that no email is safe anyhow, even pentagon email, then that's on them and their measures if they get hacked; but it's not up to an individual to decide to ignore the security in the first place and use their own method.
She wasn't 'ignoring security' - she was following the preestablished practices of using private email that had occurred under previous administrations. She didn't engage in anything anomalous, or illegal.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1