The Second Debate - 2016

[D.W.]

I think with Hillary an added issue is that her techs had access to that information so they would also need a security clearance. If the data was kept on the government servers like it was supposed to be then the techs would have the necessary clearance. That's certainly a violation of the law as well, allowing people without the right clearance access to classified information. Members of her staff also apparently didn't have the security clearance to see the information they were handling.

This makes perfect sense to me, IF classified emails are A: meant to be a thing at all, and B: regulations are in place prohibiting this practice or mandating explicitly that all those with access to the server also have clearance. 

Both seem ridiculously easy to verify, however it's just not info I have.

As demonstrable by the fact she is not already in jail... I can only conclude that "B" at least, is not the case.  If "A" is a thing (with "B" NOT a thing) then we have Luddites writing the policy books over there. 

[Greg Davidson]

First of all, one of the  emails that was classified was retroactively deemed "Confidential" because it contained Kofi Annan's phone number and a number of others were similarly classified. 

We don't know what was in the emails deemed to have a higer retroactive clearance, but there is a strong indication of something that almost definitely would have been included in emails to Hillary Clinton. A huge diplomatic issue while she was Secretary of State was the response of the Pakistanis to what they saw as armed drone attacks in Pakistan. This was widely reported in the Pakistani press, and any emails from a US representative in Pakistan referring to specifics in those news articles could have fit the definition of being classified information. The source doesn't matter, the fact that information is in a public news article doesn't matter, it's just the information. And if that seems silly to you, it is still how the system works. When Snowden's betrayal put secret information into the public sphere, people with clearances were warned that they should not even browse news articles about Snowden on their home computers because they could be in technical violation of their security clearance.

If Hillary Clinton recenived email discussing drone strikes in Pakistan, the person who would be accountable for the error is not the recipient, it is the person who generates the email. And I don't see that person going to jail for a technical violation based on quoting a newspaper article highly relevant to US foreign policy.

[Greg Davidson]

Meanwhile, have any of you who claim to care about the Constitution with reference to the 2nd Amendment have any defense of Trump stating he will violate the Constitution with respect to prosecuting his political enemies starting with Hillary Clinton?

[cherrypoptart]

If she committed a crime, it wouldn't be illegal or unConstitutional to prosecute her.

Should political enemies automatically be off the hook just because they are your political enemies and you don't want to have the appearance of impropriety?

Isn't this exactly why the Independent Counsel's office was created and it's constitutionality was upheld in Morrison v. Olson?

Of course you want a truly independent counsel in there, someone who is thoroughly vetted and agreed upon by all sides as to their impartiality. And Comey definitely wasn't anything of the sort.

[AI Wessex]

Of course you want a truly independent counsel in there, someone who is thoroughly vetted and agreed upon by all sides as to their impartiality. And Comey definitely wasn't anything of the sort.

How about Trey Gowdy or one of the other bulldog committee chairs who investigated her?

[cherrypoptart]

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/26/trey-gowdy-demolishes-hillary-clinton-fbi-director-james-comey-video/

"Trey Gowdy was on Fox News last night and effectively pinned the donkey's tail on James Comey, essentially branding him as a disingenuous hack who was taking his marching orders to clear Hillary Clinton very seriously."

To be honest I'm just going to admit that I don't know everything about this investigation. I didn't know about Trey Gowdy or what he said until just now. All I know is that the whole thing has the appearance of impropriety and it looks like a setup, that Comey is corrupt and in the pocket of Hillary and Obama. That's what undermines our justice system much more than another investigation would.

Plus once Trump is President all of those emails can be easily retrieved from the NSA. Then we'll have some real idea of what we're even talking about.

[AI Wessex]

Yes, RedState, of course.  How about this?

The latest focus point in Hillary Clinton's long email controversy may be a little-known tool for freeing up computer storage space.

Trey Gowdy, a Republican congressman from South Carolina, looked to reignite criticism about Clinton's handling of emails on a private server by saying her team used a software tool called BleachBit to have messages "deleted where even God can't read them."

"You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails or for bridesmaids emails," Gowdy said in an interview on Fox News Thursday. "When you are using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

However, BleachBit may not be quite as sinister as Gowdy makes it out to be. It's one of many services you can download online to free up space on your computer by removing old unused files and clearing out internet history and cookies.

An advanced version of the service also offers an option for "shredding files to prevent recovery."

"If you're a business user looking for a truly free system cleaner, one interesting option is open-source, cross-platform BleachBit," PCWorld wrote in a 2013 product review.

Jonathan Zdziarski, a computer security expert, characterized BleachBit as a fairly "amateur" tool that doesn't raise any red flags.

"It looks like the type of tool someone would run who's conscious of cleaning old crud off their system," Zdziarski said. "Someone trying to cover their tracks would likely pay for and use a much more expensive, specialized data destruction tool."

Andrew Ziem, the developer behind BleachBit, wrote in a blog post that the service "has not been served a warrant or subpoena in relation to the investigation."

"BleachBit is free of charge to use in any environment whether it is personal, commercial, educational, and government, and the cleaning process is not reversible," Ziem said in the post on BleachBit's website.

How come Gowdy didn't know that?  I guess that makes him a great DOJ Director.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't really buy into the BleachBit hype. Or in other words if you want to delete something there is nothing wrong with making sure it stays deleted. If they had deleted information they weren't supposed to but it could still be recovered would that make it better or would it simply mean that when they deleted the stuff they were supposed to delete they did an incompetent job of it?

[Fenring]

If Hillary Clinton recenived email discussing drone strikes in Pakistan, the person who would be accountable for the error is not the recipient, it is the person who generates the email. And I don't see that person going to jail for a technical violation based on quoting a newspaper article highly relevant to US foreign policy.

This is incorrect. If someone with clearance (read: training) unintentionally receives a classified document they would be obliged to turn it in and ensure it isn't floating around in the public. That would presumably mean, in this case, handing her machine over to the appropriate authority so they could delete the email in question and make sure it was unrecoverable. Simply keeping it and handing it over to private contractors would be a violation, even in the case of her innocently receiving a document she didn't request. To make your case more plausible you'd have to additionally suggest that she had no idea it was classified information. But that, then, begins to assert that she is a doddering moron, because anyone in her position ought to have known that highly sensitive diplomatic information would obviously be classified, markings or no. The markings signify when something is classified, but they are not what makes it classified; what makes it so is the kind of information it contains, and certain information is invariably and automatically classified.

[AI Wessex]

I don't really buy into the BleachBit hype.

B-b-b-but, that's what the killer Redstate/FOX article you cited used as the clincher for her guilt!!!!

[cherrypoptart]

Well like I said that part to me is just hype. The real issue is if she deleted emails that she shouldn't have because she was supposed to keep them and turn them over. If she had been using the government server she was supposed to be using that wouldn't be an issue though would it? She couldn't delete any of the emails, or do I have that wrong? And that's the whole point. She used this server so she could delete emails she wasn't supposed to delete. She co-mingled personal and government emails which is a huge no-no, like a real estate agent co-mingling funds. And I think it's obvious she did so purposefully and with malice aforethought specifically so she could delete emails that were work related but embarrassing. Wikileaks has pretty much proven that already, indirectly at least.

[Fenring]

Jonathan Zdziarski, a computer security expert, characterized BleachBit as a fairly "amateur" tool that doesn't raise any red flags.

"It looks like the type of tool someone would run who's conscious of cleaning old crud off their system," Zdziarski said. "Someone trying to cover their tracks would likely pay for and use a much more expensive, specialized data destruction tool."

Yeah, this might make sense if Hillary had contracted professional data-eliminators to do the job. Except she didn't - she asked her IT people to do it. Last time I checked being in the IT business doesn't automatically include knowledge in how to destroy evidence. Any given IT person might happen to know this kind of thing, or not. It's not in their job description. But since it seems to be the case that these people went to Reddit asking how to destroy documents, it's pretty clear they did not have this kind of knowledge, and therefore the assumption that they'd have or know how to use a "specialized data destruction tool" is foolish at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. I didn't read that particular Reddit thread, but if it's like most then the comments would most likely lead someone to an easy-to-find and use software like BleachBit.

This doesn't prove that merely using BleachBit makes anyone guilty of anything, but the argument that because it's an amateurish software means they're not guilty is complete hogwash.

[AI Wessex]

This doesn't prove that merely using BleachBit makes anyone guilty of anything, but the argument that because it's an amateurish software means they're not guilty is complete hogwash.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here.  Clinton's accusers have taken the tack that she *is* guilty.  Cherry even uses the words "with malice aforethought" (again, the dictionary would be his friend if he could find one).  Pointing out the weakness in those arguments is the only defense that is needed.  The use of BleachBit gives some people the appearance of guilt, but anybody in IT worth their salt would look for the best tool available for the purpose; that one is not it.  Since that one is not considered one of the top ones, it doesn't prove anything like guilt or "malice".  All it does is give a little jazz to people who want her to be seen as guilty but don't themselves really know what they're talking about.

In other words, to all our friends here who reject the possibility of her not being guilty, people like me who defend her are not claiming that she *is* innocent of any crime, only raising counterpoints to what are often pitifully and plainly prejudiced attempts to insist that she *is* guilty of crimes both known and others for which no evidence has even been suggested.  Cherry epitomizes one leg of that platform by claiming that a video of Obama that surfaces 8 years after it was shot is somehow a strong indicator that damning information about Clinton will be revealed when she leaves office.  That's all the proof he needs; you don't need any, since you have a personal opinion for which you have said you don't even need that much evidence.

[cherrypoptart]

So what was the point of her using a private server then?

Edited to add: I will just come right out and say it. Her use of a private server was illegal in and of itself. In that sense it's already proof that she was breaking the law.

[Fenring]

That's all the proof he needs; you don't need any, since you have a personal opinion for which you have said you don't even need that much evidence.

Sigh. I took a chance initiating replies to you again, and I regret it. I'll revert to my previous policy, then.

[cherrypoptart]

The video of Obama was meant to prove that the press will hype up anything negative about a Republican but will downplay or ignore negative things about Democrats. I stand by my assertion that if there was a video of Bush, Romney, McCain, Trump, or Palin doing what Obama was caught on camera doing (and good luck to Sarah in trying to pull that off) it would have received much more attention including bits on the late night comedy shows and SNL as well. It's hard to take seriously the assertion that it would have been ignored like this if a Republican had done it. Every bit of evidence and simple observation contradicts that idea.

[Greg Davidson]

anyone in her position ought to have known that highly sensitive diplomatic information would obviously be classified

Perhaps I  was unclear.  If someone writes somewhere in an email (or an attachment to an email) a reference to the Karachi Times reporting on an armed drone strike in a specific Pakistanti village, that information could be considered classified if it is on the computer of an American with security clearance. Even though the information is not "highly sensitive diplomatic information", it's a reference to specific ionfromation from a public news article. 

[Greg Davidson]

cherry,

After the 11 hour Benghazi hearing, why should anyone believe that Trey Gowdy has any credibility?

[cherrypoptart]

After Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video that none of the attackers even knew about and after she said that knowing full well it was a lie how can anyone believe her either?

[D.W.]

Thanks for posting about BleachBit.  At least one mystery solved about WTF Trump was talking about re: the emails.

[D.W.]

So what was the point of her using a private server then?

Edited to add: I will just come right out and say it. Her use of a private server was illegal in and of itself. In that sense it's already proof that she was breaking the law.

I think it was firmly in the gray area, not illegal.  What was the point?  To circumvent the law. (different from breaking it)

[NobleHunter]

After Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video that none of the attackers even knew about and after she said that knowing full well it was a lie how can anyone believe her either?

You mean none of the attackers who used the video to cause a riot to cover their attack? Those attackers?

[AI Wessex]

That's all the proof he needs; you don't need any, since you have a personal opinion for which you have said you don't even need that much evidence.

Sigh. I took a chance initiating replies to you again, and I regret it. I'll revert to my previous policy, then.

Better luck next time, but be more clear about what you mean when you say it instead of giving me and others room to interpret and you having to clarify later.

[cherrypoptart]

So if that video hadn't been made the attack never would have happened?

A brown spotted sand flea jumping up and down on a dune in the middle of the desert could pass gas into the hot Arabian wind and that would be all the provocation Islamists ever need to conduct all the attacks they ever had and ever will. 

[NobleHunter]

So if that video hadn't been made the attack never would have happened?

I get the impression that the attack was planned before the news about the video broke. It was just a useful opportunity.

[AI Wessex]

So if that video hadn't been made the attack never would have happened?

A brown spotted sand flea jumping up and down on a dune in the middle of the desert could pass gas into the hot Arabian wind and that would be all the provocation Islamists ever need to conduct all the attacks they ever had and ever will.

Sounds to me like you're saying that if they knew about the video it would have pushed them so far over the edge that they couldn't possibly resist launching an attack like that.  For once I might be willing to agree with you.

[rightleft22]

Her use of a private server was illegal in and of itself.

Something I still don’t understand.
Isn’t this a failure of the government/Whitehouse IT Security team or whatever is responsible for such things?

I ask this because I could see myself in a similar situation asking my IT guys to setup something so I could more easily work from home and expecting them to tell me is such a thing was legal or not.   I would also expect IT Security to know if and when I had setup anything illegal and shut it down before any emails or whatever were sent.

If Hillary was told such a thing was illegal and used her power to intimidate IT to set it up we have a problem otherwise its at best its poor judgment and a failure of government/whitehouse IT

Either way someone in IT should be fired!

[Fenring]

If Hillary was told such a thing was illegal and used her power to intimidate IT to set it up we have a problem otherwise its at best its poor judgment and a failure of government/whitehouse IT

She was advised repeatedly not to do it, by government people and by her own people, but internal emails suggest she insisted against their protests. They were scrambling to make it happen and to organize everything, and still there were major hiccups that needed addressing (such as all her emails being blocked initially by people with .gov addresses, and other such issues). I've never seen a record that she was told it was illegal, but if you think about that kind of statement it would basically be someone threatening her (e.g. "What are you doing is illegal, so stop) and there is no chance almost anyone would have taken that stance with her even if they privately thought it was a problem.

More to the point, I don't think that much internal scrutiny is really possible in some ways. It's not like there's a Star Trek security force monitoring all communications and can catch something off-book when it's happening. Things fall through the cracks in real life, happen and go unnoticed, or else are noticed but it would be more trouble than it's worth to confront it. I can't say how Hillary convinced them to go along with it, or really how much resistance she met with, but it's not reasonable to expect white house IT to oppose her wishes in the matter meaningfully. She was WAY above them all.

[D.W.]

Far more likely is the law has not kept up with technology.  Guidelines and protocols are not (always/ever?) legally binding.  She knows this, saw a loophole, and exploited it.

I've heard amazingly little (read nothing) about lawmakers trying to enact law that would make it crystal clear this is NOT legal and is a cyber-security threat we cannot tolerate at this level of our government.

Why not?  Is this just a cudgel to beat her with but a loophole others want to keep in place in the event it will ever benefit them in the future?

[Fenring]

D.W., you may be right about the security issue not being legally clear. But the FOIA issue certainly is legally binding. On the security issue she may have found a loophole, but with FOIA she blatantly ignored it and then handed over what she felt like giving them.

[D.W.]

D.W., you may be right about the security issue not being legally clear. But the FOIA issue certainly is legally binding. On the security issue she may have found a loophole, but with FOIA she blatantly ignored it and then handed over what she felt like giving them.

Indeed, and it is my suspicion/assertion that this server existed explicitly/exclusively for that purpose. 
But where is the proof?  Oh, right, this system is perfect for making sure we can't get any...  Funny how that worked out. 

[Wayward Son]

Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free? 

(And please don't say it was because Hillary included classified information in her e-mails and Colin didn't.  Because it took a long investigation, reviewing thousands of e-mails, before they found those handful of e-mails that had classified information in them.  I'm sure that if someone looked at all of General Powell's e-mails, they would find that some accidently contained classified information, too.  With the volume of correspondence a Secretary of State handles, and the sometimes nebulous nature of what is considered "classified," it would be far more surprising if he didn't slip up a few times.)

Oh, yes, and why, if deleting a few thousand e-mails is so obviously an attempt to hide damning information, and anyone (like Hillary) should be thrown in jail for doing so, no one is clamoring for someone to be prosecuted for deleting somewhere between 2 million and 22 million e-mails that Congress requested from the Bush Administration and were supposedly deleted?

This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so. 

[cherrypoptart]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-colin-powells-emails-are-not-like-hillarys/article/2000949

"First, "tens of thousands of emails…passed through the private server Clinton used while in office." Powell did not have a private server for his State Department emails.

It is simply not reasonable to compare a small number of now classified emails – and by small, again, we mean two -- forwarded to Powell's private email account with Clinton's decision to circumvent the use of a government server entirely.

Second, Clinton's predecessors have had far, far fewer emails retroactively classified than Clinton.

The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information."

[AI Wessex]

Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free?

It's pretty obvious.  He's a Republican and his name is not Clinton.

Second, Clinton's predecessors have had far, far fewer emails retroactively classified than Clinton.

You can't find what you won't look for.

[Seriati]

Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free? 

If this was a serious question, rather than attempt to protect Hillary, you may have started by looking at their dates of service and the level of technology in the State Department at the time each was in office, which alone answers why Colin Powell's use of private email - on occasion - is something completely different than diverting all government communications to a private server.  Or one could look at the specific changes in IT policy that were put in place over time that make it clear that Clinton was operating in a different environment.

Or one could honestly ask, if any other government employee could have diverted their entire work related email load through a personal server?  And if they could have gotten away with it.

This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so. 

They sound hollow, because they cause you cognitive dissonance.  That's the only reason.

[D.W.]

Just because we WANT behavior to be illegal, does not make it so.  It's frustrating to people on both sides of the aisle when people abuse the system to do wrong.  That doesn't mean we can lock them up.

[Fenring]

Oh, yes, and why, if deleting a few thousand e-mails is so obviously an attempt to hide damning information, and anyone (like Hillary) should be thrown in jail for doing so, no one is clamoring for someone to be prosecuted for deleting somewhere between 2 million and 22 million e-mails that Congress requested from the Bush Administration and were supposedly deleted?

While some people may have a double standard, your mistake is in thinking that only a double standard can explain why someone might think what some of us think. Did you...I dunno...read my thread on the Bush admin? It's funny you should forget about that when it comes to this issue and try to reduce the Hillary question to one of merely taking partisan sides.

The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

This is an issue that partisan defenders of Hillary don't want to acknowledge. It's not just about whether she is 'guilty' of having sent and/or received classified emails. We could even write that off as an accident, or as retroactive, and forget about it. The far more important issue as I see it is that these were stored on a machine in the hands of civilians. We can even forget about cyber-security for the purposes of this particular issue. I don't really understand how there can be a defence for handing over potentially sensitive material to Platt. Retroactive or not, it's about whether data on that server ought to have been protected from those without clearance. There was stuff on there ranging from intel on the ground to insider diplomatic information about the impending invasion of Libya. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Platt IT people had no business being anywhere near that stuff.

[D.W.]

Any other candidate (and no reason this one couldn't try) would be taking Hillary to task for cyber-security.  Or at least suggesting she better hire some damn good consultants as she obviously hasn't a clue of the threats that exist out there.  Oh, and may want to hire some with clearance...

Instead we get, "maybe the Russians can hack her email next?" 

WW3 may indeed go down soon.  It will be cyber-war, and it's not looking good for our team...

[rightleft22]

“I don't think that much internal scrutiny is really possible”

That would very much a surprise and concern to me.

I work in a company that allows people to work from home and our IT would know.
Add to that the reality that you can’t interact with others on a computer without analytics being sent every which way.

If Hillary was able to bully IT and personal advisers that may not be illegal but it is a problem.
That said imagine what an arguably proven bully like Trump who can only work with those that agree with him might try to get away with.

[Fenring]

I work in a company that allows people to work from home and our IT would know.
Add to that the reality that you can’t interact with others on a computer without analytics being sent every which way.

My instinct wouldn't be to assume that the government (even at the highest levels) operates as effectively as a well-run private business. That being said I don't really know what they keep track of at State, so I can only guess at exactly what Hillary had to do (or not do) for to his to pass.

[rightleft22]

I recall reading about the IT security around the US president and it was very tight so assumed such security practices were setup and monitored for all connected to the Whitehouse.   But I have often been proven to be wrong and an ass.

[NobleHunter]

I recall reading about the IT security around the US president and it was very tight so assumed such security practices were setup and monitored for all connected to the Whitehouse.   But I have often been proven to be wrong and an ass.

That was a reasonable assumption. But since when has reasonable matter to bureaucracy?

[Fenring]

I recall reading about the IT security around the US president and it was very tight so assumed such security practices were setup and monitored for all connected to the Whitehouse.   But I have often been proven to be wrong and an ass.

Though it be not written down, yet forget not that he is an ass.
-W. Shakespeare

[AI Wessex]

The far more important issue as I see it is that these were stored on a machine in the hands of civilians. We can even forget about cyber-security for the purposes of this particular issue. I don't really understand how there can be a defence for handing over potentially sensitive material to Platt. Retroactive or not, it's about whether data on that server ought to have been protected from those without clearance. There was stuff on there ranging from intel on the ground to insider diplomatic information about the impending invasion of Libya. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Platt IT people had no business being anywhere near that stuff.

It was an inexcusable mistake and showed poor judgment.  What should be the consequences?

[Fenring]

It was an inexcusable mistake and showed poor judgment.  What should be the consequences?

One answer that's been mentioned is that the person should have their security clearance revoked. That's not even a criminal charge but rather a precaution against that person being so trusted again. It would be rather bizarre, though, to be President and not have a security clearance 

In principle having that on you would make you ineligible to be President, from what I've read, but I haven't confirmed whether that's really true. Obviously in Hillary's case they're not going to strip her clearance, which means that in practice there's nothing that can be done about it once the criminal matter has been dropped.

[AI Wessex]

In that case, do you agree that the matter should be dropped here and in the media as well?

[Fenring]

In that case, do you agree that the matter should be dropped here and in the media as well?

It may not be a reason to pursue her legally, but I think it's still a fine reason not to vote for her.

[AI Wessex]

In that case, do you agree that the matter should be dropped here and in the media as well?

It may not be a reason to pursue her legally, but I think it's still a fine reason not to vote for her.

Perhaps, but what then are you voting for?

[Fenring]

It may not be a reason to pursue her legally, but I think it's still a fine reason not to vote for her.

Perhaps, but what then are you voting for?

Personally I don't vote for candidates I don't believe in. If that means I don't vote then fine. I don't subscribe to the theory of tactical voting; I think it's a menace. The two party system is an illusion held up in part by this kind of false dilemma. "You can't vote for that person, you're wasting your vote!" or "You need to stop X from winning!" No I don't.

ETA - Actually I'll amend that statement. There is one reason I could think of to vote tactically - to save lives. For instance, if Jeb had been the GOP candidate I'd have been convinced that voting for anyone else would prevent deaths. For that purpose I would subdue my principle. I see no compelling evidence that nominating Trump in this election would directly cause deaths, therefore that kind of reasoning does not apply here in my opinion.

[AI Wessex]

It's not an illusion that either Trump or Clinton will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017.