Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)

[Fenring]

Apparently this investigation is far from over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-said-to-include-material-exceeding-top-secret.html?_r=0

In case her campaign suddenly keels over due to a criminal charge, at least Bernie has finally picked up enough steam that I'm pretty confident he can carry on as the Democrat candidate. My original fear of Hillary getting knocked out and handing away the Presidency to Bush is, thankfully, no longer a real concern. Although some might prefer to shift that concern to handing to Presidency to Trump or Cruz (still not as bad as Bush imo).

[AI Wessex]

Did you read the whole article?

The letter to Congress, from I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the nation’s intelligence agencies, provides no specifics about the classified material. It is not clear from the letter whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails, nor how many contained the classified information.
...
The letter was sent to the Republican chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees. It was not made public.

“This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received,” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said.

“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”

Note that nothing in the article (or the letter that the NYT quotes but that "was not made public") says she did anything wrong.  More fodder for the scandal machine, it appears.

[Fenring]

This story was picked up by many MSM sources, including the NYT, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and of course FOX. As always with a story like this, we'll have to wait and see whether or not it amounts to anything. Maybe Brian Fallon's argument is valid, maybe not, but I find it amusing that a spokesperson for Hillary's campaign can be considered a good source on whether or not Hillary did anything wrong.

[AI Wessex]

Note that I'm not saying she did nothing wrong.  I am saying, however, that every sensational bit of news has so far been blown far out of proportion.  As the Times says, it isn't known whether the emails were classified when they showed up on her server or if they were whether she knew that, or who sent them.  But, let's talk about it anyway and think about how it could derail her candidacy.  If it turns out to be as much nothing as all the other delicious newsy things that coulda, woulda, shoulda or definitely were gonna destroy her, nobody will say they overstated it or were wrong.  Has anyone who accused Obama of the "birther" disqualification ever apologized for making the claim?  Why aren't those same people screaming about Cruz?  Seems that they are never right, but never wrong.

[Fenring]

Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong, all that remains is to determine whether that wrongdoing was a merely technical infraction or whether it is more serious than that. The only accusation being levied at the moment is the one where you think I'm sensationalizing this. My original thread post was about whether Hillary is too big a risk for the DNC to put all their eggs in her basket. Fortunately for them Bernie is a viable alternative who's very popular, and so the problem from my perspective is significantly lessened compared to before; that problem being, the Democrats risked handing away the Presidency to the GOP.

Make no mistake, though: if it ends up being Hillary vs Trump he will not hesitate even slightly to bring up every dark thing or even alleged dark thing in her past, and this will be one of them. It won't matter if he's right. All that will matter is if people believe it and vote for him. By contrast there's not much negative one can legitimately say about Bernie other than to confront his policies themselves. I'm sure Trump could make hay out of that as well but at least it would remain an ideological attack rather than a personal one.

[AI Wessex]

Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong

What do you mean by "wrong"?  And why do you assume she "did" it?  Legally, she was not barred from having the emails on a private server, and it's not proven that she knowingly sent or received classified materials.

I hope that it doesn't turn out to be Trump vs Clinton, but OTOH, I hope the Republicans decide to forfeit the election due to an inability to field a team.  But I will say that it doesn't have to be hopeless for them. I would be ok if the convention settles on Alan Simpson. I would enjoy watching him debate Hillary, and if he somehow beat her in the election, watching his fireside chats would be worth the price of admission.

[Pete at Home]

"Has anyone who accused Obama of the "birther" disqualification ever apologized for making the claim?  Why aren't those same people screaming about Cruz? "

Because Cruz' middle name isn't the same name as some infamous psychopath that we warred with.  If his name was Pancho Villa Cruz, you can bet that there would be bitter noises.

BTW, what is the hypocrisy difference between someone who made a birther issue with Obama but not with Cruz, versus someone that raises the birthed issue with Cruz while crying that it was done with Obama?



Technical disqualifications are going to be looked at in an adversarial manner.  That's just how these things work.  If Cruz was as popular as Obama, there would be democrats looking for birthed arguments.  That's just how it goes.

[Wayward Son]

If Cruz was as popular as Obama, there would be democrats looking for birthed arguments.

There might be some grumbling on the fringes, but all-in-all, no, democrats wouldn't be using a birther argument.  Not to the extent that Republicans have, where you have Congressmen indicating that "there might be something to it." 

Remember that John McCain was born in a U.S. Territory, but was never questioned about his right to be President.

Perhaps you could name an argument that lasted nearly as long as the birther argument, which had so many high-ranking Democrats talking about it, which had Democrats demanding documentation from the President and then declaring it a forgery after it was released?  I can't think of one.  I think you'll be hard pressed to come up with one, too.

No, this argument is pretty much unprecedented in its scope, its continuation in spite of evidence, and its fervor.  While Democrats may look for such an argument, I doubt they'd settle on such a flimsy one.

[Greg Davidson]

Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong...

all that remains is to figure out what that thing is and then convict her.

I really am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, I really have not made my mind up about which Democrat to support, but the track record on Hillary accusations remains abysmal.  How many Benghazi accusations turned to vapor when even just in the limited circumstances of a Congressional Hearing?  It was years worth.

We've had a lot of noise made about emails (which, by the way, were a product of the Benghazi investigation just as Monica Lewinsky was somehow related to the Whitewater land deals that occurred in the 1970's), but there is still no evidence of any violation of any law by Hillary Clinton.  And so far I have yet to hear anything that could not be a case of someone sending Hillary an email after having inadvertantly combined pieces of unclassified information in a way that made the resulting product classified.  If she is the recipient, there is zero legal issue for her. And if it is that case of something being classified by a combination of pieces of unclassified information, there would be no clear cut way to tell that the email was classified (ie; no "Top Secret!" stamp, just two or more pieces of information burried in a document or attachment that could be hundreds of pages long.

I am not sure that Clinton did not do wrong, but the ~25 year track track record indicates a high likelihood that this scandal is manufactured

[Pete at Home]

Did you watch the debates, Greg?  I certainly give Hillary that she has the presidential dignity and credentials.  But I am altogether not comfortable with her slick dishonest ... The way she repeatedly falsely accused Sanders of being anti Obama, anti Obama care when Sanders actually wrote big chunks of the ACA.  It seemed sociopathic.  Picking this argument with Sanders, as if Obama was God and Sanders was some sort of blasphemer.

BTW, I need to correct my statements to you of 3 weeks ago re my interfacing with the ACA.  I was just talking with the wrong people. Misdirection from the local family services folks.  The ACA rep today was very helpful and it looks like I'm going to get health care!  So surprise, it did work for me. Go Obama.

[Greg Davidson]

Yes, I believe that Hillary was intending to mislead in her characterization of Sanders. But if we were to characterize that as some form of disqualifying dishonesty, then I believe that virtually every other candidate running for President this year would be disqualified.  And if you call that kind of behavior sociopathic, you will run out of words to describe dishonesty that is far more egregious by many of the candidates.

One of the things I like about Sanders is his hesitancy (so far) to play the usual political games.  But I am not sure how well that would last in a longer campaign.

[Fenring]

The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong. It's not even contestable, since in order to even comply with the FOIA she had to delete whatever she wished first before complying so as not to end up revealing private emails not related to her job. This is both pathetically stupid, as well as irresponsible. Deleting all those emails before complying (which she was permitted to do, after a fashion) was so suspicious that even if she truly did nothing wrong it's her own fault that some will forevermore be concerned about what she deleted.

But as I've said this is the only thing we know for sure she did wrong. It remains to be seen whether anything else will ensue. A low-level bureaucrat would no doubt be disciplined for having done a similar thing, but I don't particularly care to see anything happen to her just on this account. The rest will be revealed by the ongoing FBI investigation.

[AI Wessex]

The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong.

You still haven't defined "wrong".  It was legal, but foolish.  Is that the "wrong" thing?

[Fenring]

The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong.

You still haven't defined "wrong".  It was legal, but foolish.  Is that the "wrong" thing?

It's not legal if you are unable to comply with a FOIA request. Technically she was able but given what compliance would have meant she was effectively unable since she had to delete whatever she wanted first in order to give them what was left. If you don't see anything wrong with that then I guess transparency and trustworthiness  aren't very high on your list of priorities for would-be leaders.

[AI Wessex]

OK, now I understand what you mean.

[Pete at Home]

The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong.

You still haven't defined "wrong".  It was legal, but foolish.  Is that the "wrong" thing?

Now THAT is more like splitting hairs over the definition of "is" that anything I have seen on Ornery.

[Pete at Home]

Greg, I agree that her misrepresentation was small as far as politics goes.  I was troubled by her body language as she played obtuse to dupe the audience into thinking that Sanders opposed a bill that he had in fact crafted since inception.  Her body language suggests smug satisfaction. She takes pleasure in the lie.  It's a look I have seen on some fellow law students and attorneys, and I reflexively think of it as sociopathy.

You have a point, so I will be more precise.  She seems to have been coached by an attorney who was disbarred for perjury, and the smug look on her face could be interpreted as an expectation that he would be proud of her at that moment for doubling down shamelessly on a false accusation.

[Seriati]

Note that I'm not saying she did nothing wrong.  I am saying, however, that every sensational bit of news has so far been blown far out of proportion.  As the Times says, it isn't known whether the emails were classified when they showed up on her server or if they were whether she knew that, or who sent them.

Um what?  It is known that the emails were classified when they showed up on her server, that they were classified before they got to her server and that some where classified when they left her server.  It is known that the contents of her server were held in at least 3 unsecure locations in violation of federal law.  What news are you actually reading?

But, let's talk about it anyway and think about how it could derail her candidacy.  If it turns out to be as much nothing as all the other delicious newsy things that coulda, woulda, shoulda or definitely were gonna destroy her, nobody will say they overstated it or were wrong.  Has anyone who accused Obama of the "birther" disqualification ever apologized for making the claim?  Why aren't those same people screaming about Cruz?  Seems that they are never right, but never wrong.

People aren't "screaming" at Cruz because there isn't any mystery or secrecy.  Same with John McCain.  The debate with Cruz is a matter of law, for which there is no clear answer.  The debate with President Obama wasn't a question of law, either he was absolutely eligible to be President or was not, it was a question of fact - where he was borne - and his deliberate choice to incite the debate by being secretive.

To put it simply, what do you think Cruz is hiding or refusing to share to clarify this question?  What piece of evidence is there that could in any way alter the legal circumstances beyond what he's already admitted - ie Canadian birth?  It drives me nuts when people find one matching factor that isn't relevant to the substance and then declare two dissimilar situations the same.

[Seriati]

Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong...

all that remains is to figure out what that thing is and then convict her.

It's not a mystery what she did.  I'm surprised we haven't seen an indictment yet.  Not serving one, given the federal government's direct history in this area, would be a direct indication that some people are above the laws that apply to others.

I really am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, I really have not made my mind up about which Democrat to support, but the track record on Hillary accusations remains abysmal.  How many Benghazi accusations turned to vapor when even just in the limited circumstances of a Congressional Hearing?  It was years worth.

I don't know, how many "turned to vapor"?  I see from the review of the Benghazi thread I did, that in fact the core claim - ie that the administration knew it was terrorists and not a video - has not only not turned to vapor, but been conclusively proven from Secretary Clinton's own emails.  I see that the claim that there were no forces available that could have reached the site has also been disproven.  What I really see though is that Democrats will never hold one of their own accountable when it risks hurting the party.

And so far I have yet to hear anything that could not be a case of someone sending Hillary an email after having inadvertantly combined pieces of unclassified information in a way that made the resulting product classified.  If she is the recipient, there is zero legal issue for her.

Based on what?  Having created the work around system - for her own personal benefit, or have you forgotten that not one of you has yet answered the challenge to put forward a legitimate rationale for the private server - any receipt of classified information in violation of the law is directly on her.  Even if she hadn't deliberately created a situation that caused breach of security, she was still aware of the laws on what do when you receive classified information through an unsecured means.

I am not sure that Clinton did not do wrong, but the ~25 year track track record indicates a high likelihood that this scandal is manufactured

I said the other day that to support Clinton you either had to not care that she tells self serving lies or believe that everyone does and the exceptional part is that she is being attacked for it.  I should have added that you could also, contrary to all evidence, just believe that what she says is true.  Sigh.

[NobleHunter]

People aren't "screaming" at Cruz because there isn't any mystery or secrecy.  Same with John McCain.  The debate with Cruz is a matter of law, for which there is no clear answer.  The debate with President Obama wasn't a question of law, either he was absolutely eligible to be President or was not, it was a question of fact - where he was borne - and his deliberate choice to incite the debate by being secretive.

He wasn't secretive. The question of fact was resolved long before he became President. He just let his detractors spool out the rope and tie the knot and then them hang themselves. He fulfilled the legal requirements and was under no obligation to provide more information just to satisfy a pack of racists and conspiracy theorists.

If there'd been any legitimate question of Obama's birthplace, do you really think Clinton would have passed up the opportunity? I don't see how you can maintain there was uncertainty about where Obama was born in the same thread where you argue that Clinton is a self-serving liar. Why wouldn't she have taken the end run around Obama's popularity?

[AI Wessex]

Um what?  It is known that the emails were classified when they showed up on her server, that they were classified before they got to her server and that some where classified when they left her server.  It is known that the contents of her server were held in at least 3 unsecure locations in violation of federal law.  What news are you actually reading?

What?  I appreciate your entirely non-partisan outrage over everything Clinton, but it is *not* known the emails were classified when the showed up on her server, or that she broke the law by receiving them.  Show me something other than the right wing echo chamber assertion that she broke any law.  Here's an NPR analysis about the situation.

People aren't "screaming" at Cruz because there isn't any mystery or secrecy.  Same with John McCain.  The debate with Cruz is a matter of law, for which there is no clear answer.  The debate with President Obama wasn't a question of law, either he was absolutely eligible to be President or was not, it was a question of fact - where he was borne - and his deliberate choice to incite the debate by being secretive.

I hate to borrow this word from Pete, but this is truly an obtuse response.  *If* Obama was born in Kenya or on Mars, he would be no more or less eligible to be President than Cruz.  I can't fathom how you separate those two things and claim Cruz born in Canada to a mother who was a US citizen is any different from Obama being born to a mother who was a US citizen on the planet Phlogiston.

[Fenring]

If there'd been any legitimate question of Obama's birthplace, do you really think Clinton would have passed up the opportunity? I don't see how you can maintain there was uncertainty about where Obama was born in the same thread where you argue that Clinton is a self-serving liar. Why wouldn't she have taken the end run around Obama's popularity?

To be fair even if she thought there was some doubt it might have been a strategic error to make an issue out of that. First of all if it proved to be incorrect it could make her look stupid and hurt her campaign, therefore making it a safer bet to stay away from that. Second of all, the DNC might just as soon have instructed their candidates to ignore that topic since they wouldn't want to be seen as having infighting within the party.

[Seriati]

He wasn't secretive. The question of fact was resolved long before he became President. He just let his detractors spool out the rope and tie the knot and then them hang themselves. He fulfilled the legal requirements and was under no obligation to provide more information just to satisfy a pack of racists and conspiracy theorists.

I agree with your conclusion about fulfilling the legal obligation, I don't agree that he wasn't deliberately secretive.

If there'd been any legitimate question of Obama's birthplace, do you really think Clinton would have passed up the opportunity?

To attack him directly?  Yes.  Absolutely she would have.  She'd have to have been guaranteed a nomination to risk alienating core Democratic voters (who she'd need on her next run if she lost) in such a way.  Think about the picture if she'd attacked the first African American candidate with a real chance at becoming President by asserting he was born in Africa and ineligible.

[Seriati]

Um what?  It is known that the emails were classified when they showed up on her server, that they were classified before they got to her server and that some where classified when they left her server.  It is known that the contents of her server were held in at least 3 unsecure locations in violation of federal law.  What news are you actually reading?

What?  I appreciate your entirely non-partisan outrage over everything Clinton, but it is *not* known the emails were classified when the showed up on her server, or that she broke the law by receiving them.  Show me something other than the right wing echo chamber assertion that she broke any law.  Here's an NPR analysis about the situation.

You want to explain why you are citing to an "analysis" that is over a year old, that still asserts that emails from Clinton's wiped server may be unrecoverable?

If that's what you are basing your conclusion that she didn't violate the law or that she didn't receive or send classified emails you may want to read a more recent report.  We're currently closing in on 2000 emails of various states of classified that have been identified as having been on the server, the State Department has already lost at least one challenge where it tried to claim emails were retroactively classified.  There's really no excuse to have the opinion you seem to have at this point.

[NobleHunter]

I don't have to imagine it, the GOP provided examples in spades.

I suppose the question is better, if was a legitimate question wouldn't Clinton have been able not only to make the charge but also make it stick? The race was close enough she just need a little more momentum or kill a little more of his and she could have gotten it. And that year, the election was essentially decided by the Democratic primary. After Bush, the GOP wasn't going to win unless both Dems imploded.

[Seriati]

I suppose the question is better, if was a legitimate question wouldn't Clinton have been able not only to make the charge but also make it stick? The race was close enough she just need a little more momentum or kill a little more of his and she could have gotten it.

But that goes to a longstanding complaint I have about the Democrat's they don't care about the means, only the ends.  There is no way to carry a "technically illegal" argument to the Democratic base in a way that will resonate because they simply don't care if its illegal if its a good thing.  With the Republican's something like that could work - exhibit A how the attack is working with Cruz.  And if you think its bad in the primary, watch what happens if he gets in the general election, I can guaranty one or more Democratic attorney generals will try to use the courts to force his disqualification.

And that year, the election was essentially decided by the Democratic primary. After Bush, the GOP wasn't going to win unless both Dems imploded.

Of course, dare to you re-elect George Bush candidate John Kerry didn't work out so well for the Democrats on nearly the same circumstances.  No matter how obvious it is, a party can always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm mean look at the Democrats this year, they are more than likely going to nominate either a candidate who faces a serious risk of being indicted or a candidate who will literally be a socialist.  Either one of those situations could cause a complete fail in the general election.  I've been saying it for months, is there seriously no one better they can run?

[AI Wessex]

You want to explain why you are citing to an "analysis" that is over a year old, that still asserts that emails from Clinton's wiped server may be unrecoverable?

No, it's not.  The NPR article is from last April and was updated last month.  Give me your trusted sources that validate your analysis about the 2,000 emails.  When you say "we're closing in", I believe that you are identifying with people who are praying that their wishes will be gratified, not with people who simply want an objective answer, which I and most less partisan observers do.  If she broke the law, she pays the consequences, but if she didn't, you and the rest of the GOP should just find another bone to gnaw on.  Maybe Obama is her love child or she wasn't naturally born.  Remember that Macbeth was killed by someone not of woman born.  If it was a C-section...what does the Constitution say about that?

[NobleHunter]

Of course, dare to you re-elect George Bush candidate John Kerry didn't work out so well for the Democrats on nearly the same circumstances.  No matter how obvious it is, a party can always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It's probably 20/20 hindsight given the economy and McCain's campaign. It feels like it was inevitable but I'm not sure when it would have started to appear so.

I expect the question of legal charges will be settled by the time the primary is decided. At least for the issues currently under consideration.

[Seriati]

You want to explain why you are citing to an "analysis" that is over a year old, that still asserts that emails from Clinton's wiped server may be unrecoverable?

No, it's not.  The NPR article is from last April and was updated last month.  Give me your trusted sources that validate your analysis about the 2,000 emails.

Updated, and yet didn't correct information that is generally known to be wrong (ie that the deleted messages have been recovered).  Not clear what the updating was.  So even though you can go, literally, to every major news organization on the planet and do a search for classified emails and get a result that demonstrates somewhere between 1 and 2 thousand emails you can't find it?

Since you like NPR, here's another out of date link (still predates the server recovery) that indicates over 100 emails with classified information in them.  http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/11/439456567/fact-check-hillary-clintons-email-defense-is-a-mixed-bag

Here's another one, which refers to over 1200 emails that have been "retroactively" upgraded to classified.  Just a note, there is no indication that any "retroactive" upgrading occured, that seems to be NPR's way to continue to carry water for the Clinton campaign.  I can see why you're so confused if you're using NPR as your sole news source, they clearly have a horse in this debate.  http://www.npr.org/2015/12/31/461638795/hillary-clinton-emails-i-only-know-what-i-hear-on-npr-and-car-ride-flowcharts

In any event, like I said, you can literally go to any major news source on the planet and find the evidence.  And by the way I said approaching 2000, not 2000.  Is there some reason you are always unwilling to acknowledge facts and make an argument?

If she broke the law, she pays the consequences, but if she didn't, you and the rest of the GOP should just find another bone to gnaw on.  Maybe Obama is her love child or she wasn't naturally born.  Remember that Macbeth was killed by someone not of woman born.  If it was a C-section...what does the Constitution say about that?

She broke the law.  I have no doubt though that you don't care about that, notwithstanding your claim.

[AI Wessex]

That was quite a string of deflections and backtracking.  So, you kind of admit the article is in fact current, but dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your story line.  You also can't come up with a source for your repeated claim of "approaching 2,000" classified emails, but you say that retroactively classifying 1,200 emails (actually, more like 1,250 but still far less than "approaching 2,000") doesn't count as a defense against GOP claims of illegal acts.  You finish with a flourish by saying that I just plain refuse to admit that she broke the law.  But all you've done is expose that you have nothing concrete to back that up.  It's clear that what she did was unwise and she should be (and has been) severely criticized for it, but that falls far short of proof that she broke the law.

[Seriati]

That was quite a string of deflections and backtracking.  So, you kind of admit the article is in fact current, but dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your story line.

No.  I flatly reject it as current.  You're literally arguing in bad faith.

You also can't come up with a source for your repeated claim of "approaching 2,000" classified emails, but you say that retroactively classifying 1,200 emails (actually, more like 1,250 but still far less than "approaching 2,000") doesn't count as a defense against GOP claims of illegal acts.  You finish with a flourish by saying that I just plain refuse to admit that she broke the law.  But all you've done is expose that you have nothing concrete to back that up.  It's clear that what she did was unwise and she should be (and has been) severely criticized for it, but that falls far short of proof that she broke the law.

So let me get this straight.  You are presented with indisputable proof that your link includes out of date information, provided with links to your preferred news provider, and are still dishonest enough to continue to assert your original thesis as if it were still completely valid?  Could you be more discredited?

[Lloyd Perna]

Al argues that Seriati's sources are invalid because they are biased and then produces a biased source of his own.

Here Al.  I spent 30 seconds and found an article from CBS.  Happy now?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/

[AI Wessex]

Did you miss this in that article?

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story "nothing new."

"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."

Nothing new, but definitely delicious.

[Lloyd Perna]

She didn't have to write the emails to be breaking the law.

[D.W.]

I've blown off this issue ages ago but let me see if I've got the logic right Lloyd.

If someone emails you top secret documents that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using the official government email servers, No harm no foul?  Like forgetting to use the official office stationary when sending out a cover letter on a business proposal?

If someone emails you a top secret document that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using a personal email server (something otherwise legal), you should be burned at the stake?  Like if someone emailed and got you to open child pornography you should then be locked for receiving them?

Is that a grossly simplified version of the thinking?

[Pete at Home]

If someone emails you a top secret document that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using a personal email server (something otherwise legal), you should be burned at the stake?

Operating from limited information, I would say that if you are Secretary of Defense in such a situation, that standards of competence would require you to say something to or about the person who is sending you docs in an insecure manner.  Not to continue or allow the insecure info transfer.  It's like you are the chief surgeon in an operation where some of the nurses are chain smoking, taking unauthorized cell phone pics of the unconscious patient and putting them on facebook.  As the person in charge, you may be criminally negligent for failure to protect the patient.


Just responding to your question based on info mostly drawn from the discussion here, and adding my own understanding of criminal negligence. Not sure what the actual crime charges are, and don't have a bone in this fight. I hope she hasn't been criminally negligent, since she obviously has the skills to make a spectacular diplomat. I would suggest Ambassador th Lybia.

[AI Wessex]

No.  I flatly reject it as current.  You're literally arguing in bad faith.

Do you disagree that the article was originally posted 9 months ago and updated 1 month ago?  If you accept those dates, which are more recent than the article being over a year old, what do you mean by "current"?

[D.W.]

I'd agree with you Pete.   The accusations seem to avoid that type of low hanging fruit.  Because of this,  I infer / assume she likely did...  That,  or the line on what is top secret / classified is not always obvious.   So much so that someone is sending it and she is reading it and it's obvious to neither.

Now because this may be the case,  the whole scenario shouldn't fall into a gray zone.  It was a DUMB way to... do whatever shady or misguided efficiency scheme she had in mind.

[Pete at Home]

I'd agree with you Pete.   The accusations seem to avoid that type of low hanging fruit.  Because of this,  I infer / assume she likely did...  That,  or the line on what is top secret / classified is not always obvious.   So much so that someone is sending it and she is reading it and it's obvious to neither.

Now because this may be the case,  the whole scenario shouldn't fall into a gray zone.  It was a DUMB way to... do whatever shady or misguided efficiency scheme she had in mind.

Nicely said. That "low-hanging fruit" line makes you sound like you've had a legal education. 

I wonder how many of the Republican candidates have a legal education?  Perhaps the reason they don't want to go after her for "negligence" is Mrs Clinton seems extremely shrewd, bright, and recognizing that her crime, if any, was error, might humanize her.  But I think they could spin it as an error born of hubris, which is probably accurate, and believable given her husband's history. 

If it is true that Rice and Powell also kept private servers, then it would be hard to argue more than negligence. (The next step up would be recklessness).

[Pete at Home]

More importantly, US politicians have good personal interest reasons to avoid setting a precedent for prosecuting politicians for criminal negligence.  LoL

[D.W.]

You may be onto something to explain why they prefer to overreach and just hope the vague "something bad went down and you can't trust them" sticks.

The crap part is "something bad" probably did go down,  but my negative reaction to the ploy is stronger than the reaction I have to the shocking theory politicians treat rules and law as a game to be played.

[Lloyd Perna]

A Former Attorney General explains why she should be charged.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158

[Wayward Son]

Because of this,  I infer / assume she likely did...  That,  or the line on what is top secret / classified is not always obvious.

I believe it is far more likely that she didn't know the information was classified because it may not be obvious that is was classified.

Extrapolating from how we are required by the government to handle technical information at work, simply quoting a line from a controlled document in an e-mail makes can make that e-mail controlled, too--even if the information may be publically available (as on the internet).  Assuming that a similar rule applies to secret documents, it would be trivially easy to put in a line from a secret document in an e-mail, making the entire e-mail "secret."  Thus the requirement to label such e-mails "secret" by the sender.

Now just imagine that you are a government official who receives dozens of e-mails a day.  Would you expect that you'd be able to recognize a line that contains information from a secret document?  Would you expect anyone to be able to recognize it from the hundreds of classified documents that exist, including ones the person is not familiar with?

Of course, some information is obviously classified, or something that Hillary could have recognized.  The devil is in the details.  But just because information is classified doesn't mean it is obvious.  It could look innocuous, and only after careful analysis would it be revealed to be classified.

----

Alas, Lloyd, the WSJ opinion piece appears to require a subscription.  Do you have a cheaper source?

[D.W.]

For me, it breaks down on if there was a legal method of handling being the recipient of an obviously top secret document.  What responsibility, as a recipient, does she have to safeguard those communications?

If there is a responsibility to do so (not only obey the rules but prevent others from breaking them in your presence) how is operating a private server not concretely prohibited?  I know a lot of things can get messy in a bureaucracy, but really?  This seems like the kind of thing even technologically illiterate old men could have foreseen and written into law.

As it was not, either the whole system is full of idiots (plausible I guess) or she didn't do anything wrong.  (likely) 

[NobleHunter]

For me, it breaks down on if there was a legal method of handling being the recipient of an obviously top secret document.  What responsibility, as a recipient, does she have to safeguard those communications?

If there is a responsibility to do so (not only obey the rules but prevent others from breaking them in your presence) how is operating a private server not concretely prohibited?  I know a lot of things can get messy in a bureaucracy, but really?  This seems like the kind of thing even technologically illiterate old men could have foreseen and written into law.

As it was not, either the whole system is full of idiots (plausible I guess) or she didn't do anything wrong.  (likely)

Not wrong as far as the handling of classified material anyways but I think there's something wrong with the concept of (and motivation for) using a private server to conduct public business.

The frustrating thing about the way this story is covered is that it's hard to tell if new stories are actual developments or just the GOP trying to resurrect old accusations. For the spectator without an obligation to make a decision based on it it's annoyingly difficult to stay up to date.

[D.W.]

Until charges are brought, I assume it's all BS politicking.  Not a catch all, but it saves a lot of energy.

[AI Wessex]

It looks like the "beyond top secret" hype is likely just that and this report doesn't increase the likelihood that she committed a crime.  But even if the messages were in that category when she received them, she didn't commit a crime by them being sent to her.  What I don't see online at the moment is whether the sender technically would have committed a crime by sending BTS materials outside of the secure government network.  Why aren't the supposed sources of these emails being investigated with even greater vigor?

[D.W.]

Maybe they should give Microsoft, Google and Apple a backdoor into the federal and private use government servers.  I'm sure they can craft some sort of top secret spam filter.

[Fenring]

What I don't see online at the moment is whether the sender technically would have committed a crime by sending BTS materials outside of the secure government network.  Why aren't the supposed sources of these emails being investigated with even greater vigor?

We've already discussed that. How can someone who must send Hillary an email send it if her only email address is at her private server? Should they send a telegram by courier, or maybe tap it by Morse code over the phone? Also how could you possibly expect someone who isn't very close to her to know that her email domain happens to also be hosted on a private server? There's no way to tell that based just on the email address itself, and I doubt she sent out a massive memo to every government employee warning them she was using a private server and not to send her classified information. No, when she decided to do that her responsibility when receiving any classified information was to notify someone (no idea who, exactly) so that the security breach could be corrected.

However since we know she was conducting state business and receiving intelligence updates from her man Sid through her email, there was obviously classified information in there. Just a few of her emails I read the other week had to have contained classified information since their content was a) secret, and b) insider information available only through diplomatic channels. It also bears repeating that even though she may have been the first person to receive this information, thus meaning no one could previously have marked it as classified, it is standard policy in the intelligence community to understand that anything containing sensitive or secret information (certainly anything pertaining to national security or active operations abroad) is automatically considered to be classified whether or not it happens to say the word "classified" at the top. I don't particular see this topic as being ambiguous, although I personally don't have any stake in her being charged even if they determine they could make a case against her on this. I think mentioning that keeping a private server was wrong is good enough, and I'm much more interested in the actual contents of some of the emails, just in terms of disclosure.

However my concern on this topic isn't that I want to see her indicted, but rather that I feared others might, and that it could crash her campaign. I still think this could happen, although heck if I know how to assess the odds of it.

[AI Wessex]

However since we know she was conducting state business and receiving intelligence updates from her man Sid through her email, there was obviously classified information in there.

Ol' Sid wasn't a government employee, let alone cleared for top-secret.  Why do you think he was sending and receiving such information?

insider information available only through diplomatic channels

Is that a new classified category?

However my concern on this topic isn't that I want to see her indicted, but rather that I feared others might, and that it could crash her campaign. I still think this could happen, although heck if I know how to assess the odds of it.

At some point voter saturation will kick in and people will automatically discount new "scandal" information if it is in any way tied to the GOP.  The whole Benghazi! and expanded investigations that the House initiated and are still ongoing (but are oddly quiet lately) have effectively tainted the cudgel of truth as being nothing more than a political shiv to stick in her back.  So, if someone digs up Vince Foster and he claims that Hillary and Bill personally whacked him, people might be inclined to say, "Yeah, well, we heard about that a long time ago.  What else is new?"