Courtesy of LA Times:
The State Department’s internal watchdog has concluded that Hillary Clinton clearly broke its rules when using a private email server as secretary of State, saying the practice created a security risk and violated transparency and disclosure policies.
The highly critical report, sent to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, is certain to create more political problems for Clinton by feeding into the narrative Republican opponents have long worked to build: that Clinton does not follow the same rules as everyone else and that she has not been open with the American public.
The department’s inspector general found she engaged in emailing practices that exposed sensitive information to breach, disregarded department policies that discouraged such methods of communicating and failed to promptly turn over all relevant correspondence to the department.
The 79-page report does not criticize only Clinton. It also found a Republican predecessor, Colin Powell, to have committed similar violations. The finding may help inoculate Clinton against the partisan attack the report is certain to generate.
The report actually finds that over 90 other State Department officials also used private e-mail addresses to send information back and forth, and that the State Department itself was careless in enforcing the guidelines.
However there was also this:
The audit did note that former Secretary of State Colin Powell had also exclusively used a private email account, though it did not name any other prior secretaries who had done so. But the failings of Clinton were singled out in the audit as being more serious than her predecessor.
"By Secretary Clinton's tenure, the department's guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated," the report concluded. "Secretary Clinton's cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives."
Brian Fallon, Hillary's spokesman, had this to say:
"The inspector general documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email," Fallon said, noting that the report says "her use of personal email was known to officials within the department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the secretary's server."
And according to Politifact Hillary seems to not have technically broken any laws:
In Clinton’s defense, it was only after she left the State Department that the National Archives issued an official recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.
Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.
So no Hillary did not break the law by using a private e-mail server, but she definitely bent the rules.
I would also be derelict in my duty if I did not point that a number of Republican politicians have ALSO gone overboard to keep their e-mails out of the hands of the media, including Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and Bobby Jindal, who all used private email servers.
Now obviously just because those folks did something similar does not make what Hillary did any more defensible, but one has to wonder where the outcry is over THOSE missing e-mails.
It should also be pointed out once again, that the State Department e-mail system was hacked, whereas, at least so far, there is no actual evidence that Hillary's private server was compromised.
So yes there is still a pending FBI investigation. But if I was a betting man I would bet that it will not find anything prosecutable either.
Update: To get a better handle on the archaic system utilized by the State Department for complying with its policy on retaining e-mails you should watch Rachel Maddow's segment from this evening.
It provides a little perspective.
about hacking: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/
ReplyDeleteAfter one of the 2011 hack attempts Mrs. Clinton’s tech staffer shut the server down for a few minutes, hoping that would solve the situation, but quickly warned top aides not to send Mrs. Clinton “anything sensitive” after the attempted breach, according to the report, which was obtained by The Washington Times.
After another suspicious attempt Mrs. Clinton said she was scared to open email — but failed to report the matter.
“Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information,” the investigators said. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”
Is she so careless because she's stupid? No, she's not stupid but she's hella smug and that causes careless stupidity.
DeleteI do not care about Hillary's emails and I don't care if she shot Vince Foster in the White House Rose Garden in broad daylight, she's infinitely a better candidate than Trump.
DeleteAh, sucks to be so bitter, eh 4:36. Anyone who quotes the Washington Times... #losing
DeleteOh, I see, 6:20 PM, Trump and Bernie are allowed to be smug because they're men and she is not? Are we on the same planet?
DeleteWhat do you want her to do? Bring cookies like $arah did with Franklin Graham when she ignored the indigenous Alaskan natives without heat and food, yet did nothing to help their plight strictly for a photo op?
4:36 PM - Quoting Washington Times is like quoting Fox News. Capisce?
Delete"... outcry is over THOSE missing e-mails."
ReplyDeleteYup.
The ones between the State Dept. and the Clinton Foundation?
Fact:Brian Pagliano and Huma were both drawing paychecks simultaneously from both.
Fact:Brian was handpicked by Hillary to set up the server in question.
Fact:Brian has gotten full immunity for his testimony.
Fact:And ALL his emails have gone "missing"?
Fact: Hillary will be cleared as she broke no laws.
Delete5:01, anyone bringing Huma into any Clinton discussion simply reveals themselves to be unhinged.
DeleteAnyone bringing Huma into Clinton's bedroom however, gets a free cackle.
Delete9:48 - you are so threatened by powerful women! LOL
Delete@6:56
Delete"Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.
The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
She broke no laws.
DeleteHillary for President! She broke the rules but so far no one has concluded she broke any laws!
DeleteLike Obama said about Hillary's server, "Dumb, dumb, dumb".
As a school teacher you know "Other people did it too" is never a winning defense when you've been told you've done something wrong.
ReplyDeleteShe didn't bend the rules, the IG report found she broke them. More serious than Powell because rules that were stricter when Clinton was Sec of State than when Powell held the office.
Her exposure in the FBI investigation is whether the sensitive information she exposed to breach was "mishandling classified information" under 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f).
Exactly.
DeleteAnd this will be used against her. Now that they finally have something they'll keep hammering at it.
Let the bootlickers accuse the State Department of being Hillary Hating Trolls.
+100000
DeleteUm, you guys cannot read. The rules were changed in 2014!! Do you even know when she quit as Sec. Of State???? You are #losing.
DeleteThat's correct, the rules were changed.
DeleteYou're missing the point.
DeleteThe State Department singled her out and quotes from the report will be used over and over against her.
This isn't going away just because some of the rules were changed in 2014.
Benghazi hasn't gone away.
And now they're dredging up White Water.
6:48 PM I am constantly amazed at how people who post here do not pay attention for professing to know everything. I sure don't, but come ON.
Delete7:45 - so? It's part of the same ongoing rightwing smear stuff that never sticks. Worthless to everyone except rapid rightwing nut jobs. And costs the taxpayers lost of $$$.
Delete@Anonymous 5:45 PM
Deletethis blog use to be nice until you nasty people invaded it.
So go after Colin Powell too. Otherwise you prove yourself to be on a political witch hunt. It was either wrong or it wasn't - there's no such thing in law add "more illegal". Her political aspirations have nothing to do with a fair investigation.
DeleteIG says nope Powell not the same as Clinton. From the report:
Delete"By Secretary Clinton's tenure, the department's guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated. Secretary Clinton's cyber-security practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives."
Hillary for Prison 2016!
ReplyDeletehttp://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/hillary-orange-jumpsuit.png
DeleteRightwing idiots who cannot read for $500, Alex.
DeleteShe's not going to prison morons.
DeleteTrump for Prison Planet 2016 past, present and beyond!
DeletePissin' in the wind, bettin' on a losing friend
ReplyDeleteMakin' the same mistakes, we swore we'd never make again
And we're pissin' in the wind, but it's blowing on
all our friends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZDBXm11WXY
Trump pays gazillions more for his hair style than Hillary could dream of paying. Bernie is right on the money when it comes to hair style fortunes.
ReplyDelete@5:13
DeleteNow wait a second here!
When mentioning hairdos in the current political realm,how can you leave out DWS?
She rocks the shit out of the "Top Ramen Combed With a Greasy Porkchop"look.
DWS may hair rock, but it doesn't cost her that much. She is more in Bernie's realm when it comes to hair money.
DeleteI'd like to put Bernie's hair into a dinky ponytail and pull it.
DeleteThe report shoots down 5 claims Clinton has made about the private server:
ReplyDelete- That the setup was "allowed". Report says it wasn't.
- That it posed no risk. Report concludes it did.
- That she broke no rule or regulation. Report concludes she did.
- That she preserved all emails. Report says she didn't.
- That she fully complied when asked to turn over documents. Report says she didn't.
You quitchore talkin that truth!
DeleteNot against the law, though!
DeleteAnd?
DeleteYes, against the law. She broke the law.
DeleteI don't think the point is that it was illegal, but that it contradicts claims Hillary made. That makes her ...... a liar.
DeleteNow, what is that cute little nickname Trump bestowed on Hillary?
7:50 PM-
Delete"Now, what is that cute little nickname Trump bestowed on Hillary?"
-------------------------
The same one that everybody else is calling Trump.
7:24 - there is no law that she broke. Can you read or not?
DeleteInterfering with an investigation for starters.
Delete7:01 - BS.
DeleteIf somebody sends you an email there is not much you can do about it but delete it or open it. Why don't they say what sensitive info was in these emails that someone sent to her personal account instead of the state departments account.
ReplyDeleteWell Got-Dayum,lookie here!
ReplyDelete"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s personal Washington, D.C., residence."
"Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million."
http://time.com/4348675/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-china-investigation/?xid=homepage
So?
DeleteAn *AMERICAN* company. And as the Supreme Court has ruled, that company is a "person" and has the right to contribute unlimited amounts of money to the candidate of their choice.
DeleteIsn't America great?
@7:52
Delete"...has the right to contribute unlimited amounts of money to the candidate of their choice."
And to the Clinton Foundation at the same time also too!
You mean Reoublican convicted felon McAuliff? You sink pretty low for your information sources.
Delete@6:34
DeleteNo. Virginia Governor McAuliffe, former chair of the DNC.
He's not a Republican, he's another one of Hillarys shady cronies.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
To paraphrase Whoopi, Hillary didn't live in a vacuum, if she was doing something illegal with emails, wouldn't someone send her an email saying "Hey, you just sent a classified email on your private email" I wonder why that didn't happen? She certainly must have emailed a hell of a lot of people, so either it's commonly done or hundreds of people got emails on a non government email company and no one thought "hmmm something's wrong here."
ReplyDeleteDid you even read the report?
DeleteHer own staff were unable to identify her e-mail address to add her to their safe list. So I would assume that the e-mail address was not showing on what other gov employees received as well.
Also, the OIG position within the State Dept. was vacant at that time. That is the office that would be enforcing all these rules.
Somebody did tell her. You're not paying attention.
Delete@6:20
DeleteSigh...
Ok,let's run with what you are saying.
Now,why were 30,000+ emails deleted?
There is NO fucking way they were all "personal".
There is some shady shit going on here between the State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.
Lack of oversight is now Hillary's fault now? Wow, then she was more powerful than even the sitting President./s
DeleteShe was told.
DeleteAnd that kind of makes it even worse.
7:24 - not at all. Did it bother you when Colin Powell did it????? He was warned, too.
DeleteBesides the fact that you are comparing very loosely comparing much different setups and scenarios, like apples to oranges, please remind us all what office Colin Powell is running for? Can you also please explain how the 'well he was doing it' arguement excuses Hillary anyways?
DeleteGo ahead champ, impress us!
10:19 - what does running for office have to do with it? If it was so wrong, why did they all get away with it? Why do rules only apply to women in your eyes?
DeleteFrom Forbes:
Delete"Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard."
Remeber - State Dept. Server Hacked! http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/index.html
Delete@6:36 - I don't doubt that Hillary gets more junk email than you. I delete junk email at least 50 times a day. What do you do with it?
DeleteAnd the plot thickens. It's a tired old plot but it still thickens. Donald Trump and his boy players are busy like little bees trying to bring down Hilary. Donald's name for her is instigated to sit within the minds of those when they get to the poll. "crooked hilary." She needs one too that keeps hammering at the voters so when they get to the polls that's all they hear when they are voting. Dumb Donald. Ditzy Donald. Dildo Donald. Oh, okay, something more classy cuz Hilary is cool.
ReplyDeleteHow about Racist Donald? Or Sexist Pig? Or my favorite Stub-Chub.
DeleteI'm sure John Oliver will come up with something catchy.
DeleteHe's already started the Make Donald Drumpf again.
Dump Drumpf?
Bankrupt Donald.
DeleteMight i add that John Oliver's "Make Donald Drumpf Again" Chrome extension is delightful.
DeleteIt changes almost every instance of his name from 'Trump' to 'Drumpf'.
speaking of an idiot - didn't you hear the latest in humpty dumbptyland? they sent an email to 'dig up dirt' to the wrong address! hey sarah! how's those house fires going?
DeleteHillary intentionally set up this private server before she took the Secretary position. Her own staff could not tell her e-mail address to add her to their in boxes. While there, she had the opportunity to switch over to the government one, but choose not to so her e-mails weren't on display. (Read through the OIG report and you'll find these supported.)
ReplyDeleteThe use of the private e-mail is like the tip of the iceberg...the bigger danger is what lies beneath the surface.
In Hillary's case, WHY did she want the complete privacy of her e-mails? What was she hiding? And did it have anything to do with the millions of dollars that made their way into the Clinton Foundation from around the globe? And is tracing this international money trail what is taking so long for the FBI to wrap up the investigation?
The coverup is what will likely do her in. It is always the coverup. Pull one little strand sticking out, and the whole thing starts to unravel. She will be spending most of her energy lying and trying to keep the coverup going from here on out, until it just falls apart.
DeleteWhy did Colin Powell do this? Why did Dick Cheney? What was the Bush Foundation hiding?????
DeleteShe was shielding her emails from FOIA requests, which is illegal.
DeleteGryphen, this is egregious and you are minimizing the seriousness of the matter.
Delete6:54 I'm curious, are any of those people running for office?
DeleteAlso did any of those people maintain a private server?
I'll give you a hint.
It starts with an N and ends with an O.
Are you kidding, 7:02 PM, all of the above?
DeleteAgain, do you even understand politics?
7:22 - Running for office? Dick Cheney was the sitting VP for 8 years! He HELD office during 9/11. Bush, too. Why don't you care about them? They were ELECTED. President Obama was Hillary's boss in a non-elected position as Sec. Of State!
Deleteto 10:08
DeleteThe situation at hand is Hillary, and Hillary alone. Her integrity, her trustworthiness, her fitness for higher office.
Stop trying to distract us from the issues at hand!
These are real concerns, and you trying to minimize them only makes you seem like an idiot. It doesn't help us improve our opinion of her.
The FBI wouldn't be investigating for nearly a year if there was nothing there.
10:08 uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
DeleteI really don't have any better way of explaining this. Try it again. Are Dick Cheney or GW running for any office? Are you getting it?
Do you not, you know, quite grasp the concept of, irrelevancy, an irrelevant point you are trying to make?
Also could you please explain the 'relevance' of you statement: "President Obama was Hillary's boss in a non-elected position as Sec. Of State!" and with the exclamation point.
Learn to read, rightwingers! Take a civics class, too!
Deleteblah blah on the update.
ReplyDeleteLet's see the deleted emails between the State Dept. and the Clinton Foundation.
You know,for the sake of transparency.
Let ALL voting Americans then decide.
Let's see the redacted $arah's verbatim. "She did nothing!" Like hell she didn't.
DeleteSecond verse, same as the first. Welcome to politics. I get a kick out of c4p; everything they rail against, they emulate themselves. Call 'em on it, they ban you.
6:15 - Oh, like you know what the State Dept. protocols are. LOL. You can't even spell, let alone understand the labyrinthine security issues of the federal gov't! LOL
DeleteYou think ANY politician will ever do that?
DeleteLEARN, honey, it's never going to happen.
@6:56
DeleteIt's spelled
"Labyrinthian"
well how much money did ol Sarah invest in that film that sparked problems overseas?
Delete7:58 - it's not a book in the Bible.
DeleteLook it up, 7:58.
Delete@6:56
DeleteBefore starting in her role as Secretary of State, Hillary had to read and sign this agreement NDA Agreement:
"Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.
...I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it...
...4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances..."
It is so clear you are not a lawyer, 4:07! Hilarious!!! #robot
DeleteI came for the bernie bots, was not disappointed. -sjp
ReplyDeleteIt is good to laugh.
DeleteMemories: "The Coldest State with the Hottest Governor".
She thought they said weenie tots and was looking for the mini pigs in a blanket.
DeleteFor old time chitz and jiggles.
Deletehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-keYr9NXZn3c/VqWKNf4Xn-I/AAAAAAAARCo/BavWH6IrxfM/s1600/564010_413057765417978_957427775_n.jpg
@6:34
DeleteHere's some reading material for ya:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html
DeleteHillary has been over-scrutinized forever in an effort to bring her down. Too bad the same macro lens didn't focus on George W., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Newt, McCain, Palin, etc. Maybe we wouldn't be in the fuckin' mess we're in now. Hillary withstood it then and she'll withstand it now. But Trump and Bernie lose big if they get scrutinized in the same manner. Hillary's problem isn't emails or Benghazi. Hillary's problem is that she doesn't have a dick and the dicks can't abide that. And if she did have a dick, none of this would matter. She's still gonna be POTUS, because Trump shoots himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth and Bernie spits his venom with each new day. As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Trump and Bernie are gonna wish they'd done just that.
ReplyDeleteGeorgiaPeach
Maybe we wouldn't be in the fuckin' mess we're in now.
DeleteEXACTLY. Let us imagine war criminals where prosecuted in USA. Things would be very different this election.
Right on, sister.
DeleteWithstanding it isn't the same as beating it.
DeleteI think this time it will be her Waterloo.
Trump is very good at negative branding. He'll hammer "crooked Hillary" into the ground and use things like this report to justify it. He's a business man and knows about branding and advertising. He knows sales and the public. That's how he's gotten as far as he has without being consistent or having any sort of platform.
You can never underestimate the stupidity of a large group of humans; the larger the group the lower the IQ.
Hillary is hardly a sure thing.
Her bootlickers need to wake up and recognize that she is flawed and not a sure thing.
Personally, I think the Democrats need to start strategizing ways to impeach "President Trump" should he be elected.
Lol. Vagina club.
Deleteto 6:47
DeleteDon Siegelman, former governor of Alabama went to prison for a $500,000 donation in exchange for a state regulatory board appointment. He was in politics for 26 years but now he is in solitary confinement.
The money that the Clinton Foundation accepted in donations far exceeds that, during a time when Hillary was approving arms sales, uranium mining, etc. for those same donors.
Anonymous8:06 PM
DeleteYou must be a prick.
Well yes you are correct, an original founding member of the Prick Club.
DeleteSometimes we schedule a tennis and a tea with the Vagina Club, but usually we are just pricks.
8:37 - Hillary's boss was President Obama. Do you not understand how the State Dept. works????
DeleteBy the Way, You Are Just Parroting Republican Talking Points https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/05/25/by-the-way-you-are-just-parroting-republican-talking-points/
DeleteWhat is with this "Hillary's boss" stuff.... please explain it out in detail why you keep stating this? It seems to be a statement that has no purpose. Please explain.
Delete@6:47 Enough already about the Clinton Foundation. You have NOTHING/NADA/NIL to back up your assertion that the Foundation received donations in return for arms sales etc. Instead, you are tarring a Foundation that has helped MILLIONS of the far less fortunate than you, all over the world. You should be ashamed.
DeleteOh God Maple, if only everyone could be so simple and easily fooled and led around like you. Not the brightest star in the sky are you?
DeleteMaple, so naive.
DeleteBet you taste good on sausage though.
Delete@7:00: I don't happen to believe in the plethora of conspiracy theories floating about on the 'net, and I also don't believe there is a god that makes things happen, or not happen. But I bet you do. And BTW, I (like the law and most people) want to see proof before I condemn, and not just because I happen to dislike/hate/despise a person.
Delete10:39 - who do you think oversees the State Department? It's the President! D'oh!
Delete9:46? What is your point exactly? You know, what is the relevance? The president is essentially in charge of the executive branch of the federal government... doh, you think people don't know this? What is your point, that Obama also broke the law and should be impeached?
DeleteSo o/t but funny. My daughter (27) had her 2010 Bristol Palin moment. Tonight she said to me "Mom, you ARE always right." Bristol had that realization that her mom is always right back in 2010 when she had major doubts on taking Levi back when he wanted to rekindle (he admitted he texted her.)
ReplyDeleteEscaped again, eh Alicia?
DeleteWeirdo.
DeleteBristol's mom IS "always right back in 2010"! Nutty bitch still thinks she's as relevant to the conservatives of today, as she was back in 2010.
DeleteKnow how to use a comma, 7:37 and these little 'misunderstandings' will cease.
So just how long have you carried the torch for Levi? You know he's taken, hun!
The new report vindicates HRC, rather than nails her - http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/#5e2e895a2c7d
ReplyDeleteTo the contrary, the report certainly does not vindicate her and intelligence professionals have pointed out that she broke the law and that others have been jailed and punished for doing less.
DeleteThe whole incident shows incredibly poor judgment on her part and that she thinks laws that apply to others don't apply to her. How unfortunate for everyone.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/24/intel-vets-urge-fast-report-clintons-email
What law did she purportedly break? Perhaps you'd like to be more specific to back up your comment.
Delete@4:12
DeleteYup.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html
@ Maple 5:45
DeleteTitle 18 Section 1924
"Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Title 18 Section 793
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Specific enough for ya?
She also signed this agreement the day she became SoS:
NDA Agreement
"Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.
...I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it...
...4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances..."
You're welcome!
Anonymous6:29 AM,
DeleteYou are one obsessed nutcase.
@6:49
DeleteMaple asked,I delivered.
And this was dated when?
DeleteThis Reddit lawyer above conflates two or three very different legal issues. She broke no laws; they cannot prove intent. She is not a spy.
DeleteToday's report showed she broke no law,
@9:45
DeleteWell that is not what intelligence professionals are saying:
"Apart from the guidelines for proper handling of classified information, outlined in Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code, there is some evidence of a cover-up regarding what was compromised. This itself would be a violation of the 2009 Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Numerous messages both in New York and in Washington have reportedly been erased or simply cannot be found. In addition, the law cited above explicitly makes it a felony to cut and paste classified information removing its classification designation. Retaining such information on a private email system is also a felony. In one of Secretary Clinton’s emails, she instructed her staff simply to remove a classification and send the information to her on her server.
So the question is not whether Secretary Clinton broke the law. She did. If the laws are to be equally applied, she should face the same kind of consequences as others who have been found, often on the basis of much less convincing evidence, guilty of similar behavior."
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/24/intel-vets-urge-fast-report-clintons-emails
The most interesting parts are pages 37 to 40 which include that:
ReplyDeleteClinton and 10 Clinton aides refused to be interviewed.
One of them also was involved in a cover-up where s/he told underlings that legal advice had been sought from the State Dept lawyers and the email server arrangement approved of. There is no evidence such advice happened.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf
Rightwing lie.
Delete@9:42
DeleteThe OIG report is a "Rightwing lie."?
Wow.
Good luck on your journey...
@ Maple
DeleteIt's the LAW.
Like every other fucking person on the planet you use your work email for work and your personal email for personal things. When foreign dignitaries want to negotiate arms deals, you do that with your official work email. When you want a bribe to sweeten the deal and launder the money via your husband's speaking fees, you use your personal email.
ReplyDeleteWe're gonna need to see those missing/deleted emails to make an informed decision about Hillary.
You live in an alternate reality if you think "every other person on the planet" keeps their accounts separate like that. Are you saying YOU get no personal emails on your work account??????
Delete@6:48
DeleteI don't get personal emails on my work account.
I don't get work emails on my personal account.
Simple.
No one cares. Truth.
Delete@9:42
DeleteAnd Hillary obviously gives zero fucks.
The private "server" is the issue.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who actually read the report knows it invalidates the "but,but,but, Colin Powell did it, too" excuse. From the report:
ReplyDelete"By Secretary Clinton's tenure, the department's guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated. Secretary Clinton's cyber-security practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives."
So? This is old news. Nothing new that wasn't revealed over a year ago.
DeleteRight "move along, nothing new to see here."
DeleteAu contrair. The report discredits every claim Clinton has made about her use of the Blackberry and her own server. Approved. No. Secure. No. Not a risk. No. Preserved all email. Nope. Broke no rules. Broke the rules. Those findings aren't old news.