Clinton: I didn't 'stop and think' about email system

[sirineou]

The woman has no shame. She still hasn't apologized to the American people for her choice of using a private server.

Watch the interview. You'll walk away from this one shaking your head.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Tells NBC News She Is 'Sorry' for Email Confusion

by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

In an exclusive interview with NBC News/MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Friday, Hillary Clinton said she's "sorry" there's been so much controversy over her private email server, but declined to apologize for the decision to use it. She also suggested that GOP front-runner Donald Trump is unqualified to be president and weighed in on the surprisingly robust challenge to her candidacy from Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders.

"At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions," Clinton said of her email server after being pressed by Mitchell on whether she should apologize for the controversy that has dogged her campaign from the outset. "And I take responsibility and it wasn't the best choice."

It was just the third nationally televised interview for Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic 2016 front-runner, since announcing her campaign in April.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-sorry-email-controversy-n421851

It seems to be the Clinton attitude. I dont think they have much respect for the American people. and their collective intelligence

I remember Bill, looking straight at me through the TV , shaking his finger and telling me " I did not have sexual relationship with that woman"

where the simple thing to say would have being

"I was going thorough a stage in my life,.and I screwed up,me and Hillary have worked things out and are now closer than ever , I know what I did was not right I am only human"

Who among as would not have understood that? but no , he took me for an idiot, and I resent that.

Hilary is now doing the same thing, I am not as upset over the email incident,

If there was something illegal, the appropriate agencies will sort things our, I resent being taken for an idiot.

and It leads me to think

, if she has no respect for the American people on this, what else will she have no respect on, if she becomes president?

[Publicus]

The woman has no shame. She still hasn't apologized to the American people for her choice of using a private server.

Watch the interview. You'll walk away from this one shaking your head.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Tells NBC News She Is 'Sorry' for Email Confusion

by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

In an exclusive interview with NBC News/MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Friday, Hillary Clinton said she's "sorry" there's been so much controversy over her private email server, but declined to apologize for the decision to use it. She also suggested that GOP front-runner Donald Trump is unqualified to be president and weighed in on the surprisingly robust challenge to her candidacy from Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders.

"At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions," Clinton said of her email server after being pressed by Mitchell on whether she should apologize for the controversy that has dogged her campaign from the outset. "And I take responsibility and it wasn't the best choice."

It was just the third nationally televised interview for Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic 2016 front-runner, since announcing her campaign in April.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-sorry-email-controversy-n421851

It seems to be the Clinton attitude. I dont think they have much respect for the American people. and their collective intelligence

I remember Bill, looking straight at me through the TV , shaking his finger and telling me " I did not have sexual relationship with that woman"

where the simple thing to say would have being

"I was going thorough a stage in my life,.and I screwed up,me and Hillary have worked things out and are now closer than ever , I know what I did was not right I am only human"

Who among as would not have understood that? but no , he took me for an idiot, and I resent that.

Hilary is now doing the same thing, I am not as upset over the email incident,

If there was something illegal, the appropriate agencies will sort things our, I resent being taken for an idiot.

and It leads me to think

, if she has no respect for the American people on this, what else will she have no respect on, if she becomes president?

what else will she have no respect on, if she becomes president?

Activist rightwing dominated discussion boards at the internet and the mass of well funded rightwing media that keeps cranking it out. The Republican idea led by the right is to pound people on the head each and every day indefinitely regardless.

October 22nd the Ben Ghazi and email committee of the Republican controlled House will have a long day of its televised inquisition of HRC. The political junkies will take their take from it while the vast center middle of the electorate will focus on how HRC conducted herself. And of how the Republicans on the committee conducted themselves. And how the mass of well funded rightwing media conduct themselves immediately afterward and beyond. It's the old adage about crying wolf.

Discussion boards online bang out issues from the mass of rightwing media that no one in government authority has ever mentioned.

[Chicog]

Gowdy is trying to get it behind closed doors. You don't need to be a genius to guess why.

[sirineou]

The woman has no shame. She still hasn't apologized to the American people for her choice of using a private server.

Watch the interview. You'll walk away from this one shaking your head.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Tells NBC News She Is 'Sorry' for Email Confusion

by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

In an exclusive interview with NBC News/MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Friday, Hillary Clinton said she's "sorry" there's been so much controversy over her private email server, but declined to apologize for the decision to use it. She also suggested that GOP front-runner Donald Trump is unqualified to be president and weighed in on the surprisingly robust challenge to her candidacy from Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders.

"At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions," Clinton said of her email server after being pressed by Mitchell on whether she should apologize for the controversy that has dogged her campaign from the outset. "And I take responsibility and it wasn't the best choice."

It was just the third nationally televised interview for Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic 2016 front-runner, since announcing her campaign in April.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-sorry-email-controversy-n421851

It seems to be the Clinton attitude. I dont think they have much respect for the American people. and their collective intelligence

I remember Bill, looking straight at me through the TV , shaking his finger and telling me " I did not have sexual relationship with that woman"

where the simple thing to say would have being

"I was going thorough a stage in my life,.and I screwed up,me and Hillary have worked things out and are now closer than ever , I know what I did was not right I am only human"

Who among as would not have understood that? but no , he took me for an idiot, and I resent that.

Hilary is now doing the same thing, I am not as upset over the email incident,

If there was something illegal, the appropriate agencies will sort things our, I resent being taken for an idiot.

and It leads me to think

, if she has no respect for the American people on this, what else will she have no respect on, if she becomes president?

what else will she have no respect on, if she becomes president?

Activist rightwing dominated discussion boards at the internet and the mass of well funded rightwing media that keeps cranking it out. The Republican idea led by the right is to pound people on the head each and every day indefinitely regardless.

October 22nd the Ben Ghazi and email committee of the Republican controlled House will have a long day of its televised inquisition of HRC. The political junkies will take their take from it while the vast center middle of the electorate will focus on how HRC conducted herself. And of how the Republicans on the committee conducted themselves. And how the mass of well funded rightwing media conduct themselves immediately afterward and beyond. It's the old adage about crying wolf.

Discussion boards online bang out issues from the mass of rightwing media that no one in government authority has ever mentioned.

this all well and good, but how does this relates to the Clinton"s attitude toward the American people?

I don't believe it is a defense mechanism toward the republicans,

I Guess what this is, depends on the definition of the word "is" is.

[attrayant]

It seems to be the Clinton attitude. I dont think they have much respect for the American people. and their collective intelligence

"Now watch this drive."

[capcc76]

Okay, just heard Hillary talking. Oh my Gawd. She is aweful. The epitome of a whinny, scripted politician. The only think that immediately popped into my mind was shut up c@&$. I never use that word, so strange it popped into my mind listening to her. Lol, I am sure Putin and China wants her to be elected.

[Publicus]

Handling unclassified information gets you life in prison? We seem to be back to square one.

Now you know I didn't say that.

I will say this, however...

"MISHANDLING classified information can get you life in prison."

You said this:

"If I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be [in prison]." (edited for brevity)

Since it has not yet come to light that she has mishandled classified information, your phrase "such as she has" means that you doing the same thing (i.e. not mishandling classified information) would get you a prison term.

If, on the other hand, you're implying that she mishandled classified information, then you're making an assertion that as of yet is not supported by evidence.

The simple fact she was using a server that had not been provided Facility Clearance by the Defense Security Service is evidence enough she violated federal regulations and laws.

Platte River, her server, had no such clearance.

It has already been established her site sent traffic in at least two satellite photos that were classified as Top Secret through this server. Numerous data redactions have been carried out by the State Department on the released emails that black out information not wanted in he public domain.

In addition to her use of a non-cleared contractor, Platte River, mentioned above, there is that little problem with giving her attorney a thumb drive containing classified documents. It would seem when she copied government communications on a thumb drive, she was in violation of US Code. Title 18, Section 1924, Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

To wit:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) 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.

( For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant tolaw or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

More legal language that applies to nothing and that comes from only the well funded mass of rightwing media and in the post above along with others like it.

Former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined.

You're reading the riot act to a riot that does not exist. The right is carrying the riot act desperately around with it looking for a riot to read it to. Still can't find that riot however. So the right reads it anyway to the rest of us as we walk past going about our daily business. Each and every day.

[VIPinthailand]

with a crippled debts of 20t. I don't think this actual government of Muppets will stay another decade.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed along with reply.

[sirineou]

Now you know I didn't say that.

I will say this, however...

"MISHANDLING classified information can get you life in prison."

You said this:

"If I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be [in prison]." (edited for brevity)

Since it has not yet come to light that she has mishandled classified information, your phrase "such as she has" means that you doing the same thing (i.e. not mishandling classified information) would get you a prison term.

If, on the other hand, you're implying that she mishandled classified information, then you're making an assertion that as of yet is not supported by evidence.

The simple fact she was using a server that had not been provided Facility Clearance by the Defense Security Service is evidence enough she violated federal regulations and laws.

Platte River, her server, had no such clearance.

It has already been established her site sent traffic in at least two satellite photos that were classified as Top Secret through this server. Numerous data redactions have been carried out by the State Department on the released emails that black out information not wanted in he public domain.

In addition to her use of a non-cleared contractor, Platte River, mentioned above, there is that little problem with giving her attorney a thumb drive containing classified documents. It would seem when she copied government communications on a thumb drive, she was in violation of US Code. Title 18, Section 1924, Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

To wit:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) 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.

( For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant tolaw or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

More legal language that applies to nothing and that comes from only the well funded mass of rightwing media and in the post above along with others like it.

Former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined.

You're reading the riot act to a riot that does not exist. The right is carrying the riot act desperately around with it looking for a riot to read it to. Still can't find that riot however. So the right reads it anyway to the rest of us as we walk past going about our daily business. Each and every day.

"Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined."?

she us not being investigated the server is being examined? Whose sever is being examines, and for what? communicable diseases?

Let's not be as blinded of our shortcomings as the Right is to theirs, let's call a spade a spade.

It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run.

[Publicus]

You said this:

"If I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be [in prison]." (edited for brevity)

Since it has not yet come to light that she has mishandled classified information, your phrase "such as she has" means that you doing the same thing (i.e. not mishandling classified information) would get you a prison term.

If, on the other hand, you're implying that she mishandled classified information, then you're making an assertion that as of yet is not supported by evidence.

The simple fact she was using a server that had not been provided Facility Clearance by the Defense Security Service is evidence enough she violated federal regulations and laws.

Platte River, her server, had no such clearance.

It has already been established her site sent traffic in at least two satellite photos that were classified as Top Secret through this server. Numerous data redactions have been carried out by the State Department on the released emails that black out information not wanted in he public domain.

In addition to her use of a non-cleared contractor, Platte River, mentioned above, there is that little problem with giving her attorney a thumb drive containing classified documents. It would seem when she copied government communications on a thumb drive, she was in violation of US Code. Title 18, Section 1924, Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

To wit:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) 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.

( For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant tolaw or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

More legal language that applies to nothing and that comes from only the well funded mass of rightwing media and in the post above along with others like it.

Former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined.

You're reading the riot act to a riot that does not exist. The right is carrying the riot act desperately around with it looking for a riot to read it to. Still can't find that riot however. So the right reads it anyway to the rest of us as we walk past going about our daily business. Each and every day.

"Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined."?

she us not being investigated the server is being examined? Whose sever is being examines, and for what? communicable diseases?

Let's not be as blinded of our shortcomings as the Right is to theirs, let's call a spade a spade.

It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run.

There's no denying a spade is a spade and there is no effort to try. There just isn't any spade in this. Just as there isn't any riot for the people walking around with the riot act in their hand looking for a riot to read the act to, still not having found one.

The inquiry is into DepState security classification protocols. No person is being investigated. Except in the highly funded mass of rightwing media, no crime is alleged. No prosecutor is involved, no grand jury; no nuthin.

That means former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. There is no spade present to call a spade.

We can be confident the October 22nd Republican controlled House committee on Ben Ghazi and emails will be fully armed when on that day it enters into combat against HRC on the other side of the room. Expect a lot of spade calling on that day too, more than enough for the rest of the political campaign.

[sirineou]

The simple fact she was using a server that had not been provided Facility Clearance by the Defense Security Service is evidence enough she violated federal regulations and laws.

Platte River, her server, had no such clearance.

It has already been established her site sent traffic in at least two satellite photos that were classified as Top Secret through this server. Numerous data redactions have been carried out by the State Department on the released emails that black out information not wanted in he public domain.

In addition to her use of a non-cleared contractor, Platte River, mentioned above, there is that little problem with giving her attorney a thumb drive containing classified documents. It would seem when she copied government communications on a thumb drive, she was in violation of US Code. Title 18, Section 1924, Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

To wit:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) 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.

( For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant tolaw or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

More legal language that applies to nothing and that comes from only the well funded mass of rightwing media and in the post above along with others like it.

Former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined.

You're reading the riot act to a riot that does not exist. The right is carrying the riot act desperately around with it looking for a riot to read it to. Still can't find that riot however. So the right reads it anyway to the rest of us as we walk past going about our daily business. Each and every day.

"Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined."?

she us not being investigated the server is being examined? Whose sever is being examines, and for what? communicable diseases?

Let's not be as blinded of our shortcomings as the Right is to theirs, let's call a spade a spade.

It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run.

There's no denying a spade is a spade and there is no effort to try. There just isn't any spade in this. Just as there isn't any riot for the people walking around with the riot act in their hand looking for a riot to read the act to, still not having found one.

The inquiry is into DepState security classification protocols. No person is being investigated. Except in the highly funded mass of rightwing media, no crime is alleged. No prosecutor is involved, no grand jury; no nuthin.

That means former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. There is no spade present to call a spade.

We can be confident the October 22nd Republican controlled House committee on Ben Ghazi and emails will be fully armed when on that day it enters into combat against HRC on the other side of the room. Expect a lot of spade calling on that day too, more than enough for the rest of the political campaign.

Sorry to disagree with you on this one but.... I dont understand isn't there a federal requirement that officials correspondence be retained as part of the agency record? and by having a private sever HRC was violating that requirement, Do we have to rely an her to provide as with a record of these official correspondence, and how can we be sure she is providing us with everything?

Or are we to believe that all official communications were made under the official address of the receiving officials and therefor there was a record.as her lawyers claim.

This whole thing stinks, I will tell you what I think and I am not the only one I think HRC conducted clandestine official business, using private channels and did not want a record of them and I believe , that's where the investigation is What if anything will come of this I don't know But I don't trust her, and as the polls show I am not along. I trust Bernie Sanders, and I would like to see Biden enter the race, and on the Republican side I like Kasich But I think a HRC presidency will be as disastrous for the US as a Trump presidency

[attrayant]

I dont understand isn't there a federal requirement that officials correspondence be retained as part of the agency record?

This looks like a rhetorical question. How you can take a position on this situation if, by your own admission, you don't understand the legal framework upon which the situation rests?

Also, can you be more clear in what you mean by "federal requirement"? Do you mean a Federal law or just a policy?

I was a program director for six years with the DC Government. Most of our policies and legal bindings are modeled after the Fed's because DC's budget must be approved by congress before it can be appropriated. Our policy was that all communications related to government operations should take place over the centralized e-mail infrastructure to (among other reasons) satisfy potential FOIA requests. Again, it wasn't a legal requirement, just a policy. If somebody breached this policy, it wasn't a violation of law. It would have been up to the agency director (my boss) to decide whether or not to sanction the individual based on how much damage had been done, if any. It might have become a legal issue for the FBI if the breach involved anything classified being sent over unsecured channels.

The reason why we it's entirely unrealistic to mandate that all communications happen only over secured channels is because people use all kinds of nonverbal communication channels such as instant messaging platforms (we used a mis-mash of Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, Google Chat and IBM's Sametime client) for peer-to-peer communications. None of those platforms are managed by the government and all are potentially insecure. Lots of potentially sensitive conversations also took place via text message too, passing through infrastructure managed by private telecoms.

The best we can do is require that classified documents not be sent over such channels. We are still waiting for evidence showing that such documents were mishandled by HRC.

If you can cite the chapter and verse in Federal law that mandates all correspondence must be sent only over government-managed email infrastructure, then I'll take it all back and eat my hat. And if you're going to crucify somebody for using an insecure communications medium, don't limit your ire to a single individual and don't limit it to email. Broaden your scope a bit and think how many government officials are doing the exact same thing via insecure chat and text messaging platforms.

[chuckd]

You said this:

"If I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be [in prison]." (edited for brevity)

Since it has not yet come to light that she has mishandled classified information, your phrase "such as she has" means that you doing the same thing (i.e. not mishandling classified information) would get you a prison term.

If, on the other hand, you're implying that she mishandled classified information, then you're making an assertion that as of yet is not supported by evidence.

The simple fact she was using a server that had not been provided Facility Clearance by the Defense Security Service is evidence enough she violated federal regulations and laws.

Platte River, her server, had no such clearance.

It has already been established her site sent traffic in at least two satellite photos that were classified as Top Secret through this server. Numerous data redactions have been carried out by the State Department on the released emails that black out information not wanted in he public domain.

In addition to her use of a non-cleared contractor, Platte River, mentioned above, there is that little problem with giving her attorney a thumb drive containing classified documents. It would seem when she copied government communications on a thumb drive, she was in violation of US Code. Title 18, Section 1924, Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

To wit:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) 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.

( For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant tolaw or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

More legal language that applies to nothing and that comes from only the well funded mass of rightwing media and in the post above along with others like it.

Former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined.

You're reading the riot act to a riot that does not exist. The right is carrying the riot act desperately around with it looking for a riot to read it to. Still can't find that riot however. So the right reads it anyway to the rest of us as we walk past going about our daily business. Each and every day.

"Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined."?

she us not being investigated the server is being examined? Whose sever is being examines, and for what? communicable diseases?

Let's not be as blinded of our shortcomings as the Right is to theirs, let's call a spade a spade.

It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run.

"It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run."

Well said.

Whoever hired the server was driving that hit and run vehicle.?

The FBI doesn't investigate machines. The leave that to Underwriter's Laboratory.

[chuckd]

I dont understand isn't there a federal requirement that officials correspondence be retained as part of the agency record?

This looks like a rhetorical question. How you can take a position on this situation if, by your own admission, you don't understand the legal framework upon which the situation rests?

Also, can you be more clear in what you mean by "federal requirement"? Do you mean a Federal law or just a policy?

I was a program director for six years with the DC Government. Most of our policies and legal bindings are modeled after the Fed's because DC's budget must be approved by congress before it can be appropriated. Our policy was that all communications related to government operations should take place over the centralized e-mail infrastructure to (among other reasons) satisfy potential FOIA requests. Again, it wasn't a legal requirement, just a policy. If somebody breached this policy, it wasn't a violation of law. It would have been up to the agency director (my boss) to decide whether or not to sanction the individual based on how much damage had been done, if any. It might have become a legal issue for the FBI if the breach involved anything classified being sent over unsecured channels.

The reason why we it's entirely unrealistic to mandate that all communications happen only over secured channels is because people use all kinds of nonverbal communication channels such as instant messaging platforms (we used a mis-mash of Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, Google Chat and IBM's Sametime client) for peer-to-peer communications. None of those platforms are managed by the government and all are potentially insecure. Lots of potentially sensitive conversations also took place via text message too, passing through infrastructure managed by private telecoms.

The best we can do is require that classified documents not be sent over such channels. We are still waiting for evidence showing that such documents were mishandled by HRC.

If you can cite the chapter and verse in Federal law that mandates all correspondence must be sent only over government-managed email infrastructure, then I'll take it all back and eat my hat. And if you're going to crucify somebody for using an insecure communications medium, don't limit your ire to a single individual and don't limit it to email. Broaden your scope a bit and think how many government officials are doing the exact same thing via insecure chat and text messaging platforms.

"The best we can do is require that classified documents not be sent over such channels. We are still waiting for evidence showing that such documents were mishandled by HRC."

Your wait is over.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

SEPT. 7, 2015

WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

On Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?src=twr

[Publicus]

The simple fact she was using a server that had not been provided Facility Clearance by the Defense Security Service is evidence enough she violated federal regulations and laws.

Platte River, her server, had no such clearance.

It has already been established her site sent traffic in at least two satellite photos that were classified as Top Secret through this server. Numerous data redactions have been carried out by the State Department on the released emails that black out information not wanted in he public domain.

In addition to her use of a non-cleared contractor, Platte River, mentioned above, there is that little problem with giving her attorney a thumb drive containing classified documents. It would seem when she copied government communications on a thumb drive, she was in violation of US Code. Title 18, Section 1924, Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

To wit:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) 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.

( For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant tolaw or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

More legal language that applies to nothing and that comes from only the well funded mass of rightwing media and in the post above along with others like it.

Former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined.

You're reading the riot act to a riot that does not exist. The right is carrying the riot act desperately around with it looking for a riot to read it to. Still can't find that riot however. So the right reads it anyway to the rest of us as we walk past going about our daily business. Each and every day.

"Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined."?

she us not being investigated the server is being examined? Whose sever is being examines, and for what? communicable diseases?

Let's not be as blinded of our shortcomings as the Right is to theirs, let's call a spade a spade.

It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run.

"It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run."

Well said.

Whoever hired the server was driving that hit and run vehicle.?

The FBI doesn't investigate machines. The leave that to Underwriter's Laboratory.

Hit and run is by definition a crime because someone was injured to one extent or another while the operator drove away. There is no crime alleged or being investigated in respect of the emails. Former SecState Clinton is not being investigated for anything by anyone in the Executive Branch of the US government.

The Republican controlled do-nothing congress maximus is quite another matter in respect of investigations, investigating, searching, hunting, speechmaking, accusing, making innuendo, holding public spectacles, spending money on six investigations that turned up nothing with a seventh now underway,

The FBI is not investigating any person or persons in connection with the emails or anything else. That is because there is no hit and run and there is no victim. At issue are the classification protocols of the Department of State and of the intelligence agencies.

The North Korea satellite missile memo for instance turned out to have been sent to Mrs. Clinton by a state department employee who used a "non-classified computer." The issue in every instance is not Hillary Clinton, it is the classifications and the associated protocols and procedures of DepState and the intelligence agencies, and it is for them to settle among themselves.

The accusing, innuendo, posturing are political election year by hook or by crook politics. Each time a new batch of emails is released there are a dozen new smoking guns that turn out to be bogus.

[Publicus]

"I didn't 'stop and think' just the qualification we need for a President with their finger on the worlds largest Nuclear arsenal

atombomb.jpg

"OH Sh***t I didn't 'stop and think"

Tell us POTUS is looking to see where the officer carrying the football is while POTUS is in Denver or any other place plunging into a crowd shaking hands.

[Publicus]

"Clinton is not being investigated. No one is being investigated. The server and DepState classification protocols are being examined."?

she us not being investigated the server is being examined? Whose sever is being examines, and for what? communicable diseases?

Let's not be as blinded of our shortcomings as the Right is to theirs, let's call a spade a spade.

It is like saying I am not being investigated for a hit an run, they are examining my car for evidence of a hit and run.

There's no denying a spade is a spade and there is no effort to try. There just isn't any spade in this. Just as there isn't any riot for the people walking around with the riot act in their hand looking for a riot to read the act to, still not having found one.

The inquiry is into DepState security classification protocols. No person is being investigated. Except in the highly funded mass of rightwing media, no crime is alleged. No prosecutor is involved, no grand jury; no nuthin.

That means former SecState Clinton is not being investigated. There is no spade present to call a spade.

We can be confident the October 22nd Republican controlled House committee on Ben Ghazi and emails will be fully armed when on that day it enters into combat against HRC on the other side of the room. Expect a lot of spade calling on that day too, more than enough for the rest of the political campaign.

Sorry to disagree with you on this one but.... I dont understand isn't there a federal requirement that officials correspondence be retained as part of the agency record? and by having a private sever HRC was violating that requirement, Do we have to rely an her to provide as with a record of these official correspondence, and how can we be sure she is providing us with everything?

Or are we to believe that all official communications were made under the official address of the receiving officials and therefor there was a record.as her lawyers claim.

This whole thing stinks, I will tell you what I think and I am not the only one I think HRC conducted clandestine official business, using private channels and did not want a record of them and I believe , that's where the investigation is What if anything will come of this I don't know But I don't trust her, and as the polls show I am not along. I trust Bernie Sanders, and I would like to see Biden enter the race, and on the Republican side I like Kasich But I think a HRC presidency will be as disastrous for the US as a Trump presidency

I think HRC conducted clandestine official business, using private channels and did not want a record of them

Since you and certain others are confident you all are on to something "clandestine" and that it is such big far reaching stuff, let the rest of the world in on the secrets discovered and uncovered by the rightwing mass of media that continuously cranks out their cranked up stuff.

Six investigations by the Republican controlled congress maximus have found nothing with a seventh underway. So advise us of what the well funded mass of rightwing media have "found" that the rest of the US government can not quite get to the bottom of. The vast array of Republican and tea party investigators in the congress maximus and their surface channels in the rightwing media.

Don't see why anyone who might be on to something big should be holding back in a presidential election campaign.

[Bantex]

Another politician caught lying, I'm shocked.

It's easy to tell when politicians lie, they're lips move.

I once saw the headstone on a politicians grave & the writing started with " HERE LIES " never truer words.

[chuckd]

I dont understand isn't there a federal requirement that officials correspondence be retained as part of the agency record?

This looks like a rhetorical question. How you can take a position on this situation if, by your own admission, you don't understand the legal framework upon which the situation rests?

Also, can you be more clear in what you mean by "federal requirement"? Do you mean a Federal law or just a policy?

I was a program director for six years with the DC Government. Most of our policies and legal bindings are modeled after the Fed's because DC's budget must be approved by congress before it can be appropriated. Our policy was that all communications related to government operations should take place over the centralized e-mail infrastructure to (among other reasons) satisfy potential FOIA requests. Again, it wasn't a legal requirement, just a policy. If somebody breached this policy, it wasn't a violation of law. It would have been up to the agency director (my boss) to decide whether or not to sanction the individual based on how much damage had been done, if any. It might have become a legal issue for the FBI if the breach involved anything classified being sent over unsecured channels.

The reason why we it's entirely unrealistic to mandate that all communications happen only over secured channels is because people use all kinds of nonverbal communication channels such as instant messaging platforms (we used a mis-mash of Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, Google Chat and IBM's Sametime client) for peer-to-peer communications. None of those platforms are managed by the government and all are potentially insecure. Lots of potentially sensitive conversations also took place via text message too, passing through infrastructure managed by private telecoms.

The best we can do is require that classified documents not be sent over such channels. We are still waiting for evidence showing that such documents were mishandled by HRC.

If you can cite the chapter and verse in Federal law that mandates all correspondence must be sent only over government-managed email infrastructure, then I'll take it all back and eat my hat. And if you're going to crucify somebody for using an insecure communications medium, don't limit your ire to a single individual and don't limit it to email. Broaden your scope a bit and think how many government officials are doing the exact same thing via insecure chat and text messaging platforms.

"I was a program director for six years with the DC Government. "

Let me ask, did your job include handling US classified documents and did you have a federal government issued security clearance?

Following is a link to the Rules and Regulations of the National Archives and Records Administration which were in effect when Clinton became SecState. These are the basic rules as far as her records detention are concerned.

One other small thing nobody has mentioned remains in the air.

What was included in those 30,000 e-mails Hillary's lawyer claims were deleted?

Anybody?

You guys knock yourselves out.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-02/pdf/E9-23613.pdf

[attrayant]

Your wait is over.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

From the article:

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

Sounds like whoever sent the classified document has some explaining to do - not the person who received it.

How are you supposed to prevent another person from sending you classified information anyway?

[chuckd]

Your wait is over.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

From the article:

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

Sounds like whoever sent the classified document has some explaining to do - not the person who received it.

How are you supposed to prevent another person from sending you classified information anyway?

Hillary could have prevented it by having a "state.gov" account, instead of a private server.

Not really that complicated is it.

[attrayant]

Let me ask, did your job include handling US classified documents and did you have a federal government issued security clearance?

How is this relevant to the topic?

I managed centralized IT infrastructure (servers, network devices, mainframes) used by all agencies within the city government. Handling documents was not part of my regular duty but there was always a possibility that I might come across something sensitive while doing maintenance on a file server or fixing a problem with somebody's email account. I had only the basic level of clearance.

So let me ask you - if somebody had send me a top secret document, say about North Korea's nuclear capability, would I haven in trouble for receiving it or would the other person have been in trouble for sending it?

[capcc76]

Your wait is over.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clintons Email

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

From the article:

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

Sounds like whoever sent the classified document has some explaining to do - not the person who received it.

How are you supposed to prevent another person from sending you classified information anyway?

Seriously? You have to ask such a question?

By not using a personal email server while working in a sensitive position that involves the flow of confidential, classified and top secret information.

Lol, gotta ask. Would you vote for Obama or Hillary? Perhaps your question is indicative of why people such as them get elected.

[capcc76]

Let me ask, did your job include handling US classified documents and did you have a federal government issued security clearance?

How is this relevant to the topic?

I managed centralized IT infrastructure (servers, network devices, mainframes) used by all agencies within the city government. Handling documents was not part of my regular duty but there was always a possibility that I might come across something sensitive while doing maintenance on a file server or fixing a problem with somebody's email account. I had only the basic level of clearance.

So let me ask you - if somebody had send me a top secret document, say about North Korea's nuclear capability, would I haven in trouble for receiving it or would the other person have been in trouble for sending it?

Lol, you continue to ask this question. First, no one should be sending you classified information because you are a nobody, not working in a high level government position, but if they did . . . both your butts should be in trouble.

Second, if you worked in a high level government position you should not use your own personal server to exchange information because it is more convenient for you. Problem then solved.

[capcc76]

Your wait is over.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clintons Email

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

From the article:

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

Sounds like whoever sent the classified document has some explaining to do - not the person who received it.

How are you supposed to prevent another person from sending you classified information anyway?

Hillary could have prevented it by having a "state.gov" account, instead of a private server.

Not really that complicated is it.

Lol, duh. I was really curious how that one was so difficult to figure out. It is like those who vote democrat are missing that portion of their brain that's called logic.

[chuckd]

Let me ask, did your job include handling US classified documents and did you have a federal government issued security clearance?

How is this relevant to the topic?

I managed centralized IT infrastructure (servers, network devices, mainframes) used by all agencies within the city government. Handling documents was not part of my regular duty but there was always a possibility that I might come across something sensitive while doing maintenance on a file server or fixing a problem with somebody's email account. I had only the basic level of clearance.

So let me ask you - if somebody had send me a top secret document, say about North Korea's nuclear capability, would I haven in trouble for receiving it or would the other person have been in trouble for sending it?

Depends on what you did with it.

Presuming you didn't solicit the North Korean nuclear information, you should have reported it immediately upon receipt to the appropriate authority within your department for their action.

If you sent it on, I would think you are as guilty as is the first party.

By the nature of your question, I would assume you had no clearance.

There is a classification with the acronym SBU, which stands for Sensitive but Unclassified. According to the State Department, this information is also not to be released outside their state.gov network.

Hillary didn't seem to bother with all these mundane rules and regulations. After all, they were written for the little people.

[attrayant]

Hillary could have prevented it by having a "state.gov" account, instead of a private server.

Not really that complicated is it.

Lol, duh. I was really curious how that one was so difficult to figure out. It is like those who vote democrat are missing that portion of their brain that's called logic.

You should both think about your answers (and hopefully come back with something a little deeper than "Lol, duh"). How does having a secure email account prevent somebody from sending you something to your personal, insecure email account?

Now let's see who's missing brain lobes.

[Ulysses G.]

How does having a secure email account prevent somebody from sending you something to your personal, insecure email account?

It gives them a better choice than the personal, insecure email account.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[attrayant]

Depends on what you did with it.

Presuming you didn't solicit the North Korean nuclear information, you should have reported it immediately upon receipt to the appropriate authority within your department for their action.

If you sent it on, I would think you are as guilty as is the first party.

I'll agree with that. Did Hillary forward the email? Or did she, in a prior message, instruct the sender to send information she knew was classified to [email protected]? If the answer to either question is yes, that's the point at which I'll stop defending her.