https://medium.com/the-curious-civilian/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you-yet-you-dont-actually-know-what-the-clinton-511dc1659eda#.3wvsl17on

Where Did Hillary Clinton’s Email Server Come From?

Like most things bad in Hillary Clinton’s life, the email problem can be traced back to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Post-presidency, Bill Clinton had an email server set up in their Chappaqua, New York, home to handle the communication needs of their foundations and other post-White House affairs. They felt that it was more reliable if they controlled their own server (which few would argue was a bad idea). An aide to President Clinton, Justin Cooper, set up the first email server on an old Apple computer in their basement, and away this whole thing went.

Hillary Clinton, still senator and running for president, was generally doing her email on a Blackberry with an address she got from AT&T. If you think this is silly, remember that people like Colin Powell were emailing on AOL accounts — but more on that later.

Recently sworn in as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton decided to move from her AT&T account to the family server, which honestly, makes a lot of sense. If you had access to email that worked on whatever device you wanted to check it on, had near-perfect uptime, was siloed, and had support you knew personally (and could contact at any time), wouldn’t you consider using your own server too? When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the server was in the process of being updated by Bryan Pagliano, who was recommended by Huma Abedin (Clinton’s longtime aide who many consider her closest). Within a few months (from January, to March 2009), Clinton and her staff were migrated to this server (clintonemail.com), doing work for the State Department.

tl;dr The Clintons had a private email server set up by their personal friend, and that was convenient for unofficial use. She became SoS, and they moved to the private server, in her home. For anyone dealing with classified material, this is completely inappropriate. My classified shit is kept in a locked safe in a locked room in a locked hall of a locked building in a base with controlled access, not in the bag I take home every night. Doing so is a federal crime, and I would immediately lose my clearance and would have no future in the defense industry or public service, not even mentioning the potential for criminal consequences.

So all of the government’s most private secrets were being funneled through a private server in Chappaqua? Lock her up!

In a word, no.

While some classified information passed through Clinton’s servers, email isn’t generally the place where state secrets and strategies are talked about. For that, Clinton used secure methods like SCIFs, couriers, and other approved forms of transmission. And while classified messages did go through her private server, the hard truth is that the vast majority of them were classified after the fact.

Classification is a strange beast in the government, and the rules aren’t exactly clear-cut. Classification, for the most part, is governed by a small set of guidelines, with human judgment being the most important criteria (if you want to really know more about the subject, check out this and this guide from the government itself — and be sure to enjoy the Microsoft Office clipart). The reasoning for classification doesn’t always have to be a great one— simply wanting to have something classified will generally do. In an age where terrorism and national security are such critical issues, you can imagine that more information than necessary might be considered sensitive, which has actually led to a major problem in over-classification.

Does this forgive Clinton for having any classified data on her server? No. But she also wasn’t actively trying to use her email for that purpose, and she followed proper state guidelines with information she knew was sensitive.

This is a whole lot of explanation that basically attempts to excuse illegal control of classified material. Even unclassified material, when combined with other unclassified material, may become classified. As Secretary of State, it's a very safe assumption that anything she does through official correspondence should be considered potentially confidential or secret.

So level with me. How many classified emails went through this server?

2093.

2093? Holy shit.

Hold on, that’s 2093 out of 62,320.

Still a lot.

Yes, but out of that 2093, only 110 were classified at the time. 0.17%, or just under two-tenths of a percent.

Still kinda bad that it was on a private server.

Yeah, pretty much, but look at it this way. Even if she used a state account, that percentage would be identical, and state accounts are not immune to security breaches. While hosting it on her own server wasn’t the smartest move by Clinton, you can hardly call it malice. It makes James Comey’s conclusion, which was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton, seem perfectly sound. There’s really nothing there.

Yeah, but some classified information being shared is disastrous, right?

Maybe, but Clinton wasn’t even close to being alone. The Washington Post reported in 2015 that one in three government employees were using personal email addresses to conduct business. This quote from the article (emphasis mine) really illustrates where the security/convenience issue breaks down:

“The record keeping rules are unfortunately not known by everyone at an agency,” he said. And the flexibility of telework makes it easier for employees to skip the step of signing into a government account remotely if using, say, Gmail is simpler.”

The sad truth is that security isn’t a sure thing in government communication, and that it generally lags heavily behind the public sector. We like to think that digital correspondence in the government is happening over some bank vault-like super networks, but many times it’s just an iPhone and a Hotmail account.

First of all, one misuse of classified material is a felony. This article confirms over 2,000 felonious acts, with 110 of them being completely indefensible. Security of classified material is taken extremely seriously throughout the entire government, and the excuse that "record keeping rules are...not known by everyone at an agency" is complete horseshit.



The rest of the article is just pointless apologetics, and consists of speculation and opinion. Is the fact that there are 110 incontrovertible (and 2000 otherwise) accounts felonious misuse of classified information enough to be a legitimate reason to not elect somebody? Anyone else doing something like this would likely be in jail, especially when it involves such a high position of power. The fact that the FBI won't continue the investigation despite admission of fault and incontrovertible evidence of guilt is a pretty disturbing indication of her apparent immunity from recourse.

So... the FBI saying they had nothing chargeable means nothing now. Some guys online says she's guilty lets just skip over the investigation that's already done and just string her up

So... the FBI saying they had nothing chargeable means nothing now. Some guys online says she's guilty lets just skip over the investigation that's already done and just string her up

it never meant anything, FBI is bought and paid for by obummer and the Clinton Foundation

The fact she's allowed to run for presidency proves how corrupt the system is.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I don't agree with this. The fact that such a preeminent abuser of the system is able to run is a testament to the legitimacy of our republic (notwithstanding how rigged the DNC may have been). Constitutionally, there is no requirement for a president to have a clean criminal record or possess a security clearance, and there actually is precedence of a governor who temporarily lost his clearance and ultimately had to use his staff and deputies to get work done -- I assume a similar process would be involved for Clinton if the obvious choice of just ignoring the problem and giving her clearance was avoided (which is exactly what happened).

So... the FBI saying they had nothing chargeable means nothing now. Some guys online says she's guilty lets just skip over the investigation that's already done and just string her up

His statement straight up declares that crimes were committed, but they won't do anything about it.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

He does not say there is "nothing chargeable", and in fact spends all of the above discussing the various criminal failings of Clinton's administration. His response is that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." And remember, neither intent nor quantity matter in the crime; he is, for all intents and purposes stating that crimes were committed but they could not win the case despite such blatant evidence. And the DoJ deferring to the FBI, despite that they have the final say, allows neither to accept responsibility for not going forward.

and trump will start another holocaust if he's elected

and trump will start another holocaust if he's elected

if we're lucky

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 23, 2016, 04:02:53 PM

So... the FBI saying they had nothing chargeable means nothing now. Some guys online says she's guilty lets just skip over the investigation that's already done and just string her up

His statement straight up declares that crimes were committed, but they won't do anything about it.

Quote

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

He does not say there is "nothing chargeable", and in fact spends all of the above discussing the various criminal failings of Clinton's administration. His response is that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." And remember, neither intent nor quantity matter in the crime; he is, for all intents and purposes stating that crimes were committed but they could not win the case despite such blatant evidence. And the DoJ deferring to the FBI, despite that they have the final say, allows neither to accept responsibility for not going forward.

Can't wait to see how Charlie doesn't respond to this.

She isn't being charged. They said it was irresponsible but not criminal.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Anyone have an opinion in my stance on Clinton's warmongering? Especially with Russia?

Finally. Something that matters. She's too hawkish. I expect a former SecState to be a little less bomb them and then talk

Quote from: Maverick on October 23, 2016, 11:29:46 PM

Quote from: Luciana on October 23, 2016, 11:19:29 PM

Anyone have an opinion in my stance on Clinton's warmongering? Especially with Russia?

Not sure what your stance is exactly.

Basically, when she's president, I don't mind her hawkish stance, especially in regards to Russia. After Obama's 8 years of weak foreign policy, I think we need to stand up to Russia. Too much do we let them test the waters, and hack our computers time and time again. I'm not even talking about this controversial recent one. They've just done it a LOT lately.

Yeah I agree within reason. I don't really like the no-fly zone in Syria idea.

Obama fucked it up.

You guys continue to carry a torch for an argument that's been settled in court.

No it hasn't. That's the entire point. The mental gymnastics used to excuse her actions simply because she's in a specific party is astounding.