Clinton's Emails (Yea, I know)
- Thread starter Jan Itor
- Start date
So worthless that the FBI is withholding 22 emails due to the information they contain.
Serious question, do you sniff glue?
Still haven't admitted to having seen the thread about the Republican SOSs having classified info in their private emails, have you? To each their own. Continue the outrage.
Yes, I'm so outraged I can barely stand it.
Also, I guess I missed the part about two wrongs making a right. If it makes you feel better, if there was wrong doing Condi Rice can join Hillary behind bars. But that's not what you want, do you?
I had no idea that the Governor of Florida gets the same level security clearance as the SOS.
Huh? We've been through this before. Governors of states don't have security clearances. So how about an apples to apples comparison. And before we get the part where you whine about C. Rice and C Powell, I'd like to see some evidence that the FBI is investigating them.
absolutely apples and oranges. Nobody with half a brain is even making this tired old comparison anymore.
Probably not since none of them have broken any laws. Is this really where the GOP is at these days? JFC.
I've been asking a while. What laws have any of these SOSs broken? And don't say the Espionage Act. That one was written a century ago and makes precisely zero mentions of emails let alone computers.
Everyone else has punted so far. Do you care to take take stab? What law have any of them broken?
Duh, she wanted to avoid having her emails subpoenaed by an overzealous politically motivated congress that would stop at nothing to have a Clinton humiliated and drawn and quartered if possible. Why did Colin and Condy?
Thanks for the softball Huey. Be forewarned, there are a lot of words here, you might want to put on your thinking cap.
As the head of the Department of State from 2009 until early 2013, she was legally bound to preserve all records of her agency’s official activities. As 44 U.S. Code § 3101 explicitly provides:
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.
That law, commonly known as the “Federal Records Act,” clearly requires the head of every federal agency (i.e. a Cabinet Secretary like Clinton) preserve all of her records—not simply the ones that she deems are important enough to preserve.
And, yes, emails are considered federal records. A 1995 manual from the State Department (then part of Hillary’s husband Bill’s Executive Branch) plainly states:
All employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law.
As such, emails are subject to the requirement of preservation under the Federal Records Act, which Clinton willfully violated when she “wiped her server clean” sometime in the fall of 2014...when that server was the subject of a Congressional investigation.
At the time, the House Select Committee on Benghazi had subpoenaed Clinton for “all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there.”
She obviously did not, since the State Department confirmed in late June that she withheld from the Department (and also Congressional investigators) “15 exchanges with longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal on the security situation in [Libya]. The existence of the new correspondence only came to light days ago after Republicans subpoenaed the former Clinton White House adviser’s records and he turned them over.”
Clinton, however, did not, and her refusal was a direct violation of both the Federal Records Act and of 2 U.S. Code § 192, which governs the “refusal of [a] witness to testify or produce papers” that are under subpoena:
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
Clinton not only refused to “produce papers upon” a “matter of inquiry before” the House of Representatives (which in itself is a federal offense punishable by up to a year in jail), she actively destroyed those papers by permanently deleting them from her server.
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
A House Select Committee investigation is, of course, governed by Title 11 and since Clinton knowingly destroyed federal records and documents related to that investigation in an obvious attempt to impede or obstruct it, she could potentially face a sentence of 20 years in federal prison.
Making matters legally worse for Clinton is the fact that a number of those emails contained classified information. As the McClatchy News Service revealed late last month:
The classified emails stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies and included material related to the fatal 2012 Benghazi attacks, McClatchy has learned.
Of the five classified emails, the one known to be connected to Benghazi was among 296 emails made public in May by the State Department. Intelligence community officials have determined it was improperly released.
Intelligence officials who reviewed the five classified emails determined that they included information from five separate intelligence agencies, said a congressional official with knowledge of the matter.
The Benghazi email made public contained information from the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a spy agency that maps and tracks satellite imagery, according to the official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The other four classified emails contained information from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA, the official said.
Because Clinton retained this classified information long after she was legally required to relinquish it, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 1924, which governs the “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:”
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.
Since Clinton maintained her own server and therefore reasonably could be assumed to know the contents of her own emails, she knowingly possessed classified information “at an unauthorized location” (i.e. her home in Chappaqua, New York) and therefore faces a potential sentence of one year in federal prison.
In 2004, this statute was used to prosecute former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who admitted to illegally smuggling five classified documents out of the National Archives as he prepared for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2003.
He pleaded guilty and avoided jail time, but paid a $10,000 fine, performed 100 hours of community service, was on probation for two years, and lost his security clearance for three years.
All for removing five documents...the exact same number that Clinton is now accused of illegally removing and holding on to today. However, as The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen notes:
The inspector general reviewed only a small sample of 40 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department. Yet in that tiny sample, he found that five e-mails contained classified information. Five classified e-mails in a sample of just 40 is a rate of one out of eight e-mails that contained classified information. Clinton has handed over some 30,000 official e-mails to the State Department that she had been keeping on her private server. That means there could be some 3,750 classified e-mails that she removed and retained.
If true, this would constitute a massive and possibly devastating breach of national security, as some of the United States’ Government’s highest-level diplomatic and defense communications would be left utterly exposed to quite literally any hacker in the world.
If the Office of Personnel Management—which has some of the world’s most advanced cybersecurity protecting it—could be hacked (presumably by the Chinese Government), then how easy would it be for a hostile nation to access a homebrew email server stored in a house in New York?
"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.
As the head of the Department of State from 2009 until early 2013, she was legally bound to preserve all records of her agency’s official activities. As 44 U.S. Code § 3101 explicitly provides:
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.
That law, commonly known as the “Federal Records Act,” clearly requires the head of every federal agency (i.e. a Cabinet Secretary like Clinton) preserve all of her records—not simply the ones that she deems are important enough to preserve.
And, yes, emails are considered federal records. A 1995 manual from the State Department (then part of Hillary’s husband Bill’s Executive Branch) plainly states:
All employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law.
As such, emails are subject to the requirement of preservation under the Federal Records Act, which Clinton willfully violated when she “wiped her server clean” sometime in the fall of 2014...when that server was the subject of a Congressional investigation.
At the time, the House Select Committee on Benghazi had subpoenaed Clinton for “all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there.”
She obviously did not, since the State Department confirmed in late June that she withheld from the Department (and also Congressional investigators) “15 exchanges with longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal on the security situation in [Libya]. The existence of the new correspondence only came to light days ago after Republicans subpoenaed the former Clinton White House adviser’s records and he turned them over.”
Clinton, however, did not, and her refusal was a direct violation of both the Federal Records Act and of 2 U.S. Code § 192, which governs the “refusal of [a] witness to testify or produce papers” that are under subpoena:
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
Clinton not only refused to “produce papers upon” a “matter of inquiry before” the House of Representatives (which in itself is a federal offense punishable by up to a year in jail), she actively destroyed those papers by permanently deleting them from her server.
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
A House Select Committee investigation is, of course, governed by Title 11 and since Clinton knowingly destroyed federal records and documents related to that investigation in an obvious attempt to impede or obstruct it, she could potentially face a sentence of 20 years in federal prison.
Making matters legally worse for Clinton is the fact that a number of those emails contained classified information. As the McClatchy News Service revealed late last month:
The classified emails stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies and included material related to the fatal 2012 Benghazi attacks, McClatchy has learned.
Of the five classified emails, the one known to be connected to Benghazi was among 296 emails made public in May by the State Department. Intelligence community officials have determined it was improperly released.
Intelligence officials who reviewed the five classified emails determined that they included information from five separate intelligence agencies, said a congressional official with knowledge of the matter.
The Benghazi email made public contained information from the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a spy agency that maps and tracks satellite imagery, according to the official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The other four classified emails contained information from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA, the official said.
Because Clinton retained this classified information long after she was legally required to relinquish it, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 1924, which governs the “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:”
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.
Since Clinton maintained her own server and therefore reasonably could be assumed to know the contents of her own emails, she knowingly possessed classified information “at an unauthorized location” (i.e. her home in Chappaqua, New York) and therefore faces a potential sentence of one year in federal prison.
In 2004, this statute was used to prosecute former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who admitted to illegally smuggling five classified documents out of the National Archives as he prepared for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2003.
He pleaded guilty and avoided jail time, but paid a $10,000 fine, performed 100 hours of community service, was on probation for two years, and lost his security clearance for three years.
All for removing five documents...the exact same number that Clinton is now accused of illegally removing and holding on to today. However, as The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen notes:
The inspector general reviewed only a small sample of 40 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department. Yet in that tiny sample, he found that five e-mails contained classified information. Five classified e-mails in a sample of just 40 is a rate of one out of eight e-mails that contained classified information. Clinton has handed over some 30,000 official e-mails to the State Department that she had been keeping on her private server. That means there could be some 3,750 classified e-mails that she removed and retained.
If true, this would constitute a massive and possibly devastating breach of national security, as some of the United States’ Government’s highest-level diplomatic and defense communications would be left utterly exposed to quite literally any hacker in the world.
If the Office of Personnel Management—which has some of the world’s most advanced cybersecurity protecting it—could be hacked (presumably by the Chinese Government), then how easy would it be for a hostile nation to access a homebrew email server stored in a house in New York?
"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.
part 2:
Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military.
This use of a private server also raises the very serious question of who exactly set up and was managing said server. Since the Obama Administration has repeatedly asserted that it had no idea that Clinton was using a private email address (despite receiving years’ worth of correspondence from “HDR@ClintonEmail.com), it may be assumed that someone with adequate security clearance did not create the server, nor did anyone with adequate security clearance manage the server and therefore have access to thousands of potentially top secret emails.
Clinton, of course, has maintained that she knows very little about technology, so it’s clear that someone other than her had access to top secret emails...thereby constituting another violation of federal law.
In March, at almost the exact same time Clinton’s private server was discovered, former CIA Director David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count for providing classified information to his mistress as she prepared to write his biography.
Petraeus was charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 798, which provides:
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information....Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Had Clinton provided any classified information to either the aide or aides who maintained her server or to an informal aide such as Sidney Blumenthal who did not have an authorized security clearance, then she too would be in violation of this law and subject to a ten-year federal prison sentence.
In fact, Clinton appears to have violated five different federal laws and, if charged and convicted on all potential counts, could conceivably be sentenced to upwards of 32 years in prison.
Read more: http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/c...hillary-broke-the-law-13850494/#ixzz3zFAcPNje
Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military.
This use of a private server also raises the very serious question of who exactly set up and was managing said server. Since the Obama Administration has repeatedly asserted that it had no idea that Clinton was using a private email address (despite receiving years’ worth of correspondence from “HDR@ClintonEmail.com), it may be assumed that someone with adequate security clearance did not create the server, nor did anyone with adequate security clearance manage the server and therefore have access to thousands of potentially top secret emails.
Clinton, of course, has maintained that she knows very little about technology, so it’s clear that someone other than her had access to top secret emails...thereby constituting another violation of federal law.
In March, at almost the exact same time Clinton’s private server was discovered, former CIA Director David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count for providing classified information to his mistress as she prepared to write his biography.
Petraeus was charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 798, which provides:
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information....Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Had Clinton provided any classified information to either the aide or aides who maintained her server or to an informal aide such as Sidney Blumenthal who did not have an authorized security clearance, then she too would be in violation of this law and subject to a ten-year federal prison sentence.
In fact, Clinton appears to have violated five different federal laws and, if charged and convicted on all potential counts, could conceivably be sentenced to upwards of 32 years in prison.
Read more: http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/c...hillary-broke-the-law-13850494/#ixzz3zFAcPNje
Nope...but I think many parties who have sounded off here have not a clue as to where the investigation is leading.....Pure conjecture. And if those who are claiming malfesance are wrong...will they apologize?
She's already admitted malfeasance. I don't think anybody except maybe Red/Huey is claiming she didn't screw the pooch in her handling of classified materials. She and her defenders are claiming it doesn't matter.
I have said that I expect there will be significant evidence that she should be charged with one or more crimes, but the Justice Department will decline to do so. If I am wrong about that, you can bet your patootie I will apologize.
Damn I'm stupid. That's a lot to make sense of. I'm admitting ignorance and want to be educated. I'd love to take a step back and high level it for a moment. It's easy to dive straight in without understanding WHY we're even talking about it.
So a parallel is being drawn between smuggling hard copy files from a secure location to a house and files being held on a server in a house? It seems as if there is an enormous amount of ignorance as to how cyber-security works. I don't know if the folks who set up her server did a good job. I don't know if she made them do it secretly or if she got approval from those whose job it is to keep our information safe. I don't know if those folks advised against it but she pulled rank and made them. I don't know that this has never been done before. But I do know that my small company's email is probably as secure as any government server, and not only because bad guys don't give a rip about seeing our email. I think one of the reasons many just don't care is because they don't understand the malice in the motive? I guess many think at worst this old woman is ignorant of how the series of Internet tubes actually works and if she put info at risk it's because she didn't understand that risk.
I worked for a large company that hired a 70 year old CEO who could barely turn on a computer. He wasn't responsible for the security of his email. I understand Hill had a lot of authority. Did she bypass the guidelines and advice of the people who understand security and order this against the strenuous objection of IT? Or did they say, sure maam, we can do that, no biggie. I know she didn't do the work herself. We had executives request things all the time, but we had final say in actually doing it.
I think this is important. Our government knows a helluva lot about what we're doing. They knew this was being set up this way for her. Can someone educate me on this specific piece? Is she being accused of illegally setting this server up at all, or can we assume it was authorized by the appropriate smart people in security?
So a parallel is being drawn between smuggling hard copy files from a secure location to a house and files being held on a server in a house? It seems as if there is an enormous amount of ignorance as to how cyber-security works. I don't know if the folks who set up her server did a good job. I don't know if she made them do it secretly or if she got approval from those whose job it is to keep our information safe. I don't know if those folks advised against it but she pulled rank and made them. I don't know that this has never been done before. But I do know that my small company's email is probably as secure as any government server, and not only because bad guys don't give a rip about seeing our email. I think one of the reasons many just don't care is because they don't understand the malice in the motive? I guess many think at worst this old woman is ignorant of how the series of Internet tubes actually works and if she put info at risk it's because she didn't understand that risk.
I worked for a large company that hired a 70 year old CEO who could barely turn on a computer. He wasn't responsible for the security of his email. I understand Hill had a lot of authority. Did she bypass the guidelines and advice of the people who understand security and order this against the strenuous objection of IT? Or did they say, sure maam, we can do that, no biggie. I know she didn't do the work herself. We had executives request things all the time, but we had final say in actually doing it.
I think this is important. Our government knows a helluva lot about what we're doing. They knew this was being set up this way for her. Can someone educate me on this specific piece? Is she being accused of illegally setting this server up at all, or can we assume it was authorized by the appropriate smart people in security?
I will bet anyone on this board a 100 bucks, and give 10-1 odds against, that Obama will not pardon Hillary Clinton. Anyone? Anyone? The dream scenario for the Republican party is Hillary being elected, then not charged with a crime. They then get to spend at least four years having hearing after hearing, desperately trying to drag up something, anything that will stick to her. That's what they do.
The decision to indict Hillary is up to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. There have been some reports thatch is a staunch supporter of Hillary, and that may affect her decision on whether or not to indict HRC. If there is no indictment, no need for a pardon.
Again, the Republicans can't lose on this. Indict and Hillary's career is over. Don't indict and it is a corrupt Democratic machine at work again. We get to have hearings and all kinds of good stuff.
I suppose we could go after the a Clinton with a special prosecutor (again). That went well last time.
So, are you of the opinion that the fury over the email situation is misguided?
I don't think it is the DoJ's decision...I think it is going to depend on what the FBI Director recommends....However, I am sure you have decided Hillary should be in the slammer and I am of the opinion if she did wrong, she needs to pay. I felt the same way about Nixon...and you thought it was all made up.
THat is another difference between you and I.
Again, I believe I have heard it is based almost solely on The Director's recommendation. And that was heard the other morning on Morning Joe/Joe Scarborough.
That's fine. But the final decision is the DOJ's. The FBI can recommend whatever they want. The DOJ doesn't have to follow the recommendation. And, the DOJ is not above being swayed by politics.
Not entirely sure what your question is, but it seems the State Department was aware of her email situation.
The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal emails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency email address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.
“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.
“That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private email server until later,” Krongard said in an exclusive interview. “How else was she supposed to do business without email?”
He also points to the unusual absence of a permanent inspector general during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the department. He said the 5½-year vacancy was unprecedented.
“This is a major gap. In fact, it’s without precedent,” he said. “It’s the longest period any department has gone without an IG.”
Inspectors general serve an essential and unique role in the federal government by independently investigating agency waste, fraud and abuse. Their oversight also covers violations of communications security procedures.
“It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,” Krongard said. An email audit would have easily uncovered the secret information flowing from classified government networks to the private unprotected system she set up in her New York home.
http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/
Dream scenario for the Left - HIllary is found guilty with her email and the Left will have hearing after hearing, desperately trying get the of Sec's of State prior to her brought up on same charges.
The real question people should be asking themselves is this: "Why do I think Hillary decided to utilize her own email account and server vs using a State Department account?"
Let the FBI and justice department do what they are going to do but answer that question for yourself before deciding to vote either for her or for someone else.
Me personally, I think it reeks of sloppiness and a self view she has of herself being above the standard common sense regulations that we all should have on ourselves. To me, this sort of thought process should disqualify a person for POTUS in the minds of the voters. For some of you it doesn't but my feeling is that you feel that way bc you are so frightened of the opposition winning rather than being excited about Hills herself.
Let the FBI and justice department do what they are going to do but answer that question for yourself before deciding to vote either for her or for someone else.
Me personally, I think it reeks of sloppiness and a self view she has of herself being above the standard common sense regulations that we all should have on ourselves. To me, this sort of thought process should disqualify a person for POTUS in the minds of the voters. For some of you it doesn't but my feeling is that you feel that way bc you are so frightened of the opposition winning rather than being excited about Hills herself.
They technically caught Bill committing perjury. Wether or not you think it was a big deal what he lied about, he did lie under oath.
