The Hillary Clinton thread

[Smoove_B]

Can we open an investigation as to why there isn't a hearing on the Supreme Court nomination that was made 113 days ago? Has Hillary commented on this in any capacity - something meaty not just a, "This is absurd" sentiment?

[RunningMn9]

Hmm, I would have that it was pretty clear - it was emailed to her. In most cases, maybe even all, it wasn't a document that was attached, it was a classified matter discussed by someone else who wrote the initial email and then it worked its way up the chain to her. She ddin't download a file of classified info, if that's what you are asking.

I asked because if I have access to classified information, on a secure network, and I email it to you, and you aren't on the secure network, I'm at risk for going to jail, not you.

In other words, setting up the private email server is against State Dept policy, but is obviously not against the law. If classified information ends up on that server, it's not the responsibility of the person that setup the server. It's the responsibility of the person that emailed classified information to a network or server that isn't designated for classified information.

I've seen it happen multiple times, and the recipient isn't the one held responsible. Of course, the instant that spillage occurs, it immediately became Clinton's responsibility to secure it, which generally results in the electronic destruction of the unauthorized system and that clearly didn't happen here.

[gilraen]

I was out doing some yard work a few minutes ago and I recalled there was an actual interesting moment in the Comey inquisition. I don't know if anyone else was watching but at the end Chaffetz asked a question about whether they found anything implicating the Clinton Foundation. This seemed (to me at least) to get under Comey's skin. I don't know if it was supposed to be an off-limits topic, something Chaffetz found out about, or just bluster but Comey's composure changed and Chaffetz started swaying back and forth like he wanted to dig in on it. Maybe it is the poker player in me looking for something but there was something going on there. Comey said he wouldn't answer the question and Chaffetz just moved briskly on with his presen-questioning. Thought that was fairly odd.

Congress isn't allowed to go on a fishing expedition to find out whether there's a different investigation happening (or not happening) that's not directly related to the subject of the original inquiry. FBI doesn't report to them. Comey nipped this tangential line of questioning in the bud, just as he should.

I like this quote from an article on Esquire: "dumbassery in an official capacity is not a criminal offense—which is a good thing, otherwise there would have been very few members of the House majority able to attend Thursday's hearings."

[LordMortis]

Can we open an investigation as to why there isn't a hearing on the Supreme Court nomination that was made 113 days ago? Has Hillary commented on this in any capacity - something meaty not just a, "This is absurd" sentiment?

Can we get the Supreme court to bitch slap Congress for not hearing the nomination and then have Justice enforce the slap? You'd think there would be something that would prevent a theoretical 4/7th of 1/6th of federal government the whole United States hostage.

[Grifman]

In other words, setting up the private email server is against State Dept policy, but is obviously not against the law. If classified information ends up on that server, it's not the responsibility of the person that setup the server. It's the responsibility of the person that emailed classified information to a network or server that isn't designated for classified information.

I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails, and yet rather than following departmental policy and using the departmental email systems, you chose to set up a private server. That would make you a party to whatever infraction occurs.

It's like digging a hole in a well traveled path and then saying you didn't know someone was going to fall in. They should have looked where they were going. Not my fault!

[Kurth]

In other words, setting up the private email server is against State Dept policy, but is obviously not against the law. If classified information ends up on that server, it's not the responsibility of the person that setup the server. It's the responsibility of the person that emailed classified information to a network or server that isn't designated for classified information.

I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails, and yet rather than following departmental policy and using the departmental email systems, you chose to set up a private server. That would make you a party to whatever infraction occurs.

It's like digging a hole in a well traveled path and then saying you didn't know someone was going to fall in. They should have looked where they were going. Not my fault!

+1 I'd take that case in a heartbeat.

Say what you want about this whole email fiasco, but I think it's pretty clear that Hillary is by no means innocent of wrong doing. I'm glad she's not being charged (I think that's probably the right call), but don't confuse that with an absolution of guilt. She screwed up here, but because of who she is, to the extent she faces any consequences, they aren't going to be the same as they would be for someone in a lesser position. That's life, and if you are OUTRAGED about it, you're naive.

But let's not confuse that with any proclamations of Clinton's innocence in the matter.

[Grifman]

Say what you want about this whole email fiasco, but I think it's pretty clear that Hillary is by no means innocent of wrong doing. I'm glad she's not being charged (I think that's probably the right call), but don't confuse that with an absolution of guilt. She screwed up here, but because of who she is, to the extent she faces any consequences, they aren't going to be the same as they would be for someone in a lesser position. That's life, and if you are OUTRAGED about it, you're naive.

But let's not confuse that with any proclamations of Clinton's innocence in the matter.

Umm, I'm not seeing anyone doing that here. I think most would agree that what she did was incredibly stupid, but being stupid isn't generally criminal, or we could arrest most of the Republicans at today's hearing

[RunningMn9]

I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails

You can argue all you want, it doesn't work like that.

It is the sender's responsibility to not email classified information to an unclassified server.

[RunningMn9]

Like msd's wife, I have to be trained on this all the time. And when it happens, the sender is the responsible party. I don't point this out to absolve Clinton. She had a responsibility to contain it - but there is no way to charge her without also charging those who spilled the info in the first place. They knowingly spilled classified data to an unsecure network.

[em2nought]

Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.

[TheMix]

Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.

What???!?!

"Her people"?

I'm having a really hard time processing your stupidity. Also your apparent complete lack of empathy.

[hepcat]

[Holman]

Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.

So you're equating Clinton with the snipers, the protesters with the snipers, or both?

Your answer doesn't matter because they're all just varieties of idiocy. I'm sure the rest of Trump's crowd will be right there with you, especially the ones excited about his "fresh" approach to race.

You know the ones, I'm sure.

[Grifman]

I would argue that as Secretary of State, you should have known that you would be getting classified emails

You can argue all you want, it doesn't work like that.

It is the sender's responsibility to not email classified information to an unclassified server.

Uh, and how many senders would know that Clinton set up a private email server? And if they did know, what do they do if Clinton needs to get a classified email? Just say no to their boss? Or course she's responsible because, she sent up a non-secure private system to receive emails that she should have known would contain classified info, forcing her employees to use it to send her anything. It does indeed work that way, or the FBI director wouldn't have been investigating her

[LordMortis]

Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.

The hell?

[hepcat]

He's just here to make Rip look more tolerant and sane.

[tjg_marantz]

So he's Trump and rip is Palin?

[hepcat]

That combo wouldn't be able to make either one look sane. If anything, a rip in time and space would be created by their close proximty, sucking in all logic and good taste until this world resembled a Cracker Barrel after 11pm.

[stimpy]

That combo wouldn't be able to make either one look sane. If anything, a rip in time and space would be created by their close proximty, sucking in all logic and good taste until this world resembled a Cracker Barrel after 11pm.

I love me some Cracker Barrel.

[em2nought]

Nice example of following laws set by the heir to the throne, I see her people learned the lesson in Dallas already.

The hell?

Democrats have learned that they're above the law. Laws are only made for law abiding conservatives to follow. Seems like a pretty simple lesson, and it's being learned very easily it seems. Guess what? I've never shot anyone. Go spew your toxic venom on some deserving democrat.

[Covenant72]

[Holman]

Democrats have learned that they're above the law. Laws are only made for law abiding conservatives to follow. Seems like a pretty simple lesson, and it's being learned very easily it seems. Guess what? I've never shot anyone. Go spew your toxic venom on some deserving democrat.

You're a troll. If you really believe what you're saying, you're an idiot.

"Above the law." What the hell do you even think you mean? Everyone is condemning this guy's actions. Everyone. And when you find the few lunatics on Twitter doing otherwise, they're the equivalent of the other few morons on Twitter calling for the literal extermination of Jews/Muslims/Blacks/etc.

No one wants the racist shit you're peddling. Take it somewhere else.

[Enough]

This may be even a bit more esoteric but I see your Hanks and raise you some dinosaurs.

[hepcat]

Reading between the lines of a li'l Rip post is too depressing to do on a regular basis.

[Isgrimnur]

Despite Comey taking the wind out of everyone's sails, that won't stop Ted Cruz:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz expressed concern Friday over testimony from FBI Director James Comey the previous day on the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, suggesting that Comey’s decision not to recommend charges reflected increased “politicization” in the FBI, claiming the same has been true for the Department of Justice.

“We saw this with the administration’s refusal to effectively investigate and prosecute abuse of the IRS targeting citizens,” Cruz told Glenn Beck on his radio show. “And I’m very concerned that we’re seeing the same thing with the FBI, that we’re seeing leadership of the FBI behaving just as politicized as the Department of Justice.”
...
Pointing to Comey’s testimony about Clinton’s conduct, Cruz said it “described a pattern of breaking the law, and a pattern of repeatedly giving false statements about it, that what she told the American people, that what she told Congress was flat out contradicted by what Comey reported.”
“And yet, the FBI director effectively rewrote a federal statute where in his own words, he said Hillary Clinton was extremely careless with classified information,” Cruz said, offering his explanation for Comey’s reasoning to not bring charges because Clinton did not demonstrate malicious intent.

“Now, the federal criminal law criminalizes gross negligence. I’ve been a lawyer a lot of years. I gotta tell ya, I’m not smart enough to know the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence,” Cruz exclaimed. “And for Comey to say the fact it’s clear she was extremely careless yet the case should not even be brought to a grand jury, I think that raises a very, very serious question about whether the FBI is now behaving more as a political institution than a law enforcement institution, at least its leadership.”

While noting the “many brave and honorable agents” in the FBI, Cruz deemed Comey’s “performance … deeply disturbing.

I don't know what the difference is, but therefore I know which one should have been determined.

And I thought Glenn Beck had passed from the stage of relevance.

[RunningMn9]

Uh, and how many senders would know that Clinton set up a private email server?

All of them.

And if they did know, what do they do if Clinton needs to get a classified email?

Not send it to her at an email address that isn't on the classified network.

Just say no to their boss?

Yes.

Of course she's responsible because, she sent up a non-secure private system to receive emails that she should have known would contain classified info, forcing her employees to use it to send her anything. It does indeed work that way, or the FBI director wouldn't have been investigating her

It doesn't indeed work that way. As I mentioned above, as soon as the classified information hit her system, it immediately becomes her responsibility to contain the spill. She's not responsible for CREATING the spill. The sender has the responsibility to not send classified information outside of a specific classified network (SIPRNet). It doesn't matter if the Secretary of State tells you to do it. You can't do it. Because then YOU are responsible for spilling the information.

Clinton wasn't investigated for spilling classified into, she was investigated for mishandling classified info (which she did when she failed to report the spill, and when she continued to propagate the spill). I didn't ask the question because Hillary shouldn't have been investigated. I'm wondering whether the people that actually spilled the classified info have been investigated / disciplined / charged.

[Alefroth]

Come on people, resist the urge to respond to it. Every time you respond, you make the discussion about it, and that's just what it wants.

[YellowKing]

The State Department probe that was re-opened today should address whether any of the underlings get disciplined.

[Holman]

And I thought Glenn Beck had passed from the stage of relevance.

Beck is Ted Cruz's most ardent supporter. He still believes Cruz is God's chosen vessel to save America. Failing that, Cruz will lead the small remnant of the faithful who survive the collapse of Clinton's or Trump's America.

Beck on Cruz is creepy as hell.

[Pyperkub]

This is about right:

They’ve invested so heavily in the fantasy that Hillary’s one email or utterance away from complete self-destruction that they can’t bring themselves to accept anything less than the highest return. A sunk cost fallacy of power politics and partisan score-settling.

The pattern has become so familiar that reporters now anticipate it. When FBI Director James Comey excoriated Clinton for her sloppy email protocol, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Republicans would peer so deeply into the mouth of the gift horse he’d just given them that they’d pop out the other end.

[Zarathud]

If the Democrats have politicized the IRS, they've done a terrible job. The Democratic convention still hasn't received confirmation of its 501(c)(3) status after applying in May 2015 while the Republican convention received their approval right away after applying in August 2014. The story that the Democrats are getting away with targeting Republicans has been a LIE since it started.

Let's have some perspective, please. President Bush and Vice President Cheney got away with being incompetent and wrong about the reasons for the Iraq War where soldiers died. And you think anyone gives a damn about Hillary's e-mail servers and press conferences? Stop being cry babies and just grow up. Life isn't fair, capiche?

[Pyperkub]

Because politicians/diplomats are so awesome at email:

When Michael Ratney served as the top diplomat in Jerusalem, he found emails with attachments to be a nuisance, the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said. So, at times, he simply got rid of them to keep his inbox from breaching the storage limits.

[Defiant]

If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?

Also, I'm not sure what he was expected to do (other than bring it to the attention of IT people). Either delete the emails, or having future emails bounce cause he reached his quota.

[LordMortis]

If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?

Retention of emails is largely a matter of server policy, isn't it? Mail relay and spoofing leading to the Retention of million of spams to non existient addresses on even small enterprise servers was a big problem in the late 90s wasn't it?

OtOH, you can't really hold a person accountable for email retention... unless you do. If there is no policy, there is nothing. If there is no instruction and evidence and audit, then there is no policy.

[YellowKing]

If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?

We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.

[malchior]

If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?

We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.

Yup - any regulated institution I have dealt with has email hold periods of 5-7 years and most have a robust e-discovery team in place to handle investigation requests whether external or internal.

[Scraper]

If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?

We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.

It shouldn't boggle your mind because the lack of retention was certainly intentional and not just some rookie mistake.

[El Guapo]

If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?

We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.

It shouldn't boggle your mind because the lack of retention was certainly intentional and not just some rookie mistake.

To be clear they are (as I understand it) talking about e-mail retention on official State Department e-mails (for the diplomat in Jerusalem) and not Clinton's private e-mail server. I think it's more likely that the lack of retention on that end was due to a shitty IT budget and sloppiness.

[PLW]

Hillary was my preferred candidate from the beginning, so I'm actually quite happy with how it's all going. I know a lot of folk are in the "hold your nose and vote" camp, but I actually believe she'll be a really good president. Of course, there is still a real chance of a Trump presidency, so I don't want to get too excited.

[raydude]

If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?

We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.

It shouldn't boggle your mind because the lack of retention was certainly intentional and not just some rookie mistake.

To be clear they are (as I understand it) talking about e-mail retention on official State Department e-mails (for the diplomat in Jerusalem) and not Clinton's private e-mail server. I think it's more likely that the lack of retention on that end was due to a shitty IT budget and sloppiness.

I'm not surprised at the sloppiness. If you're a competent IT professional and plugged into the news then you've seen how working for the Federal govt can be a thankless job. Working at less pay than in private sector, with minimal budgets, and always feeling like someone's watching over your shoulder to spot "wasteful spending". Even if you didn't know how crappy it was beforehand, a few years in would be enough to teach you how crappy it is.