Politics and stuff

[DRWebs]

Agree completely with you George on all accounts and Shel as well

[dakshdar]

I don't know if it was added after I read the article, but an updated breakdown showed:

30,000 emails
8 should have been marked "top secret" at the time they were sent/received
36 should have been marked "secret" at the time they were sent/received
8 included confidential information
2000 contain information that was since classified as confidential, meaning it was not required to be marked as such at the time the email was sent

So... I don't know. Was this "extremely careless" as they said? Maybe. But when 0.17% of the emails handled over a 4 year period should have not been on a private server, it just doesn't jump out as out of control. The way it had been portrayed is that they were sending classified information back and forth consistently on the server. In reality, once a month (on average) over a 4 year span an improper email was sent/received. And we don't even have the information to know how many of those were simply received from someone outside her group that failed to mark the document and how many people within her group failed to do so (keeping in mind that it appears the server was also used by people that worked for Clinton).

[OracleHCR]

Someone has been drinking the koolaid. It doesn't matter how many there were. One is enough to get anybody else prosecuted. Quit making excuses.

[DRiccio21]

Someone has been drinking the koolaid. It doesn't matter how many there were. One is enough to get anybody else prosecuted. Quit making excuses.

absolutely... knowing joe and how he usually takes stances on things, i'm pretty shocked by his comments.

[dakshdar]

Someone has been drinking the koolaid. It doesn't matter how many there were. One is enough to get anybody else prosecuted. Quit making excuses.

You don't get prosecuted for one mishandled piece of email. That's laughable. I've seen it at work and those people don't end up fired, in jail, or whatever you think happens if someone fails to mark an email properly or mishandles sensitive data.

The only way you are getting prosecuted is for malicious mishandling of the data, as in you take data from a classified area intentionally with the intent to provide it to someone else that should not have access to it.

We have people every year that walk out of their classified building with a piece of paper with classified information on it. Almost every time they self-report as soon as they realize it. If it is their first time, there are all kinds of possible repercussions but prosecution is hardly one of them. They may get sent for more training, may get suspended from work for a short period (1-2 days), or may get removed from the program they're working (but that would be extremely severe for a first offense).

[dakshdar]

Someone has been drinking the koolaid. It doesn't matter how many there were. One is enough to get anybody else prosecuted. Quit making excuses.

absolutely... knowing joe and how he usually takes stances on things, i'm pretty shocked by his comments.

Honestly, I think people are not understanding what took place. It seems many people think that Clinton had classified information out in the open for anyone to find when that isn't true. Also, the parties involved in the emails (from all the details) were approved for the level of classification of the information being transmitted. The risks were twofold: (1) that the server security could have been hacked and the information could have been leaked or (2) someone could have sent improperly marked emails to another party that should not have received them. Neither of those things were brought forth because in the case of hacking, it didn't happen (and let's not forget that the US government has been hacked before and classified information has been leaked so it isn't like the information would have been unobtainable if it had been on US servers instead) and there was no mention of the emails being sent on to people that didn't have the right clearances to receive them.

At least that is my understanding. Is there something terribly off with that viewpoint?

[dakshdar]

Just last year China hacked the database that holds all the personal information for people that receive security clearance in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... ities-say/

[DRiccio21]

so because nothing bad happened, her judgment doesn't matter?

or

because bad stuff is going to happen regardless, lets just not worry about it?

intent is pretty much all i care about when i deal with people, her intent was clearly to be deceitful... the layers or levels of the deceit to me aren't all that important.

[shel311]

Process vs results, never would I have ever guessed Dak was on Team Results.

[OracleHCR]

Classified. No. Top Secret. Yes. You will be prosecuted. My dad worked in military intelligence for 20 years and that is the first thing he said when he heard about this bs. You can try and spin it any way you want. She broke the damn law. George was right. Patraeus was rail-roaded for much less than she was caught doing. The fact that this comes down just days after a secret meeting on a runway doesn't seem sketchy in the slightest does it?

You are pointing to other illegal incidents to justify her illegal activities. Her having a private server to conduct State Department business concerning top secret or classified data was illegal. There is no way to justify that no matter how you try and spin it. Her lying about conducting that business is just the icing on the cake. The people who are going to vote for her don't care. That is the problem.

[shel311]

In fairness, the FBI Director has told you it's illegal and if others did the same thing, there would be consequences, but only because it's Hilary, he won't do so...

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

[dakshdar]

No, sorry. What was done was wrong and shouldn't have happened. I just feel the level of incorrectness is being blown out of proportion. And I think the FBI report did conclude that there was no ill intent/deceit involved.

Shel, security or administrative sanctions could be equivalent to what I mention.

So, followup question, why aren't they going after the people that sent improperly marked emails? Where is the outcry to prosecute them?

[shel311]

Shel, security or administrative sanctions could be equivalent to what I mention.

Correct, read my quote. For others who do the same thing, he flatly said they will face punishment...but not Hilary.

Why is that?

[dakshdar]

Didn't Patreaus provide classified information to someone without proper clearance? Is there any indication in this case that anyone without clearance saw/received something they shouldn't have?

To me, that is more important than anything else, and it hasn't been brought up in any of the discussion.

[dakshdar]

Shel, security or administrative sanctions could be equivalent to what I mention.

Correct, read my quote. For others who do the same thing, he flatly said they will face punishment...but not Hilary.

Why is that?

I agree, that should not be true.

[OracleHCR]

He is guilty. So is Snowden. Petraeus passed info to his girlfriend. I guess he ejaculated his brain out and his mouth just kept running. They prosecuted him to the fullest and they should have. The thing about Hillary is that way more information passed through her private server exposing way more information.
Also if the emails were improperly marked, those employees should be prosecuted, and I bet they will.

[dakshdar]

It's super unclear why this was allowed to happen in the first place. She claims she requested to use the server and received approval. How does that even happen? There has to be more people held accountable if that's true. She never used a .us.gov address while in office. For four years no one questioned that? It's not like she was so all powerful that she could overrule other state department officials on the matter...

[dakshdar]

This also screams of failure of an entire system to me. This went on for four years and no one said stop? That's a lot of people at fault.

[DRiccio21]

Didn't Patreaus provide classified information to someone without proper clearance? Is there any indication in this case that anyone without clearance saw/received something they shouldn't have?

To me, that is more important than anything else, and it hasn't been brought up in any of the discussion.

so you are a results over process guy... mind blown!

[dakshdar]

I'm saying they're different scenarios. He acted with intent to give out information his girlfriend shouldn't have. The FBI report indicated that wasn't what was going on here. They're not comparable situations imo.