What, EXACTLY, constituted Hillary's great carelessness in handling her emails.

[Gabi Hayes]

besides setting up a private server that was more secure than the government ones she eschewed?

am I missing something here?

they found NOTHING, only, what, three misclassified emails.

were there ANY classified documents that were improperly handled. msnbc/cnn certainly did not address this in their woefully inadequate wrap ups

those who know the ins and outs, please make a case for this investigation and cite all instances of her malfeasance

thanks

[kimbutgar]

1. How about she was a busy SOS and had some computer tech handle the servers and her phones

For some reason I think this was a problem at the tech dept end and it ensnared Hillary. She was a +60 plus year old woman handed phones with set up emails.

[PatSeg]

12. I agree

The idea that a very busy Secretary of State would be all that involved with the technical aspects of the computers and devices is highly unlikely. Some people have some unrealistic expectations I think.

[Travis_0004]

45. Hillary Clinton hired the IT guy

The IT guy was a political apointee, something that is unusual for that for that position. The IT guy had worked with Clinton on her presidential campaign.

If the state department IT staff led her astray, I wouldn't place that blame on Clinton, but for some reason she went out of her way to avoid using the IT department of the State Department, and instead used somebody she hired. If she had no clue what she is doing, she shouldn't avoid using people who do know what they are doing.

[scscholar]

51. True, but she asked to use Microsoft products...

and then remote desktop was open to the world! She should have been tech savvy enough to not ask for Windows to attempt to be used as a server.

[Hoyt]

2. Don't know ins/outs, but her server was safer than government servers. Hard to believe, but true.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Governing while being Democrat.

Republicans apparently think that is a treasonous offense.
In fact they seem to abhor any sort of governing.

[Warpy]

4. Probably simple convenience

combined with the fact that it didn't break any law.

Republicans and Clinton haters just can't cope with the fact that carelessness doesn't equal high treason.

[floriduck]

5. Comey admitted FOIA evasions is a criminal act but the FBI didn't pursue that. They pretty much

just reviewed intent of criminal action relative to sending/receiving classified information. But I think it's safe to say the private server was to control FOIA requests. That investigation may have had much different results. My opinion.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. I'm almost totally certain that he said "civil," not criminal;

I saw him say that at the end, right, when chaffetz was trying find ANY avenue for indictment.

or did I miss some other time they discussed that?

thanks

[floriduck]

15. You might be right but it's a violation of the law either way.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. i know, but consequences are vastly different

why do you care so much?

whose side are you on?

you realize this is just another in a series of partisan witch hunts to which the dems in general, and the Clintons in particular, have been subjected to since JIMMY CARTER's administration

look up the Powell memorandum and get back to us

take your time

[floriduck]

25. I care because I respect the law and want to see it adhered to. Beyond that, nothing else matters.

[Gabi Hayes]

27. so are you going to sue her for FOIA violations?

how much money are you going to ask her for?

[floriduck]

29. Let's get something straight. I don't like to see anyone, not my neighbor, my pastor or anyone else

walk free if they did something that broke the law. Period, end of story.

I'm not a vigilante watching over my protected interests and attacking all others that do. But I see that behavior on this site regularly. You just did it now.

I haven't the least interest in your opinions and I'm sure you don't care for mine. So I'll recommend you either ignore my posts or act a bit less arrogant.

I'm not interested in Hillary Clinton's vast right wing conspiracy attacks. She's a big girl. She should be able to defend herself.

[Gabi Hayes]

31. lighten up francis. let's get something straight. exactly where did I attack you?

your last sentence gives you away, so feel free to ignore me, because your contributions have shown to be not worth reading


thanks for that last paragraph, and pulling back your self-righteous curtain

ha

[floriduck]

33. I consider that condescending and arrogant.

look up the Powell memorandum and get back to us

take your time

[Gabi Hayes]

39. and you're not? look in the mirror. is the bit you quoted an attack?

that's what you accused me of. you need to regenerate a few layers of skin, and stop whining

like I said, your denigration of the 25 year long, ORGANIZED attack on the Clinton's revealed you for what you are

done with you

[Igel]

6. Private server.

Distributed and replaced hardware that could have included copies. I'm more careful with my old hard drives.

Lack of keeping straight classified versus unclassified. She lucked out, but let's not claim luck = competence.

Deleting emails that should have been archived.

No archival capability for the emails that were retained--government work-related emails should be archived for FOIA purposes.

If she had government archival capability, she had no way of reliably segregating work from personal.

[Gabi Hayes]

9. how many government related emails were deleted? I heard

them talking about it, but was typing

it was on the order of 22 million, right?

definitely need to look into something like that order of magntitude, right?

[PatSeg]

13. How soon some people forget

[emulatorloo]

10. The bottom line: "FBI director says Clinton did not lie, break law in email handling"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141511536

Republicans can continue to lie and spin as much as they want

She's apologized for having a private server. Was definitely a mistake

However FBI found she did not lie or break the law.

[floriduck]

16. Yes, relative to his limited focus.

[LuvLoogie]

37. You should call your congressman to start another investigation.

The burnishing of your principles should not go in vain

[emulatorloo]

48. Unclear. Sounds like you wanted a Ken Starr type fishing expedition instead of a FBI investigation?

Maybe I am mistaken. Can you clarify what you were wanting instead of an FBI investigation.

I am sure you are aware that the Congressional Republicans have been investigating HRC since she announced she was running for President.

They've investigated her from all angles, and they are unable to come up with any wrongdoing on her part.

Do you beleive they should keep trying and continue wasting money with politically motivated investigations?

[emulatorloo]

8. Cuz CIA got butthurt over an email quoting an published article in the NYT about drones.

[Gabi Hayes]

11. idiot texas congressman farenthold displays his complete ignorance.

he just said on msnbc that comey's characterization of email handling with lots of carelessness is the SAME as the legal standard of gross negligence, therefore should be grounds for indictment.

comey, on the other hand, took GREAT CARE to make that legal distinction, and ALL the fbi agents...15-20, according to Elijah Cummings, agreed that there was no case

too bad the stupid msnbc correspondent didn't know that, and during the interview asked an imbecilic question, which showed she didn't understand the topic being discussed....sorry, but I've been typing all through this, and have forgotten her question, only recall how idiotic it was

that said, farenthold was Such a huge liar, as well as the documented-above moron, that it sickens me that msnbc would have him and peter king as the only congressional interviewees I saw. no dems, of course

[Gabi Hayes]

14. wow! attorney for the prosecution Steve Kornacki, msnbc, just had

Kelly odonnell on, providing the prosecution brief for about five+ minutes....on and on an on about how she mishandled the emails, and MIGHT have committed perjury, for which the pugs are going to make a referral to comey.

lots of other anti Hillary propaganda. then, at the VERY end, he said the dems tried to defend her. that was IT.

seriously

wtf happened to kornacki? is there something going on from the big bosses?

[ecstatic]

17. I still don't understand why it's even her job to handle IT

If there was policy that needed to be followed, that should've been set up and explained by the IT department (just as it happens when starting any other job). That's a failing of the institution, not her.

[TCJ70]

30. Didn't she kind of make it her job...

...when she insisted on a private server being in her home? Keep in mind that has never been the case for any SoS before her and I don't think she went through any kind of authorization process to have it handled.

[Gabi Hayes]

32. so what do you make of colin powell and condi rice? they don't count, right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

[TCJ70]

34. They didn't have private email servers in their homes...

...so it's not the same thing.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. there are those who say that's a distinction without a difference

especially since Hillary's server has been shown to be more secure than those of the SD

[TCJ70]

40. Yeah, except it's not even close to the same thing...

...having the physical server hardware that needs to be maintained, monitored, secured, etc is very different from using an established email service that just provides email access. It's a distinction with a clear difference. You're comparing logging into your Gmail account with setting up your own email service from scratch just for your personal use.

As for the security of her setup, admittedly I don't know what the setup was so I can't really evaluate that.

[Gabi Hayes]

43. what you say may be true about the physical aspect, but

it has been testified to that her server was more secure than that of the SD's

what's your point, then? are you for throwing the book at her?

if so, why are you here?

I'm a huge Bernie supporter, but the alternative to Hillary is unspeakable

[TCJ70]

49. You really escalated that quickly...

My point is that Hillarys situation is quite different from her predecessors. If you don't want to take my word for it, fine:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

Other people in similar situations ( speaking beyond the server issue, that's unique to her) have had their clearance revoked (not applicable in her case as she's no longer SoS) or have been told they'd never have security clearance again. As it stands, she's walking away with no repercussions. What's appropriate for her case, I don't know. It is unique.

[arendt]

19. The beauty of the Comey Kabuki is that your question simply does not matter.

There are many former prosecutors saying that Comey made a complete muddle of this. They say he should have indicted because laws were broken. Instead, they say, he rewrote the law; then he smeared HRC. This couldn't have gone better for HRC if she written the script herself: She is exonerated and the FBI look like thugs.

From here forward, any time someone asks your question, the answer is: Comey, Comey, Comey.

Believe the exoneration, don't believe that "extreme carelessness" means anything at all. Heads she wins; tails he loses. Laws were twisted both to smear her and to protect her. Try explaining that to anyone with less than a J.D. in a ten second soundbite. Not going to happen.

----

So, just for the record (which shall never again see the light of day), in answer to your question, here are some comments by Law Enforcement officials:

1. Andrew McCarthy – former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, obtaining convictions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – notes:

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense...

2. Former prosecutor (and Clinton supporter) Chuck Hobbs puts it:

With Comey indicating that over 100 emails analyzed by his agents contained some level of classified information, and with him further indicating that Clinton used her private servers in areas where “hostile actors” could have easily accessed her account, as a former prosecutor, I would think that a prosecution should be forthcoming; such would be the logical conclusion considering the facts that Clinton agreed not to break the law and that she broke the law either knowingly or negligently.

Comey’s comments constitute a form of legal sophistry in that prosecutors did not need to prove that Clinton intended to commit a criminal act. Comey and staunch Clinton apologists keep providing cover by adding that element — intent — that simply is not needed. Indeed, under federal and state laws, negligence roughly means an “indifference” or careless attitude toward the proscribed conduct and with Comey calling the conduct “extremely careless,” an argument can be made that Clinton was grossly negligent in her acts.

3. Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said:

I’ve been involved in the criminal investigation for the FBI of Congressmen, Senators, and officials of every description …. I cannot ever remember any FBI director – or any FBI official – coming out with a referral and the substance of a recommendation. So that it in itself is highly, highly unusual.

4. Matthew Miller, who was a spokesman for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey’s press conference an

“absolutely unprecedented, appalling, and a flagrant violation of Justice Department regulations.” He told The Intercept: “The thing that’s so damaging about this is that the Department of Justice is supposed to reach conclusions and put them in court filings. There’s a certain amount of due process there.”

----

Well played by all. The best performance at the inside-the-beltway Kabuki Theatre since Scooter Libby took the fall for Darth Cheney. Comey's performance is a thing of beauty. It all depends on what his definition of "negligent" is.

Maybe HRC partisans think its great. The rest of us are thinking, what if that was Cheney or Bush or (worse) some future rightwing gangster who broke black letter law and got off. We cringed when the Bush-Cheney DOJ made a mockery of the rule of law. We should cringe at this demonstration that the law today is whatever high officials say it is, not what is on the books.

[arendt]

21. In Nixonian terms, it was a "limited hangout"

Go google it.

[Gabi Hayes]

23. the bush admin ALL got off scott free, except scooter, so what's the point of your

final assertion?

you seem to be saying she's guilty. how severe should her penalty be?

btw, I have no brief for her for many reasons, high up there being her scabrous behavior surrounding the destruction of a country with the highest standard of living in Africa

[arendt]

46. The point is that nothing has changed. Different party, same shit.

I didn't want to spell that out, because I would be pounced on for asserting Obama = Bush.

But, the bottom line is that the law was bent to serve powerful people, when less powerful people would and have gone to jail for doing the same thing.

According to many prosecutors, she is guilty of negligence. Comey did a dance and said it was "extremely careless", not "negligence". I say that is where the power trumped the law.

I am so sick of the miasma of slick dealing and verbal/legal hair splitting that surrounds the entire Clinton enterprise. No wonder she polls low on "trustworthy". Being "careless" with top secret data isn't going to help that.

[LuvLoogie]

41. Burnish that pebble. It might turn into gold.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. She sent emails

that contained classified information, a few marked, the vast majority not marked, on an unclassified system.

[Gabi Hayes]

22. I mentioned the server in the OP. show me the evidence of

classified information being sent

if you can, then you should be on the staff with comey, because ALL of them agreed there was not enough there there to proceed any farther than they did

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Who said the should proceed further than they did?

You asked exactly how she mishandled classified information, and I told you.

Comey outlined very clearly in his statement that there were many documents containing classified information that were found to have been sent by Hillary.

What she did is far, far less egregious than those on her staff who actually moved the classified information down to the unclassified network. Those people should be identified and denied any future security clearance.

[Gabi Hayes]

26. how many classified documents were sent? I thought it's come out

that there were none, only ones that were mismarked and/or upclassified.....can you be more specific?

that's why I started this thread.

thanks for the other post, btw, with the commentary by other attorneys

EDIT: can you explain why this thread, and the article to which it refers, are incorrect? thanks in advance

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. A bit more than 100

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

So, 110 emails contained information that was classified at the time they were sent or received.

And I don't know to what article you are referring? I looked in the OP and didn't see a link, but then again, my eyes seem to be aging faster than the rest of me.

[Gabi Hayes]

35. the current consensus is summed up by rep. Ted Lieu as I type this

said there are only THREE emails that are now deemed classified, and those were mis marked

that's what was said during the hearings, which part I heard, and that's what Lieu just affirmed to Chuck Todd, who clearly didn't like hearing it, instead pretty much fawned over the lunatic (Jordan?) who made a bunch of crazed accusations just before Lieu came on

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Well Rep Lieu must know something that the FBI

doesn't, because Comey clearly stated there were a few more than 100.

[Gabi Hayes]

42. I think this story takes you part of the way there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/05/six-things-we-learned-from-the-fbi-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-email/?utm_term=.a702cf1a93cd



those leave, what, 52 suspect emails, which, I promise, have been winnowed down to the three I mentioned, two of which were for appointments or phone calls

it will come out somewhere linkable, but I know what I saw on tv today, and nobody seems to be questioning the final number is three, which were unclearly marked, with a small 'c' in the body, not headers, IIRC

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. No

because the three you're talking about were mentioned separately in Comey's statement earlier this week (he didn't mention three specifically, he said a very few were marked).

There were emails that were marked classified (three) and 100+ that were classified but not marked, as denoted in your chart above. 36 at Secret and 8 at Top Secret can't be winnowed down to three actually marked Confidential.

[Hekate]

47. Her name is Clinton, Hillary Clinton.

Pretty much covers all her "crimes."

[loyalsister]

50. Not following rules designed to facilitate compliance with FOIA was extremely careless

Setting the issue of mishandling classified information, trying to skirt FOIA is a pretty big deal.
I have heard dozens of justifications and obfuscations "she has a right to keep some email private" "I didn't know any better" "convenience" and now, the talking point is that it turned out to be safer.

The secrecy and clumsy series of explanations are what is probably going to keep this going. She actually did break rules, denied it, admitted it, tried to minimize it, deflect, etc.

[Proud Public Servant]

55. ^^^ This, unfortunately ^^^

What she did wasn't a crime. But it appears that she -- or someone -- put her own convenience ahead of the spirit of the law, especially as regards FOIA. So now she's stuck looking like she's either (1) a liar (since it appears that material marked classified was indeed on the server, albeit without classified headers), or (2) clueless, or (3) operating from a sense that the rules don't need to apply to her, or (4) a veritable pu pu platter of all three. None of that helps and, as usual, it's an unforced error.

[7962]

53. Any detailed answer will be hidden or removed

So whats the point

[TeddyR]

54. Any support for the notion that Hillary's illegal private server

Was more secure than the government-approved servers?

From what I've read, Hillary utilized a private server that wasn't approved, deleted thousands of emails that were subject to FOIA, and misrepresented whether confidential or higher info crossed that server.