Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
Sun May 29, 2016, 09:39 PM May 2016

Request for input from Hillary Group (HCG)

Hello Hillary Group,

I would love to just rest in my strongly held belief that this e-mail thing is a flap like Vince Foster and Travelgate. But I feel compelled to answer back in GDP. And then there’s the puzzle part. I’m a clarity junky, and this whole thing makes me dizzy. I want to get it straight in my own mind. I’ve tried to list all of the things Hillary’s critics have extracted from the e-mail flap and answer them.

I’m asking any of you with knowledge and energy to edit this before I post in GDP. Please add things that you’ve seen that ought to get shot down. And please correct any misinformation or confusion.

TIA
LAS

1 – Hillary compromised national security.

The State Department OIG investigation does not address classified information. Clinton’s personal e-mail was for un-classified information only. The FBI investigation is the one looking into handling of classified information. The OIG report does not contain any information about breaches of Clinton’s e-mail, although it does mention some e-mails questioning certain messages. In fact, according to some experts, her e-mail was more secure than the Dept of State’s system for non-classified information.

“As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. So it could be the Clinton arrangement didn’t follow the security procedures laid out in the federal regulations—the inspector general did not reach a conclusion as to whether it did or not—but, as often happens, private security contractors did a better job than the government.”

Hillary Clinton did not send e-mails including any information that was classified at the time, with the exception of responding to/forwarding e-mails sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal. These contained classified information which Blumenthal had obtained from public sources. She did not originate them nor was she responsible for their being made publicly available.

2 – She violated State Department policies.

The State Department had not promulgated any policy prohibiting the use of private e-mail servers. That was clarified in legislation in 2014, after Clinton had left office.
The State Department required people using personal e-mail to make hardcopies of all of their e-mails to comply with the federal requirement that all communications be preserved.

- Clinton had electronic backup, a much more appropriate approach in 2008-2012, and turned over 55,000 pages on paper -- just as the 1950's law required. She did not make the paper copies until after she left, which was a technical violation.
Here is an excellent description of what the real world of working with the State Department’s antiquated systems was like.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

3 – She is a liar.

- She’s been saying that a private server was allowed, but now she’s saying she thought it was allowed.

At the time the server was installed there were no state department regulations applying to personal servers. In response to the OIG investigation State Department IT staff said that if she had asked, she would have been told it wasn’t allowed. We don’t know when they made this decision, but in the face of a changing set of circumstances (State Dept now claims it wouldn’t have allowed it), she adjusts her response in a rational way.

- She said, "I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime” but the report said she declined to be interviewed by the OIG.

OK. So in the heat of a debate or an interview she said something she wanted to back away from later in the face of new circumstances. I don’t claim to know the details, but I do understand that total consistency is never found in political campaigns.

- She said that personal e-mail was allowed.

It was. The State Department even specified different ways for preserving copies than the ways used for state.gov.

- She said the State Department approved of her use of private e-mail/server (claims vary).

She never said they approved. They didn’t say anything. Regulations allowed for private e-mail, and the use of a private server was never addressed in their regulations.

4 – She didn’t turn over the first 30,000 early e-mails.

HILLARY GROUP, One answer is a quote from her IT department saying they couldn’t find them. Does anyone know where that is? Is it in the OIG report? I couldn’t find it.

HILLARY GROUP – CAN YOU THINK OF OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED?

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Request for input from Hillary Group (HCG) (Original Post) LAS14 May 2016 OP
emails and stuff stonecutter357 May 2016 #1
Sorry, I don't understand this. Could you elaborate? LAS14 May 2016 #2
Could you elaborate? it's a RWNJ junk ,is that good enough. stonecutter357 May 2016 #6
No. It seems to me that my post is totally pro-Hillary. LAS14 May 2016 #7
Please also suggest titles for the OP. LAS14 May 2016 #3
This OKNancy's OP's linked article is pretty good on the subject of Clinton's emails Her Sister May 2016 #4
Yes, I've included the Newsweek link.. LAS14 May 2016 #9
This is SO GOOD that I've put it in ... LAS14 May 2016 #24
Hello LAS14 SharonClark May 2016 #5
This is why I want to post in GDP. LAS14 May 2016 #8
Could you link to your husband's story? Her Sister May 2016 #13
Here it is. LAS14 May 2016 #15
Loooooooooooooved it! Her Sister May 2016 #19
This is the amazing woman who will make a "Hill" of a President. Great profile. Surya Gayatri May 2016 #21
Thanks for posting that! SharonClark May 2016 #28
"Trying to get excited about Hillary" Sparkly May 2016 #20
Thanks. I'll find her post and send this as a reply. LAS14 May 2016 #22
Check this to see if it gets a response. LAS14 May 2016 #23
One has to wonder how many more of these emails exist. Historic NY May 2016 #10
Given that she was no longer an employee of the federal DURHAM D May 2016 #11
Thanks. You reminded me that I want... LAS14 May 2016 #16
There's a couple of things that seem to be lost in the email controversy radical noodle May 2016 #12
Thanks. Do you have the source for... LAS14 May 2016 #17
Here are a couple radical noodle May 2016 #25
Various responses. LAS14 May 2016 #27
The newsweek article answered your last question. Her Sister May 2016 #14
More sites Sparkly May 2016 #18
I understand you're concerned obamanut2012 May 2016 #26
I posted it. Thanks for all your help. LAS14 May 2016 #29
I just hope Coolest Ranger May 2016 #30
Oh, they will. But that doesn't bother me except... LAS14 May 2016 #31
I trashed GDP so it's content is meaningless to me but... Walk away May 2016 #32
Lots of views, but only 18 direct replies. A number... LAS14 May 2016 #33

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
3. Please also suggest titles for the OP.
Sun May 29, 2016, 09:44 PM
May 2016

I'd thought maybe "Lot's of stuff about Hillary's e-mails."

 

Her Sister

(6,444 posts)
4. This OKNancy's OP's linked article is pretty good on the subject of Clinton's emails
Sun May 29, 2016, 09:50 PM
May 2016
THE SCANDAL OVER CLINTON’S EMAILS STILL ISN’T A SCANDAL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107147111

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
24. This is SO GOOD that I've put it in ...
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:42 AM
May 2016

... a Word doc I keep open so I can plop it into responses on DU. Probably half a dozen times this a.m.

SharonClark

(10,014 posts)
5. Hello LAS14
Sun May 29, 2016, 09:54 PM
May 2016

I know it's hard to read the attacks in GDP but I question the need to post anything about the emails there. You'll just get a boatload of Hillary hate and convince no one. Then you'll get more frustrated and want to post another rebuttal and the cycle continues.

Have you thought about staying away from GDP?

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
8. This is why I want to post in GDP.
Sun May 29, 2016, 10:03 PM
May 2016

I've always assumed that there are people in GDP who are not Hillary Haters. I want them to see the other side at least now and again. Last week I posted an essay my husband wrote about knowing Hillary at Wellesley. This was one of the responses. These are the people I'm reaching out to. As for the Hillary haters.... "sticks and stones..."

"Good story. Thanks for sharing

As a Bernie supporter who is trying hard to get excited about Hillary this story is helpful."

Sparkly

(24,149 posts)
20. "Trying to get excited about Hillary"
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:18 AM
May 2016

See if this helps - Meryl Streep introducing her at Women in the World:

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)
11. Given that she was no longer an employee of the federal
Sun May 29, 2016, 10:20 PM
May 2016

government and there is the FBI investigation of god knows what that is on going I feel certain that her attorneys would have advised her not to talk to the OIG. One rational reporter on my tv made this comment but most talk shit because they don't have a clue what they are actually talking about. I heard one interview last week where the reporter asked her a question about two things unrelated but he thought they were. He needn't know the terms of art, and I watched as Hillary tried to answer without going into a 1/2 hour explanation or just straight up insulting the idiot. otoh - I don't think a 1/2 hour explanation would of gotten the job done...she would have needed hand puppets, a felt board, and a dry erase board.

Also, it was well known that the OIG guy in charge was biased. He might have been associated with Senator Grassley, can't remember for sure.

I recall something about the early e-mails but that 30,000 is not a number I have heard before. Also, how would anyone know the number if they have vanished. Sounds made up.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
16. Thanks. You reminded me that I want...
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:56 AM
May 2016

... to add a closing paragraph about the general difficulties of wrestling with an antiquated system and explaining it in the sound bytes allowed on debates and interviews.

radical noodle

(8,003 posts)
12. There's a couple of things that seem to be lost in the email controversy
Sun May 29, 2016, 11:47 PM
May 2016

Classified emails are on an entirely different system and could not be sent through her home email server. So if the issue is classified information at the time it was sent or received, it could not have gone to her server. It is apparently an impossibility.

She gave the emails to attorneys to go through to decide which was personal and which was SoS related. She didn't pick through them deciding which was which. Any mistakes made (if a few slippped through the cracks) go back on the attorneys, not her.

The server was in a home protected by the secret service and her husband is a former president, who undoubtedly still has security clearance.

At least that's the things that stand out to me as making a difference in all this.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
17. Thanks. Do you have the source for...
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:01 AM
May 2016

... the impossibilitiy of sending classified e-mails from the home server? I will explain that the State Dept itself maintains two systems. It's clear what should happen, but I think the FBI investigation is centered around what DID happen. It seems clear that she forwarded an e-mail from Sid Blumenthal in which HE included classified info. Here's the Wikipedia link. She addressed that quikcly once in a debate. I wish I could find a quote of that. Good point about physical security.

radical noodle

(8,003 posts)
25. Here are a couple
Mon May 30, 2016, 11:17 AM
May 2016

But you may have already seen them

I know I've seen that more than once but can't remember where. I'll look for it.

It would seem to me that if Blumenthal had classified information he sent to her on email it would be the fault of whoever gave him that information in the first place, and it wasn't Hillary. Why DID he have classified information to send to her? I'm not entirely sure how that happened, or if it was classified later.

I assume you've seen this?
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

A portion of this article deals with classified information in a separate system:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-prez-clinton-emails-q-and-a-html-htmlstory.html

Technically, messages from the classified system cannot be sent electronically to unsecured accounts. But it would be possible for someone to hear classified information in a secure briefing and type that into an email on an unsecured account. It is also possible for an official to obtain information from nonclassified sources that the government considers classified – a situation that security experts refer to as "parallel reporting."

(There is also a small portion of this article that refers to the Blumenthal issue.)

This is such a complicated subject and nothing will convince those who hate her anyway, but the emails are going through various departments and each has things they don't want in the public domain, so they mark them "classified" to keep places like Judicial Watch from getting them. That's hardly the fault of Hillary Clinton, though.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
27. Various responses.
Mon May 30, 2016, 12:15 PM
May 2016
But you may have already seen them


No, this is the first I've heard of this particular take.

I know I've seen that more than once but can't remember where. I'll look for it.

It would seem to me that if Blumenthal had classified information he sent to her on email it would be the fault of whoever gave him that information in the first place, and it wasn't Hillary. Why DID he have classified information to send to her? I'm not entirely sure how that happened, or if it was classified later.


I totally agree that it means nothing of a classified e-mail was sent to her. And that was the case. I remember her mentioning it in a debate and am going to try to find her direct quote. This photo of one of the 4 in question is confusing to me, but "classified" is in the middle. It was not originated by Hillary.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16223

but the emails are going through various departments and each has things they don't want in the public domain, so they mark them "classified" to keep places like Judicial Watch from getting them. That's hardly the fault of Hillary Clinton, though.


I do point out that they were marked classified after the fact, but I think I'll add this bit about different departments with different standards.

obamanut2012

(26,080 posts)
26. I understand you're concerned
Mon May 30, 2016, 11:57 AM
May 2016

But my personal opinion is it's best to not post anything like this in GDP.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
31. Oh, they will. But that doesn't bother me except...
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:46 PM
May 2016

.... for the fact that there are so many Hillary Haters in the world. Mostly on DU, as I understand it. But I wrote it for the quiet ones like the one I quoted in response #20 in this thread.

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
33. Lots of views, but only 18 direct replies. A number...
Mon May 30, 2016, 07:04 PM
May 2016

... supportive. I interpret the lack of Hillary Hater replies as indicating that they don't know what to say. . Lots of views, of course. As with most posts.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Request for input from Hi...