2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumScandal Over Clinton Emails Still Isn't A Scandal
LV McF ?@Chitown1216 19h19 hours agoAppears Clinton email scandal only exists in the minds of partisans
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414
from Kurt Eichenwald at Newsweek:
____ Heres what this new inspector generals report shows: When senior State Department officials swam in the deep pool of email rules, there were basically no lifeguards on duty. The office for ensuring compliance with the federal rules on communicationsstaffed by the people who were supposed to be reading all the Federal Register procedures and policy statementshas been a horrifically underfunded, understaffed and ineffective group for many years, starting long before Clinton arrived at the State Department. As the report says, Longstanding systemic weaknesses related to electronic messages and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. The Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications.
That means there were problemslots of them. Many employees at the State Department not only used personal email accounts, they refused to use their government-issued laptops because they were lousy. A 2011 email cited by the report underscored this point. Written by the departments former policy planning director and sent to Clinton, it said, States technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.
With out-of-date equipment and poor support, plenty of mistakes were made. A good example is when Powell had a private internet line installed in his office so he could use his personal email account on his home laptop. Under the rules, the new line shouldnt have been put in, but it was. Powell, like every other secretary of state, never read the entire Foreign Affairs Manual; he dealt with foreign crises, wars and international diplomacy while depending on the relevant staff to determine whether it was appropriate to put a jack in his wall.
Clintons personal email process was a far less clear-cut as a potential violationand may not have been at all. The Foreign Affairs Manual allowed for the use of personal email accounts under certain conditions, but never described what those conditions were. (That is why one of the recommendations from the inspector generals report is for the State Department to issue enhanced and more frequent guidance on the permissible use of personal email accounts to conduct official business.)
If Clintons account arrangement for nonclassified emails did not fit within the confines of that rule, none of the experts told her so. Clinton had groups of people responsible for overseeing her email operations, including one specifically dedicated to the job with the title "Special Adviser to the Deputy Chief Information Officer." He worked for Clinton throughout her entire term as secretary of state. In addition, the chief operations officer knew about the account, as did the deputy chief of staff for operations.
Then there was the division specifically charged with overseeing all communications systems for the Office of the Secretary and Its Executive Secretariat, or S/ES in State Department lingo, which included Clinton and all of her direct staff. The group responsible for email, computers and the like is called S/ES Office of Information Resources Management, better known as S/ES-IRM. As the report makes clear, officials in S/ES-IRM knew about Clintons email arrangement and were in frequent contact with the official directly in charge of maintaining security on Clintons private server. Near the beginning of her time in office, the division prepared memos about her use of a private server, which was in the basement of her guarded home. S/ES-IRM staff met multiple times with the special adviser in charge of the private email account and server, and sent emails to Clintons senior staff describing technical issues that arose with the system and the actions taken to resolve them. The special adviser also met with the departments Cyber Threat Analysis Division to discuss the email system and security issues. The bottom line is that Clintons email arrangement was not some dark secretthe staffers who spent their careers learning the sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual that relate to emails knew all about it. And the report cites nothing to suggest Clinton or her staff were told by the experts that there was any reason she shouldnt use the system.
That doesnt mean there were not concerns...
read more: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414
YouDig
(2,280 posts)bigtree
(85,998 posts)...many make the mistake of forgetting the vulnerability of her opponent.
Logical
(22,457 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)Kerry never did, and that's why he lost. Trump is a clown, and the numbers are in Hillary's favor, but that doesn't mean he can't win.
dchill
(38,502 posts)Just another in the series.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Its not a scandal, its a crime.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...so, the accusations coming from the DU gallery and elsewhere are a trumped-up scandal.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)bigtree
(85,998 posts)...still not evidence.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Just tell me what you see in the document.
...not cooperating with the internet circus trial.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Would you say these things in front of your bosses at work, I wonder?
For honest, responsible people, the truth is whatever it is, and they accept it.
People enjoying that peculiarly intense dislike of Hillary, though, don't need truth or reason for their attitudes. So in this case whatever happens no harm/no foul to them, right? Nothing changes for them. And for them this was never about emails or national security anyway. It was always about the hope of using the Justice Department to take her out. A hope for a modern witch burning. Malice run amok.
Good article, BigTree, thanks, even though I already knew far more than I could ever have wanted to about the State Department's email system.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)The truth is, she violated the espionage act. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16223
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)you feel about this. In detail. Who knows, if they agree maybe you'll be lined up for promotion.
Or not.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)But I'll be happy to tell my clients. Care to actually comment on the document I posted?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Post it on Facebook for future clients as well. Just do it with your eyes open, knowing that what flies safely in anonymity here on DU just might have blowback in the real world.
I'm feeling a little responsible for encouraging it, so you should know that discrimination on the basis of political orientation has become a stronger and stronger phenomenon in America. You're on the safer side of the coin flip. Conservatives are significantly more likely to fire or refuse to hire on this basis, and most do not mind Hillary being the focus of persecution.
But it's still a pretty strong factor on the left also, at least in hiring, or in your case purchasing. Nothing easier than to just say, "Thank you, but we've decided to go with someone else."
lmbradford
(517 posts)RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)doesn't mean you were told "yes"...
that's like something my kids would say, "you didn't tell me that I couldn't do it...."
it's another Judgement call.
Judgement, something I think is incredibly important in the role of POTUS.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...email security wasn't one of the Secretary's functions. Criticizing her as if she spent her time managing the details of her communications network supposes that there weren't people specifically assigned to that task.
For some critics, she wasn't hands on enough. It's implied she had assumed (or should have assumed) the role of technical support. For other critics, she's portrayed as orchestrating her communications in an attempt to avoid scrutiny.
From my viewpoint, the unenforced rules which carried zero penalty for ignoring, the already compromised state email system, precedent and technological advances practically invited her communications team to develop their own system.
lmbradford
(517 posts)She ignored it and mishandled that info.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)If you think it's ok for a high ranking government official to set up a private communication system to circumvent FOIA and congressional oversight, it's definitely not a scandal.
And if you're cool with that official supporting government backdoors in encryption, supporting domestic spying, and attacking whistleblowers that point out government wrongdoing, while still asserting that they had every right to keep their communications as a public official private, you're all set. Definitely not a scandal.
I'm all for not blowing this out of proportion, but to suggest that nothing is wrong here is really stupid and dangerous to democracy.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Most voters will see "scandal", "F.B.I.", "Investigation", "Questions are being asked", "Trust", etc, etc. To say that it isn't harmful to her campaign is to bury one's head in the sand and whistle Happy Days are Here Again.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...that's been the case with all of the other manufactured scandals attempted against the Clintons.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I don't think the general public is all that eager to forget, or oblivious to, the scandals, "mistakes", obfuscations, lies, and downright pandering, "manufactured" or not. I don't think that the Republicans or the media are likely to suddenly play nice and courteously dismiss them as "propaganda", "false accusations", or "stunts".
Do you?
bigtree
(85,998 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I just don't think she's fit to hold public office. Perhaps less unfit than the idiot the Republicans are running but still unfit.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)but the bigger picture is THIS "incident" will be used against US... THIS will keep us from debating the important issues like health care, tax reform, campaign finance and the environment. the republicans will repeat this over and over... and I have yet to read anywhere WHY she thought she needed a personal server in her home.
Seems like a reckless act, that even if she had no ill intention, is gonna cost US in the long run and that makes it hard for me not to be bitter...
portlander23
(2,078 posts)EMILY SCHULTHEIS
FACE THE NATION
"The Inspector General just came out with a report, it was not a good report for Secretary Clinton. That is something that the American people, Democrats and delegates are going to have to take a hard look at," he said. "But for me right now, I continue to focus on how we can rebuild a disappearing middle class, deal with poverty, guarantee health care to all of our people as a right."
Not every candidate has to waste time defending this instead of talking about more important issues.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)THERE'S that snark that makes you guys so popular and so much fun to be around!!! I'm SURE it will take you far after the primary. good luck.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...this would seem much less of a political foil.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)I really want to avoid the whole "lesser of two evils" strategy.....
bigtree
(85,998 posts)..not mine.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)"the lesser of two evils" is a phrase that has been around since the cold war...
and that is what you posted "look how bad trump is, now Hillary doesn't look so bad"....
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...and your candidate used it disparagingly a few weeks ago.
Not surprised to find that vile slur echoed by his supporters.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)I'm sorry, I guess you've never heard that phrase before?
a little background from dictionary.com:
an idiom. This expression was already a proverb in ancient Greek and appeared in English by the late 1300s. Chaucer used it in Troilus and Cressida.
nice that you attribute it to Sanders, but it's kinda been around for awhile. and not exactly as dramatic as a VILE SLUR....
look, bottom line (that you probably won't understand)
I really want a candidate to support and say, my candidate IS the best choice of all because.....
which is what I did in 2008, 2004 and 2000....
I don't want to have to say, at least my candidate is not as bad as yours, which is what you were implying in your post, admit it or not. and that is weak.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...and you echoed that vile comment, as if in concert with your candidate.
Just an obscene coincidence, I suppose.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)and a Democrat.
wow, two things you Hillary supporters generally don't call Sanders.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)place is the Laundry known as the Clinton Foundation. This is the Big Money and the Big Fish. So, I agree. Lets set aside the email, can't leave it because apparently as the previously "wiped" ones are being re-created, it's moving forward and likely into another direction. Especially those who were employed both by the government and the Foundation. Immunity, depositions, et al are not the VRWC.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Movement is growing every day and that's what has the Oligarchy revering minions scared.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...and still doesn't have a clue how to actually effect the progressive changes it advocates.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Opinion
Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out
by Kurt Eichenwald On 5/18/16 at 10:56 AM6/03/16
Violence. Death threats. Vile, misogynistic names screamed at women. Rage. Hatred. Menacing, anonymous phone calls to homes and offices. Public officials whisked offstage by security agents frightened of the growing mob. None of this has any place in a political campaign. And the candidate who has been tolerating this obscene behavior among his supporters is showing himself to be unfit for office.
So, Senator Sanders, either get control of what is becoming your increasingly unhinged cult or get out of the race. Whatever respect sane liberals had for you is rapidly dwindling, and the damage being inflicted on your reputation may be unfixable. If you cant even manage the vicious thugs who act in your name, you cant be trusted to run a convenience store, much less the country.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/bernie-sanders-get-control-get-out-race-461195.html
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...I agree with that.
Violence. Death threats. Vile, misogynistic names screamed at women. Rage. Hatred. Menacing, anonymous phone calls to homes and offices. Public officials whisked offstage by security agents frightened of the growing mob. None of this has any place in a political campaign. And the candidate who has been tolerating this obscene behavior among his supporters is showing himself to be unfit for office.
Agreed.
lmbradford
(517 posts)Not to mention the video of thee congresswoman blowing kisses and flipping people off as she rushed offstage fearing for her life.
Please(smdh)
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)bigtree
(85,998 posts)...into our consideration.
basselope
(2,565 posts).. I really didn't care much about the scandal, but the more things that unfold, the more it seems she willfully disregarding rules (not necessarily the law), but also actively hid her activity and then lied about it after.
The problems come up with the lies told to try and explain herself, rather than just be honest.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)about Hillary and the emails months ago. He figured the whole thing was "just like my grandma with technology...either we need a new generation of tech savvy leaders, or they need to get younger tech support."
Most people don't see it as a reason to give Trump the White House. (With the obvious exception of Sanders supporters.)