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

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:23 PM May 2016

Scandal Over Clinton Emails Still Isn't A Scandal

LV McF ?@Chitown1216 19h19 hours ago
Appears 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:

____ Here’s what this new inspector general’s 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 communications—staffed by the people who were supposed to be reading all the Federal Register procedures and policy statements—has 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 problems—lots 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 department’s former policy planning director and sent to Clinton, it said, “State’s 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With out-of-date equipment and poor support, plenty of mistakes were made.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 shouldn’t 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.

Clinton’s personal email process was a far less clear-cut as a potential violation—and 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 general’s 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 Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s email arrangement and were in frequent contact with the official directly in charge of maintaining security on Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s senior staff describing technical issues that arose with the system and the actions taken to resolve them. The special adviser also met with the department’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division to discuss the email system and security issues. The bottom line is that Clinton’s email arrangement was not some dark secret—the 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 shouldn’t use the system.

That doesn’t mean there were not concerns...


read more: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414
56 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scandal Over Clinton Emails Still Isn't A Scandal (Original Post) bigtree May 2016 OP
It's like the swift boat thing. The substance is nothing, but politically it can still harm her. YouDig May 2016 #1
when people refer to the politics bigtree May 2016 #4
Kerry lost because of shit like this. You are gullible to think it will not impact her. nt Logical May 2016 #6
I agree. It has already impacted her. She needs to figure out how to combat it. YouDig May 2016 #9
Yeah, right. It's a scandal. dchill May 2016 #2
She violated the espionage act. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #3
there's zero evidence of that bigtree May 2016 #5
Of course there is evidence of it. Right here: bobbobbins01 May 2016 #21
an internet prosecution, trial, and conviction? bigtree May 2016 #34
So you're incapable of critical thinking? bobbobbins01 May 2016 #37
no bigtree May 2016 #47
NO, and imo, your post does not reflect well on you. Hortensis May 2016 #23
Of course I would. Why wouldn't i say the truth to my boss? bobbobbins01 May 2016 #26
Really? So, go do it. Let them know how Hortensis May 2016 #28
I own my own business. So there is that. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #30
Nope. Sure. Tell your clients if you dare. Hortensis May 2016 #55
+1000 lmbradford May 2016 #52
just because you aren't told "NO" RazBerryBeret May 2016 #7
I agree with the author's point bigtree May 2016 #14
Classifying emails is part of her training lmbradford May 2016 #53
Wishing for this to go away, is not going to go away nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #8
It's not a scandal portlander23 May 2016 #10
Yep, calling it a scandal is disingenuous. B Calm May 2016 #12
The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #11
it also invites us to move past them bigtree May 2016 #15
Who's "us"? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #24
haters gonna hate bigtree May 2016 #36
I don't "hate" Hillary. I don't even know her. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #41
good for you bigtree May 2016 #44
we can argue scandal, no scandal... RazBerryBeret May 2016 #13
Define "us"? portlander23 May 2016 #16
us = Democrats n/t RazBerryBeret May 2016 #19
Call "us" back after the primary is over portlander23 May 2016 #32
Oh yeah... RazBerryBeret May 2016 #35
if you consider Trump's own malfeasance, corruption, and bigotry bigtree May 2016 #17
ah... RazBerryBeret May 2016 #20
that's a Sanders slur bigtree May 2016 #22
what? RazBerryBeret May 2016 #27
you put it in quotes bigtree May 2016 #40
and you implied it... RazBerryBeret May 2016 #46
I atttribute it to Sanders because a major Democratic candidate called his rival 'evil' bigtree May 2016 #48
a MAJOR candidate RazBerryBeret May 2016 #50
And Watergate started out as a second-rate burglary. hobbit709 May 2016 #18
I, too, think the email situation is getting tired. But taking its libdem4life May 2016 #25
It's past time to throw out the corporate owned oligarchy that Clinton serves. The People's rhett o rick May 2016 #29
the 'movement' is still backbiting and navel-gazing bigtree May 2016 #43
Kurt Eichenwald who wrote: " Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out" KoKo May 2016 #31
good for him bigtree May 2016 #39
You forgot to post the retraction. lmbradford May 2016 #54
.. CentralMass May 2016 #33
haha....Love! n/t RazBerryBeret May 2016 #38
It's rarely about the scandal, but more about the lies that follow it. basselope May 2016 #42
including the lies of her accusers bigtree May 2016 #45
Not sure what those are... basselope May 2016 #51
k & r LAS14 May 2016 #49
Just got back from a picnic where a friend told me that he stopped paying attention to anything eastwestdem May 2016 #56

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
4. when people refer to the politics
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:31 PM
May 2016

...many make the mistake of forgetting the vulnerability of her opponent.

YouDig

(2,280 posts)
9. I agree. It has already impacted her. She needs to figure out how to combat it.
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:37 PM
May 2016

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.

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
5. there's zero evidence of that
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:32 PM
May 2016

...so, the accusations coming from the DU gallery and elsewhere are a trumped-up scandal.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
23. NO, and imo, your post does not reflect well on you.
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:59 PM
May 2016

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.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
28. Really? So, go do it. Let them know how
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:03 PM
May 2016

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)
30. I own my own business. So there is that.
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:04 PM
May 2016

But I'll be happy to tell my clients. Care to actually comment on the document I posted?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
55. Nope. Sure. Tell your clients if you dare.
Mon May 30, 2016, 05:02 PM
May 2016

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."

RazBerryBeret

(3,075 posts)
7. just because you aren't told "NO"
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:34 PM
May 2016

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)
14. I agree with the author's point
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:45 PM
May 2016

...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.

 

portlander23

(2,078 posts)
10. It's not a scandal
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:39 PM
May 2016

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.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
11. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing.
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:41 PM
May 2016

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)
15. it also invites us to move past them
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:47 PM
May 2016

...that's been the case with all of the other manufactured scandals attempted against the Clintons.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
24. Who's "us"?
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:59 PM
May 2016

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?

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
41. I don't "hate" Hillary. I don't even know her.
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:15 PM
May 2016

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.

RazBerryBeret

(3,075 posts)
13. we can argue scandal, no scandal...
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:45 PM
May 2016

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)
16. Define "us"?
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:48 PM
May 2016
Sanders: Voters should take a "hard look" at Clinton emails report
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)
35. Oh yeah...
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:11 PM
May 2016

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)
17. if you consider Trump's own malfeasance, corruption, and bigotry
Mon May 30, 2016, 03:49 PM
May 2016

...this would seem much less of a political foil.

RazBerryBeret

(3,075 posts)
27. what?
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:01 PM
May 2016

"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)
40. you put it in quotes
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:15 PM
May 2016

...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)
46. and you implied it...
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:25 PM
May 2016

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)
48. I atttribute it to Sanders because a major Democratic candidate called his rival 'evil'
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:30 PM
May 2016

...and you echoed that vile comment, as if in concert with your candidate.

Just an obscene coincidence, I suppose.

RazBerryBeret

(3,075 posts)
50. a MAJOR candidate
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:35 PM
May 2016

and a Democrat.
wow, two things you Hillary supporters generally don't call Sanders.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
25. I, too, think the email situation is getting tired. But taking its
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:01 PM
May 2016

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)
29. It's past time to throw out the corporate owned oligarchy that Clinton serves. The People's
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:04 PM
May 2016

Movement is growing every day and that's what has the Oligarchy revering minions scared.

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
43. the 'movement' is still backbiting and navel-gazing
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:22 PM
May 2016

...and still doesn't have a clue how to actually effect the progressive changes it advocates.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
31. Kurt Eichenwald who wrote: " Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out"
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:05 PM
May 2016

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 can’t even manage the vicious thugs who act in your name, you can’t 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)
39. good for him
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:13 PM
May 2016

...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)
54. You forgot to post the retraction.
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:55 PM
May 2016

Not to mention the video of thee congresswoman blowing kisses and flipping people off as she rushed offstage fearing for her life.

Please(smdh)

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
51. Not sure what those are...
Mon May 30, 2016, 04:45 PM
May 2016

.. 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)
56. Just got back from a picnic where a friend told me that he stopped paying attention to anything
Mon May 30, 2016, 05:18 PM
May 2016

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.)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Scandal Over Clinton Emai...