?

Will e-mail server issues kill Hillary's campaign

  1. Yes - She's toast.

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  2. No - Nothing has been proven.

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  3. I'm just not sure.

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  4. I don't care.

    6 vote(s)
    66.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast

    Will hillary's private e-mail server be her down fall?

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by AspiringNovelist, Aug 19, 2015.

    First, I'm a libertarian -- I like those politicians that believe the Gov has no place in our day-to-day lives. I believe that governmental mandates only serve the politicians in power and not the people. I believe that States should have more power than the Feds. I believe that we are accountable to one another but that accountability cannot be forced -- it has to be voluntary (or majority accepted like social security's intent before it was robbed).

    So, here goes. I've been watching the news and I think Hillary is in a pickle. I was in the military, had a Top Secret - SCI clearance for 1 year. The process of interacting with classified material was sound -- there were no loop holes or excuses one could use for mishandling classified material. If you were caught, you went down - HARD!

    Up until today, I gave Hillary a pass. Not because she's right or wrong, but because there was no proof that she had done anything wrong. (The libertarian in me likes to see some proof).

    That changed today when I learned that her provider (the tech team that manged her server) was a mom-and-pop shop in Colorado. Plus, the fact that -this team handled her messaging through a server in a loft's bathroom closet- was shocking.

    The reason she's in a pickle is two-fold:

    1) Whether she was in the possession of classified material or not -- to wipe the server was a destruction of government records, meaning any and all emails during her position as Secretary are government records,

    2) And, two, if once piece of classified material went through a mom-and-pop shop that isn't certified to handle classified material -- then she's toast. Meaning, you can't have a third-person (or any persons) with access that has not been pre-screened.

    What are your thoughts on Hillary and this e-mail server issue?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    No. :)
     
  3. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    I don't now Ginger, she may be in trouble with this. It certainly isn't beneficial. So you don't think this is a pickle at all?

    I should mention that a co-worker (military member) went home with a document on a thumbdrive, and got a dis-honorable discharge, 1 year of Leavenworth (waived). And her boss told her to take it home to work on a report... She hasn't gotten a decent job since. <-- that was 15 years ago. And the info she had was SECRET, that's 90% of classified information. To this day, she regrets her 2 year stint in the militarily. I can only imagine what she's thinks of this Hillary thing...My friend has never had a chance to live it down. Every application, every interview reminds her that at 26yo, as a military person she had sacrificed so much to only have it ruined by one mistake.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  4. Jack Asher
    Offline

    Jack Asher Wildly experimental Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,571
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    Location:
    Denver
    The problem is that a lot of what she got sent was sent by other people to the wrong email, or wasn't yet classified.
     
  5. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    This post was Removed..er. deleted permanently.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  6. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    And, I just saw the snapchat joke -- did she just thumb her nose at the boys and gals in the FBI?
     
  7. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    [QUOTE=" or wasn't yet classified.[/QUOTE]

    That's up to the original classifying authority -- not the receiver. If the FBI, State Department, whomever claims that the original document was classified -- AND -- she received it on a non-classified system, then she and (they) are in trouble.

    Obama's: Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information:

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION

    Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

    (1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;

    (2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

    (3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

    (4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

    (b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:

    (1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

    (2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

    (c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

    (d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

    Where is any of Hillary's actions more right than wrong?

    The big problem for Hillary is item 4: "..the original classification authority determines..." <-- She doesn't get to determine this...Only the original department. If anything went back and forth in that mom-and-pop server center that she hired -- she's in trouble..............


     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  8. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    OK, well here's what I think.

    Up to this point in time, all there is, is the GOP pushing talking points into the news: "It was criminal, drip drip drip, just having the private email server was dishonest, yadda yadda yadda."

    What are the facts? Dozens of legislators have had private emails set up and weathered much worse scandals.

    For example there is the lack of as much media reaction to George W. Bush's email controversy. Juan Williams pointed this out on Fox News no less.

    Comparing the media coverage of the Bush scandal (which included a potential coverup of elections shenanigans with the firing of the 8 attorneys general and the Scooter Libby CIA leak used to gin up the case for starting a devastating war):
    But the GOP would have everyone believe this is just scandalous. Well, they tried the same thing with Benghazi. But guess what, there wasn't anything to that either.

    Unless an actual significant crime is uncovered, and currently I doubt that will happen, there's nothing here. Time will tell.
     
  9. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    What are you talking about??? This is Obama's FBI, this is Obama's IG teams doing the inquiry -- not some right-wing TV show host...

    This is mainstream media asking questions, not just Fox News. I really don't understand your point. I could see if those raising the questions were somehow tied to a 'Republican' official - but the departments are loyal to Obama.
     
  10. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I'm talking about the cart being put before the horse.

    Wake me up when they find something of import.
     
  11. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    Okay, I agree. Wait and see. No proof as of yet except item 1 of my original post <-- that's a given.
     
  12. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    According to Clinton, all those records were turned over before the server was wiped. Is there evidence that's not true?

    If the Clintons didn't know how to scrub a hard drive so material is unrecoverable, that might show incompetence. ;)
     
  13. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    I'll only say this. 30K emails or so were deemed work related. The other's were considered personal.

    Doing the math: A 4 year run as Secretary of State resulted in = 30K official emails divided by (365 * 4) = 20 work related emails in a day. I'm an IT tech -- I get 50 or so emails each and every day. I get another 10 to 15 about corporate policy changes, or who won an award, or an internal corporate event. Plus, I get 5 to 10 personal emails (jokes, emails from my daughter or son and friends)..

    Point being, I'm not Secretary of State -- yet, I get nearly 5 times the email traffic that she claims?

    There's a dead fish in the watering well <-- i just made that up. :) You can't have it -- it's mine.
     
  14. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    ""According to Clinton, all those records were turned over before the server was wiped. Is there evidence that's not true?"" Also, you missed the legal point. If she originated any official record/email -- she cannot destroy the original...It's government property.

    Doesn't matter if she turned them over or not. (I'm not sure why you don't see this???)

    It's like the time I worked at a defense contractor -- the contract was crystal clear: Any and all ideas that I had while on the payroll that were patentable belonged to them, not me. And you go in know that's the case. I could not, at any moment, say: "Hey, I have a better code for fingerprinting, thus I'm taking my crap and going home."

    I'll try to find the U.S. code for you...
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  15. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    It's under Title 18 and there are a number of sub-sections;

    1519: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    There are two others that come to mind, but they are repeated in Ad nauseam by the right-wing TV set, that I will not list them here.

    And, I know what you're thinking: What case? Hillary isn't under investigation? But she is. Her, her lawyer, her confidants are all under suspicion by several congressional committees. She knows this -- therefore, she should not, she must not, she cannot delete anything....It's a matter of law -- not partisanship.

    Bottom line: I knew as a contractor that I could not destroy any records. Hillary has been in the government business far longer than I -- and she knows this, too.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  16. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I didn't miss any of that @AspiringNovelist, I'm just not outraged by any of it.
     
  17. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    Good lord. What would you be outraged by? Chelsea isn't hers? Chelsea isn't Bill's?

    Is there anything she could do that would outrage you?

    Flash News Report: "Hillary Clinton murdered four people today. She joked that, "I didn't really kill them. I just deleted them. I assure you (trust me) that any important body parts have been sent home.""
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  18. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    SideNote:
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  19. AspiringNovelist
    Offline

    AspiringNovelist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Gulf Coast
    I don't understand these die-hards. I want the best man or woman to run the country, I couldn't care less if it's republican or democrat. I would love a third party...
     
  20. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    @AspiringNovelist there are enough pure partisans in the country, who will excuse anything someone on their "team" does rather than have principles, that there is a good chance it won't make enough of a difference. We don't know yet. If it is still going on come February the accumulated weight of it may drag her down enough. In the meantime, we will find out who has principles and who treats politics like sports teams or religion.
     
  21. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    Can someone pretend I'm 5 and tell me what she did and why it was wrong?
     
    GingerCoffee likes this.
  22. Stacy C
    Offline

    Stacy C Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
    It looks like it will be something of a race to determine which of her scandals brings her down. The emails issue is currently the most serious and has received the most media coverage, but Rep. Gowdy's congressional committee investigating her behavior during the Benghazi attack is still working, and the question of her selling State Department indulgences to other countries during her tenure as Secretary of State cries out for a good, impartial investigative journalist.

    I think a much more interesting thought is: once Hillary crashes and burns, who do we end up with as the Democrat nominee? Funny Uncle Biden, Crazy Grandpa Sanders or that other old guy from Maryland the rest of the country has never heard of? There's even been talk about Al Gore trying again - BWAHAHAHA.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  23. Solar
    Offline

    Solar Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    253
    No. It's her other private parts that will be her downfall.
     
  24. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    @123456789

    There are a number of problems. On a broad level, her private server effectively shielded information from the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the public to access certain government documents. In addition, since she and/or her agents unilaterally decided which emails to delete and which to turn over it circumvented normal processes why which that information is reviewed. It would be nice for all politicians, I'm sure, to have unilateral review and decision-making authority over whether their own documents are reviewable, but open-access laws are designed to stop that. And, of course, when the server was turned over a lot of the information had been deleted, again by Hillary and/or her team.

    On the classified information side, there are a lot of talking points being used that rely on ignorance of the public to believe them and repeat them. A number of excuses are being offered for this. First, people are saying she didn't send classified emails, but was only in receipt of them. That doesn't matter. Classified documents shouldn't have been going to that email, and as soon as they did it triggers all kinds of notice requirements that weren't followed. I've worked with defense contractors who have classified information, and they can't send it to me. If they did, I'd have to report that I received it. Same with when I worked for DOE. I worked in a facility where there was a lot of classified information, and when you receive classified documents on an account that isn't supposed to get them, you have to report it.

    Just having those documents on such a server triggers all kinds of problems. Another excuse Clinton supporters use is that the classified documents weren't labeled. It's almost laughable that anyone buys this excuse, but it is repeated a lot. As a matter of law, it doesn't matter whether the documents were classified. The government has a classification guide that allows you to determine whether anything you generate or receive is classified. The State Department has its own manual for this, and everyone in the State Department has to know it. If this had happened with someone lower down the food chain, they'd almost certainly be looking at prosecution. Because it is Clinton, it becomes politicized and all the excuses are floated around.

    And if you think about it for even half a second, you can see why the issue of whether a document is marked classified doesn't matter, and why the State Department has a guide for determining classified material. The statutes relating to classified information are't limited by how the information is marked. If that were true, it would be the easiest thing in the world to disseminate classified information and avoid prosecution by simply not labeling the material as classified. Again, if someone lower in the food chain had classified documents on an unauthorized server or drive at home, they'd very likely be prosecuted over it, and the fact that the documents were not labeled wouldn't matter. They're supposed to be able to recognize classified materials, and if they receive them to an unauthorized location there are swift reporting requirements established under the law. The government takes handling of this information seriously.

    You can look at the ISOO web site, which talks about dealing with classified material. They say, "In all cases, it is the sensitivity of the information that determines classification." Again, it is the information protected, not the marking, and if it was the marking there would be little protection against disseminating classified material. Government officials have been prosecuted for not dealing properly with unmarked classified document.

    So, either Clinton knew what she was doing and didn't care (which is most likely to me; she's not stupid), or she was so inept that she didn't realize it was wrong, didn't have anyone around her who could tell her about the problems with it, and didn't even know her own Department's classification guide, which everyone else all the way down to lowly defense contractors who aren't even part of the government, have to know if they are possibly dealing with classified information.

    The government puts the burden on its officials to recognize and deal with classified materials, marked or not, and as the highest official in the State Department, Clinton certainly knew or should have known those protocols.

    There's also a potential problem with her turning over that material to people like her lawyer, who aren't authorized to receive classified information. Like I said, I've represented government contractors who deal with classified information. They couldn't send anything classified to me, notwithstanding the fact that I was their counsel. I wasn't authorized to receive it. I heard a report that said Clinton's lawyer who received the material also wasn't authorized to receive it. If that's true, that's an issue.

    Those are the facts around the issue. Anything apart from that is pretty much a red herring that relies on ignorance in the electorate to excuse the problems.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2015
  25. Hubardo
    Offline

    Hubardo Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    566
    Trump openly says all Mexicans are rapists. Hilary Clinton has an issue with some spicy emails. Basically, let's crucify Hilary Clinton.

    What would be cool is if the GOP machine harped on her and the emails enough to get the left to hate her and love Bernie. Meanwhile, Trump comes in and gets Bernie votes too. That would make my 2016.
     
    GingerCoffee likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page