State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

a reply to: amicktd

This was real time missions with people's lives on the line at a minimum.

You will have to prove that. Can you?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: amicktd

This was real time missions with people's lives on the line at a minimum.

You will have to prove that. Can you?

SAP...enough said to be honest

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: amicktd

This was real time missions with people's lives on the line at a minimum.

You will have to prove that. Can you?

I also added to the original reply, I can't disclose anything because I don't wanna follow in her footsteps.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Here are excerpts from the Hillary camp's response:

“The inspector general documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email.”

...

“The report shows that problems with the State Department’s electronic record-keeping systems were longstanding and that there was no precedent of someone in her position having a State Department email account until after the arrival of her successor.”

...

“Contrary to the false theories advanced for some time now, the report notes that her use of personal email was known to officials within the department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the secretary’s server.”

...

“We agree that steps ought to be taken to ensure the government can better maintain official records, and if she were still at the State Department, Secretary Clinton would embrace and implement any recommendations, including those in this report, to help do that.”

...

“As this report makes clear, Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email was not unique, and she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.”

New York Times

More Jedi Mind Trick crapola.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Oh the excuses for failure !!!!

Nothing else to go on.

Default justifications ain't gonna work Hillary.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You seem like a fairly smart guy, are you telling me that there is no way a server could be hacked and it not be known by those who were hacked?

I don't know. That is not my expertise. All I have said is that we don't know if it was hacked or not. To assert that is has been without evidence is illogical.

Pagliano was a barely qualified sysadmin who had way out of date certifications and from the bits and pieces that have come out about this whole scenario, I fail to comprehend how anyone can give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.

Innocent until proven guilty.

In this case, it appears that she did violate rules and guidelines, but I doubt it will result in charges. From reading this report it seems that there are a lot of issues within the Department that have to be resolved.

Do you really believe that all those violations are not criminally chargeable?

I find it hard to believe that someone can subvert the policies and rules of national security with no consequences.

originally posted by: Looselungjones2
If hillary was as bad as they say i would still pick her over the toad tump.

Because a proven criminal is more palatable to you than someone who says mean and direct things that hurt your feelwings?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You seem like a fairly smart guy, are you telling me that there is no way a server could be hacked and it not be known by those who were hacked?

I don't know. That is not my expertise. All I have said is that we don't know if it was hacked or not. To assert that is has been without evidence is illogical.

Pagliano was a barely qualified sysadmin who had way out of date certifications and from the bits and pieces that have come out about this whole scenario, I fail to comprehend how anyone can give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.

Innocent until proven guilty.

In this case, it appears that she did violate rules and guidelines, but I doubt it will result in charges. From reading this report it seems that there are a lot of issues within the Department that have to be resolved.

Do you really believe that all those violations are not criminally chargeable?

I find it hard to believe that someone can subvert the policies and rules of national security with no consequences.

Can you provide an example of when those violations have been prosecuted in a criminal case?

Classified when sent/received by Hillary Clinton.


"Hillarys emails were retroactively classified after the fact!!!"


Totally BS:

scholarship.law.upenn.edu...

It is a description of retroactive classification, a little-known provision of U.S. national security law that allows the government to declassify a document, release it to the public, and then declare it classified later on. Retroactive classification means the government could hand you a document today and prosecute you tomorrow for not giving it back. Retroactive classification can even reach documents that are available in public libraries, on the Internet, or elsewhere in the public domain.

Do not believe the Pro Hillary hype............. classified when sent.

Wonder why none of Hillarys people would cooperate with the IG...... that tells you a lot right there.

a reply to: RickinVa

Can you provide a case in which the "born classified" argument has been upheld?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Can you provide a case in which the "born classified" argument has been upheld?

Yes sir........ take your pick....tons of them.... which one do you want to start with?

Anybody?

Doesn't matter..... every single person convicted of mishandling of classified information is prosecuted because that information was considered classified when originated, or born classified. Been like that for 70 years or so now... don't see why it should be any different just because someone is named Hillary Clinton.

Pretty damn good track record I would say.




If you mean classified at origination, it is in the Executive Order. Born Classified is an old archaic term back in the restricted data days of the 50's.....became NSI....National Security Information and then progress to just plain old classified information these days.



I was talking about your favorite excuse of retroactively classified being a big load of what comes out the south end of a north bound male bovine.

a reply to: RickinVa

Yes sir........ take you pick....tons of them.... which one do you want to start with?

Please provide proof of the "born classified" argument being upheld in court.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes sir........ take you pick....tons of them.... which one do you want to start with?

Please provide proof of the "born classified" argument being upheld in court.

Every single case that gets prosecuted for classified information is because that information was classified when originated.....what more do you need? It been this way for decades...nothing has changed.

EO 1.4 (a)-(g)

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes sir........ take you pick....tons of them.... which one do you want to start with?

Please provide proof of the "born classified" argument being upheld in court.

Every single case that gets prosecuted for classified information is because that information was classified when originated.....what more do you need? It been this way for decades...nothing has changed.

Wrong. Not one case has been prosecuted under that premise.

Nice try.

The legality of the 'born secret' doctrine was directly challenged in a freedom of the press case in 1979 (United States v. The Progressive). In that case, a magazine attempted to publish an account of the so-called "secret of the hydrogen bomb" (the Teller-Ulam design), which was apparently created without recourse to classified information. Many analysts predicted that the US Supreme Court would, if it heard the case, reject the 'born secret' clause as being an unconstitutional restraint on speech. However, the government dropped the case as moot before it was resolved.

en.wikipedia.org...

it specifically dings Clinton for her exclusive use of private email.

This is what really get's my goat about the whole thing.

For DECADES Clinton and party rant on about the evils of anything PRIVATE.

They push for EVERYTHING has to be PUBLIC.

And WHAT does she do ?

Get's a PRIVATE server why ?

Cause she don't know how to use the STATES ?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes sir........ take you pick....tons of them.... which one do you want to start with?

Please provide proof of the "born classified" argument being upheld in court.

Every single case that gets prosecuted for classified information is because that information was classified when originated.....what more do you need? It been this way for decades...nothing has changed.

Wrong. Not one case has been prosecuted under that premise.

Nice try.

The legality of the 'born secret' doctrine was directly challenged in a freedom of the press case in 1979 (United States v. The Progressive). In that case, a magazine attempted to publish an account of the so-called "secret of the hydrogen bomb" (the Teller-Ulam design), which was apparently created without recourse to classified information. Many analysts predicted that the US Supreme Court would, if it heard the case, reject the 'born secret' clause as being an unconstitutional restraint on speech. However, the government dropped the case as moot before it was resolved.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wrong... nice try at a spin...


So let me get this on the record:

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton will be the first person in the history of the US to be found not guilty because classified at origination will be rejected by the SCOTUS?

No one has ever been found not guilty using classified at origination as defense. EVER... lot of people have went to jail.... I think someone would have figured out a get out of jail free card a long long time ago trying to go that route.

And you are trying to compare a magazine to a cabinet level official...... apples and oranges.


Is that really your stance? really?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Thats whats amazing. You guys think this ignorance hurts peoples feelings. You look desperate.

a reply to: RickinVa

Name one case in which that argument has been used in the court of law and succeeded.

Do not deflect.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Name one case in which that argument has been used in the court of law.

Do not deflect.

Classified at origination is used in every single damn case involving mishandling of classified information.... you know this...if classified at origination was bogus, then no one could ever be charged with anything to do with classified information.

You're trying desperately to play word games and I am not going to do it... as a matter of fact...going to bed after I post this ...... name one person found not guilty of gross negligence in the mishandling of classified information where classified at origination has been over ruled in a court of law.

Name one person...... your argument is totally invalid.

Good night.

I have been reading through the IG report.

It is important to note that scattered throughout the document are references to rule changes, clarifications, and updates that occurred over the years, but most particularly in 2009. As expected with any evolving technology, regulations were reviewed and updated over time to keep up with changes.

The references also explain how staff was educated and informed of the changes in record keeping and information preservation rules.

Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009. Rules were updated just before her tenure. She was warned and informed of the danger of her actions, as they applied to the rules at the time she was in office. So, this would negate any comparison to behavior of her predecessors. Rules were different for her predecessors.