For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (2 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

this is problematic

"It is hard to move classified documents into the non-classified system. You couldn't move a document by mistake," said Willes Lee, a former operations officer for the U.S. Army in Europe and former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach confirmed the two systems don't connect. "The classified and unclassified system are separate and you cannot email between the two," Gerlach told Fox News.

It's only problematic to guys like TGunz and their argument against the faux argument few here were making or coming close to suggesting. This, of course, doesn't prevent the scenario where information is passed along, then deemed classified at a later date. I don't know what their process is when this happens or how they enforce it now. However, if it's shown that she received emails that were classified all along, it goes to my concern that she had a server set up that was, indeed, receiving classified emails as well as personal emails which means her server was a potential bridge between the systems the gov't is claiming are completely separate. THAT'S a bigger concern to me than the actual emails.

You cannot e-mail between the classified and non classified government systems, but you think that you could e-mail from the classified system to private e-mail address? And you criticize others for the nature of their arguments?

um, wut?

She's said she had that server so she could get ALL her emails in one place and that it mixed both her personal and work. If that's true, then there is no other option If this is two separate networks then she'd have to be connected to both networks wouldn't she? It would be monumentally stupid of her not clarify that her server was not part of the "classified network" if that were the case. I guess that's possible. I'm going by the she's spewing and the small pieces of data that have been slowly released. Until it's all out we won't "know" the full story....even then I am confident there will be large gaps. As of right now, her versions of her ever changing story aren't jiving with each other. All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

You mean like saying that she never sent or received a classified e-mail? And the existence of such separate systems is why Colin Powell makes the exact same claim. There are no routine classified e-mails on the .gov network where Hillary should have used an e-mail account. That is why you don't need to believe Hillary to know that she is not fibbing making that statement because it is true by definition. That is why the 150 or so e-mails identified so far are also problematic on .gov.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

Not new!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second - we know and agree that in March when she had that press conference that the emails were gone, right? She said she "chose" to not keep the emails. Not even Hillary claims the emails just disappeared, but the point is she said they were gone and then ....

Yet same presser she says the server contains (present tense) communications between her and Bill and that's why she could not hand over the server. She said that. -> Why?

No we don't agree. Hillary deleting the e-mails such that she no longer had them does not mean that the e-mails were no longer retrievable from the server at all. If it was the same there would have been no discussion on what "wipe" meant, jon would not have speculated that Hillary swapped out hard drives before handing the server over, Hillary would not have resisted handing over the server (with the same qualifier as before) due to privacy concerns, etc.

So let me see if I have this right - you're maintaining that Hillary was honest in saying she "chose not to keep" 30K+ personal emails about funeral condolences, wedding thank yous, yoga routines (you believe that one), and vacations with Bill, and also at the same time was honest when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill, in March 2015, because she believed that there was data that could be ultimately retrieved, ie the data she said she had not kept, she had actually kept, correct?

Hillary has got be plumb, dark, stark raving mad:

QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? ... Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance. ...

CLINTON: We did not. ...

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private...

And:

At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

I have not stated that Hillary was being honest, just that your "evidence" doesn't refute it.

My very first post stated once again-

"Her stated desire to keep data recovery experts out of her deleted personal e-mails is not inconsistent."

By the way

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me

when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill,

you do realize that "from" is different from "between", correct?
Hillary could delete e-mails and thus no longer have them while at the same time an independent arbitrator such as data recovery experts at the FBI could peruse those deleted private e-mails.

I'm out.

Hey BFS, follow up thought on this.

Perhaps you are right.

What if Hillary's IT team migrated the data from her server to the Foundation's server in June of 2013 (which is how the news reports have the timeline)?

That would make the two statements jibe - she deleted her emails that she did not deem "public" or "official" and yet her data would remain on the server. It just wasn't the server she handed over. If it was the Foundation's server then it would indeed contain communications from her husband. Hillary also moved over to the Foundation itself after leaving SOS, so this would make sense. - Does this seem feasible to you?

 

[Rove!]

Where is Hillary saying they she and received classified info from?

 

[The Commish]

this is problematic

"It is hard to move classified documents into the non-classified system. You couldn't move a document by mistake," said Willes Lee, a former operations officer for the U.S. Army in Europe and former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach confirmed the two systems don't connect. "The classified and unclassified system are separate and you cannot email between the two," Gerlach told Fox News.

It's only problematic to guys like TGunz and their argument against the faux argument few here were making or coming close to suggesting. This, of course, doesn't prevent the scenario where information is passed along, then deemed classified at a later date. I don't know what their process is when this happens or how they enforce it now. However, if it's shown that she received emails that were classified all along, it goes to my concern that she had a server set up that was, indeed, receiving classified emails as well as personal emails which means her server was a potential bridge between the systems the gov't is claiming are completely separate. THAT'S a bigger concern to me than the actual emails.

You cannot e-mail between the classified and non classified government systems, but you think that you could e-mail from the classified system to private e-mail address? And you criticize others for the nature of their arguments?

um, wut?

She's said she had that server so she could get ALL her emails in one place and that it mixed both her personal and work. If that's true, then there is no other option If this is two separate networks then she'd have to be connected to both networks wouldn't she? It would be monumentally stupid of her not clarify that her server was not part of the "classified network" if that were the case. I guess that's possible. I'm going by the she's spewing and the small pieces of data that have been slowly released. Until it's all out we won't "know" the full story....even then I am confident there will be large gaps. As of right now, her versions of her ever changing story aren't jiving with each other. All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

You mean like saying that she never sent or received a classified e-mail? And the existence of such separate systems is why Colin Powell makes the exact same claim. There are no routine classified e-mails on the .gov network where Hillary should have used an e-mail account. That is why you don't need to believe Hillary to know that she is not fibbing making that statement because it is true by definition. That is why the 150 or so e-mails identified so far are also problematic on .gov.

No, I mean what I said...it would be monumentally stupid of her to not clarify. You need to talk with TGunz about the second part of this. His assertion was that people are accidently sending classified documents all the time. If you'll remember, I didn't say this two network "revelation" is very problematic at all. The only thing she needs to answer to (or clarify) is why use this server if she wanted EVERYTHING on one device and what she meant there. She wasn't getting everything on one device. At minimum she had two different networks with two different access paths (assuming the server wasn't connected to both). Right?

 

[The Commish]

All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

Not new!

When I was there it was controlled by security policies and user profiles. It was all running on the same network A hole different network of routers, hard wire,servers etc seems like overkill, even by gov't standards for stuff like this but I guess it's possible if not probable.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wait a second - we know and agree that in March when she had that press conference that the emails were gone, right? She said she "chose" to not keep the emails. Not even Hillary claims the emails just disappeared, but the point is she said they were gone and then ....

Yet same presser she says the server contains (present tense) communications between her and Bill and that's why she could not hand over the server. She said that. -> Why?

No we don't agree. Hillary deleting the e-mails such that she no longer had them does not mean that the e-mails were no longer retrievable from the server at all. If it was the same there would have been no discussion on what "wipe" meant, jon would not have speculated that Hillary swapped out hard drives before handing the server over, Hillary would not have resisted handing over the server (with the same qualifier as before) due to privacy concerns, etc.

So let me see if I have this right - you're maintaining that Hillary was honest in saying she "chose not to keep" 30K+ personal emails about funeral condolences, wedding thank yous, yoga routines (you believe that one), and vacations with Bill, and also at the same time was honest when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill, in March 2015, because she believed that there was data that could be ultimately retrieved, ie the data she said she had not kept, she had actually kept, correct?

Hillary has got be plumb, dark, stark raving mad:

QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? ... Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance. ...

CLINTON: We did not. ...

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private...

And:

At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

I have not stated that Hillary was being honest, just that your "evidence" doesn't refute it.

My very first post stated once again-

"Her stated desire to keep data recovery experts out of her deleted personal e-mails is not inconsistent."

By the way

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me

when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill,

you do realize that "from" is different from "between", correct?
Hillary could delete e-mails and thus no longer have them while at the same time an independent arbitrator such as data recovery experts at the FBI could peruse those deleted private e-mails.

I'm out.

Hey BFS, follow up thought on this.

Perhaps you are right.

What if Hillary's IT team migrated the data from her server to the Foundation's server in June of 2013 (which is how the news reports have the timeline)?

That would make the two statements jibe - she deleted her emails that she did not deem "public" or "official" and yet her data would remain on the server. It just wasn't the server she handed over. If it was the Foundation's server then it would indeed contain communications from her husband. Hillary also moved over to the Foundation itself after leaving SOS, so this would make sense. - Does this seem feasible to you?

I don't think that there is any question whether or not I'm correct on the narrow point that deleting e-mails doesn't guarantee that the e-mails cannot be recovered by an "independent arbitrator" that Hillary wanted to avoid gaining access to the server for her own privacy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

this is problematic

"It is hard to move classified documents into the non-classified system. You couldn't move a document by mistake," said Willes Lee, a former operations officer for the U.S. Army in Europe and former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach confirmed the two systems don't connect. "The classified and unclassified system are separate and you cannot email between the two," Gerlach told Fox News.

It's only problematic to guys like TGunz and their argument against the faux argument few here were making or coming close to suggesting. This, of course, doesn't prevent the scenario where information is passed along, then deemed classified at a later date. I don't know what their process is when this happens or how they enforce it now. However, if it's shown that she received emails that were classified all along, it goes to my concern that she had a server set up that was, indeed, receiving classified emails as well as personal emails which means her server was a potential bridge between the systems the gov't is claiming are completely separate. THAT'S a bigger concern to me than the actual emails.

You cannot e-mail between the classified and non classified government systems, but you think that you could e-mail from the classified system to private e-mail address? And you criticize others for the nature of their arguments?

um, wut?

She's said she had that server so she could get ALL her emails in one place and that it mixed both her personal and work. If that's true, then there is no other option If this is two separate networks then she'd have to be connected to both networks wouldn't she? It would be monumentally stupid of her not clarify that her server was not part of the "classified network" if that were the case. I guess that's possible. I'm going by the she's spewing and the small pieces of data that have been slowly released. Until it's all out we won't "know" the full story....even then I am confident there will be large gaps. As of right now, her versions of her ever changing story aren't jiving with each other. All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

You mean like saying that she never sent or received a classified e-mail? And the existence of such separate systems is why Colin Powell makes the exact same claim. There are no routine classified e-mails on the .gov network where Hillary should have used an e-mail account. That is why you don't need to believe Hillary to know that she is not fibbing making that statement because it is true by definition. That is why the 150 or so e-mails identified so far are also problematic on .gov.

No, I mean what I said...it would be monumentally stupid of her to not clarify. You need to talk with TGunz about the second part of this. His assertion was that people are accidently sending classified documents all the time. If you'll remember, I didn't say this two network "revelation" is very problematic at all. The only thing she needs to answer to (or clarify) is why use this server if she wanted EVERYTHING on one device and what she meant there. She wasn't getting everything on one device. At minimum she had two different networks with two different access paths (assuming the server wasn't connected to both). Right?

TGunz was correct.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second - we know and agree that in March when she had that press conference that the emails were gone, right? She said she "chose" to not keep the emails. Not even Hillary claims the emails just disappeared, but the point is she said they were gone and then ....

Yet same presser she says the server contains (present tense) communications between her and Bill and that's why she could not hand over the server. She said that. -> Why?

No we don't agree. Hillary deleting the e-mails such that she no longer had them does not mean that the e-mails were no longer retrievable from the server at all. If it was the same there would have been no discussion on what "wipe" meant, jon would not have speculated that Hillary swapped out hard drives before handing the server over, Hillary would not have resisted handing over the server (with the same qualifier as before) due to privacy concerns, etc.

So let me see if I have this right - you're maintaining that Hillary was honest in saying she "chose not to keep" 30K+ personal emails about funeral condolences, wedding thank yous, yoga routines (you believe that one), and vacations with Bill, and also at the same time was honest when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill, in March 2015, because she believed that there was data that could be ultimately retrieved, ie the data she said she had not kept, she had actually kept, correct?

Hillary has got be plumb, dark, stark raving mad:

QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? ... Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance. ...

CLINTON: We did not. ...

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private...

And:

At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

I have not stated that Hillary was being honest, just that your "evidence" doesn't refute it.

My very first post stated once again-

"Her stated desire to keep data recovery experts out of her deleted personal e-mails is not inconsistent."

By the way

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me

when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill,

you do realize that "from" is different from "between", correct?
Hillary could delete e-mails and thus no longer have them while at the same time an independent arbitrator such as data recovery experts at the FBI could peruse those deleted private e-mails.

I'm out.

Hey BFS, follow up thought on this.

Perhaps you are right.

What if Hillary's IT team migrated the data from her server to the Foundation's server in June of 2013 (which is how the news reports have the timeline)?

That would make the two statements jibe - she deleted her emails that she did not deem "public" or "official" and yet her data would remain on the server. It just wasn't the server she handed over. If it was the Foundation's server then it would indeed contain communications from her husband. Hillary also moved over to the Foundation itself after leaving SOS, so this would make sense. - Does this seem feasible to you?

I don't think that there is any question whether or not I'm correct on the narrow point that deleting e-mails doesn't guarantee that the e-mails cannot be recovered by an "independent arbitrator" that Hillary wanted to avoid gaining access to the server for her own privacy.

Yeah, I don't want to revisit that point. To me she was stating two contradictory things - first time she said such data was gone, so don't go near the server (because there's no point, it's gone); then second time she indicated the data was still there, so again don't go near the server (because the independent arbiter would have no right). I could see how that would maybe not be a "lie" if you parse it but it would still be a head fake. But I think we see each other's points well now.

However, it's also possible that her emails were still "live" on a server somewhere. Though I think your point was that the data was perhaps old (archived, or deleted but not wiped, or whatever) and still recoverable... along with other stuff also on that server.

Whether the email data was "old" or "live" it doesn't matter except that the location of such data does. If the location was a server that also contained data that related to her husband's activities that implies a wider access to classified information.

That would be an expansion of what is already a breach, and that would be a problem.

 

[The Commish]

this is problematic

"It is hard to move classified documents into the non-classified system. You couldn't move a document by mistake," said Willes Lee, a former operations officer for the U.S. Army in Europe and former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach confirmed the two systems don't connect. "The classified and unclassified system are separate and you cannot email between the two," Gerlach told Fox News.

It's only problematic to guys like TGunz and their argument against the faux argument few here were making or coming close to suggesting. This, of course, doesn't prevent the scenario where information is passed along, then deemed classified at a later date. I don't know what their process is when this happens or how they enforce it now. However, if it's shown that she received emails that were classified all along, it goes to my concern that she had a server set up that was, indeed, receiving classified emails as well as personal emails which means her server was a potential bridge between the systems the gov't is claiming are completely separate. THAT'S a bigger concern to me than the actual emails.

You cannot e-mail between the classified and non classified government systems, but you think that you could e-mail from the classified system to private e-mail address? And you criticize others for the nature of their arguments?

um, wut?

She's said she had that server so she could get ALL her emails in one place and that it mixed both her personal and work. If that's true, then there is no other option If this is two separate networks then she'd have to be connected to both networks wouldn't she? It would be monumentally stupid of her not clarify that her server was not part of the "classified network" if that were the case. I guess that's possible. I'm going by the she's spewing and the small pieces of data that have been slowly released. Until it's all out we won't "know" the full story....even then I am confident there will be large gaps. As of right now, her versions of her ever changing story aren't jiving with each other. All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

You mean like saying that she never sent or received a classified e-mail? And the existence of such separate systems is why Colin Powell makes the exact same claim. There are no routine classified e-mails on the .gov network where Hillary should have used an e-mail account. That is why you don't need to believe Hillary to know that she is not fibbing making that statement because it is true by definition. That is why the 150 or so e-mails identified so far are also problematic on .gov.

No, I mean what I said...it would be monumentally stupid of her to not clarify. You need to talk with TGunz about the second part of this. His assertion was that people are accidently sending classified documents all the time. If you'll remember, I didn't say this two network "revelation" is very problematic at all. The only thing she needs to answer to (or clarify) is why use this server if she wanted EVERYTHING on one device and what she meant there. She wasn't getting everything on one device. At minimum she had two different networks with two different access paths (assuming the server wasn't connected to both). Right?

TGunz was correct.

That can't be if it's a completely different system and is isolated to said system

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So crowdsourcing is finally starting to come in on the most recent release of Hillary emails, including the ~150 classified emails.

So far there has been one example of Hillary sending classified email outside State department system - to who else but Sidney Blumenthal:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCAll_1_1-29_JuneWEB/12_13_14/DOC_0C05760281/C05760281.pdf

- Reminder 1 - Blumenthal was using an email handle that indicated he worked with the WH Executive Staff when he had actually been barred by the president from working at the WH.

- Reminder 2 - Blumenthal was hacked so we know that this particular classified information was obtained by hackers as well.

We have another instance of Hillary explicitly instructing that inherently classified information be sent to her unauthorized server:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/clinton-asked-diplomat-to-send-classified-intel-to-my-personal-email/

https://twitter.com/rorycooper/status/638684379410264064/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

And we have one instance of Hillary instructing her aide Jake Sullivan to take information off the classified network and send it to her unauthorized server.

http://on.msnbc.com/1LHrXE2

This is a good rundown by the Federalist as well:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/breaking-hillary-intentionally-originated-and-distributed-highly-classified-information/

 

[The Commish]

BFS has assured me that classified information can't be sent outside it's subsystem residing on it's own network.

 

[otello]

When she was in her office in DC, which email system did she use?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

this is problematic

"It is hard to move classified documents into the non-classified system. You couldn't move a document by mistake," said Willes Lee, a former operations officer for the U.S. Army in Europe and former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach confirmed the two systems don't connect. "The classified and unclassified system are separate and you cannot email between the two," Gerlach told Fox News.

It's only problematic to guys like TGunz and their argument against the faux argument few here were making or coming close to suggesting. This, of course, doesn't prevent the scenario where information is passed along, then deemed classified at a later date. I don't know what their process is when this happens or how they enforce it now. However, if it's shown that she received emails that were classified all along, it goes to my concern that she had a server set up that was, indeed, receiving classified emails as well as personal emails which means her server was a potential bridge between the systems the gov't is claiming are completely separate. THAT'S a bigger concern to me than the actual emails.

You cannot e-mail between the classified and non classified government systems, but you think that you could e-mail from the classified system to private e-mail address? And you criticize others for the nature of their arguments?

um, wut?

She's said she had that server so she could get ALL her emails in one place and that it mixed both her personal and work. If that's true, then there is no other option If this is two separate networks then she'd have to be connected to both networks wouldn't she? It would be monumentally stupid of her not clarify that her server was not part of the "classified network" if that were the case. I guess that's possible. I'm going by the she's spewing and the small pieces of data that have been slowly released. Until it's all out we won't "know" the full story....even then I am confident there will be large gaps. As of right now, her versions of her ever changing story aren't jiving with each other. All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

You mean like saying that she never sent or received a classified e-mail? And the existence of such separate systems is why Colin Powell makes the exact same claim. There are no routine classified e-mails on the .gov network where Hillary should have used an e-mail account. That is why you don't need to believe Hillary to know that she is not fibbing making that statement because it is true by definition. That is why the 150 or so e-mails identified so far are also problematic on .gov.

No, I mean what I said...it would be monumentally stupid of her to not clarify. You need to talk with TGunz about the second part of this. His assertion was that people are accidently sending classified documents all the time. If you'll remember, I didn't say this two network "revelation" is very problematic at all. The only thing she needs to answer to (or clarify) is why use this server if she wanted EVERYTHING on one device and what she meant there. She wasn't getting everything on one device. At minimum she had two different networks with two different access paths (assuming the server wasn't connected to both). Right?

TGunz was correct.

That can't be if it's a completely different system and is isolated to said system

Maybe you should allow Tim to bring you up to speed.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS has assured me that classified information can't be sent outside it's subsystem residing on it's own network.

No I didn't!. I said documents residing on the these systems can't be emailed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

this is problematic

"It is hard to move classified documents into the non-classified system. You couldn't move a document by mistake," said Willes Lee, a former operations officer for the U.S. Army in Europe and former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach confirmed the two systems don't connect. "The classified and unclassified system are separate and you cannot email between the two," Gerlach told Fox News.

It's only problematic to guys like TGunz and their argument against the faux argument few here were making or coming close to suggesting. This, of course, doesn't prevent the scenario where information is passed along, then deemed classified at a later date. I don't know what their process is when this happens or how they enforce it now. However, if it's shown that she received emails that were classified all along, it goes to my concern that she had a server set up that was, indeed, receiving classified emails as well as personal emails which means her server was a potential bridge between the systems the gov't is claiming are completely separate. THAT'S a bigger concern to me than the actual emails.

You cannot e-mail between the classified and non classified government systems, but you think that you could e-mail from the classified system to private e-mail address? And you criticize others for the nature of their arguments?

um, wut?

She's said she had that server so she could get ALL her emails in one place and that it mixed both her personal and work. If that's true, then there is no other option If this is two separate networks then she'd have to be connected to both networks wouldn't she? It would be monumentally stupid of her not clarify that her server was not part of the "classified network" if that were the case. I guess that's possible. I'm going by the she's spewing and the small pieces of data that have been slowly released. Until it's all out we won't "know" the full story....even then I am confident there will be large gaps. As of right now, her versions of her ever changing story aren't jiving with each other. All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

You mean like saying that she never sent or received a classified e-mail? And the existence of such separate systems is why Colin Powell makes the exact same claim. There are no routine classified e-mails on the .gov network where Hillary should have used an e-mail account. That is why you don't need to believe Hillary to know that she is not fibbing making that statement because it is true by definition. That is why the 150 or so e-mails identified so far are also problematic on .gov.

No, I mean what I said...it would be monumentally stupid of her to not clarify. You need to talk with TGunz about the second part of this. His assertion was that people are accidently sending classified documents all the time. If you'll remember, I didn't say this two network "revelation" is very problematic at all. The only thing she needs to answer to (or clarify) is why use this server if she wanted EVERYTHING on one device and what she meant there. She wasn't getting everything on one device. At minimum she had two different networks with two different access paths (assuming the server wasn't connected to both). Right?

TGunz was correct.

That can't be if it's a completely different system and is isolated to said system

Maybe you should allow Tim to bring you up to speed.

Now, that's funny.

 

[The Commish]

BFS has assured me that classified information can't be sent outside it's subsystem residing on it's own network.

No I didn't!. I said documents residing on the these systems can't be emailed.

ok

 

[The Commish]

Do we know for sure that things can't be emailed from classified to not? The comment above says it's hard, but doesn't say it's not possible. Reading it tells us that if you find documents of that nature on unsecured servers they were put there intentionally and the "by accident" excuse doesn't really hold water, but it doesn't say it's impossible. It is also in direct contradiction to TGunz assertion that it's done by mistake "all the time" so where you say TGunz is correct, he in fact isn't.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BFS has assured me that classified information can't be sent outside it's subsystem residing on it's own network.

No I didn't!. I said documents residing on the these systems can't be emailed.

This is Fox, but I think the assertion they state says it well:

So if the Clinton denial is to be believed, individuals in her inner circle would have simply typed or scanned classified information into a non-classified system without regard for its contents. In this case, emails would have started in, and stayed in, the unclassified system -- albeit improperly, based on the findings of the intelligence inspector general. But if it turns out emails literally jumped from the classified to the non-classified system -- something the State Department claims cannot happen -- it would seem to point to Clinton's staff going to great lengths to create a work-around to do so.

Let's keep in mind it is the information which is classified, regardless of the medium it is transmitted in. So if someone takes text from a classified system and types it or the substance of it into an email to an unauthorized location, they have violated rules. It is the information which must be protected, regardless of how it is transmitted.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do we know for sure that things can't be emailed from classified to not? The comment above says it's hard, but doesn't say it's not possible. Reading it tells us that if you find documents of that nature on unsecured servers they were put there intentionally and the "by accident" excuse doesn't really hold water, but it doesn't say it's impossible. It is also in direct contradiction to TGunz assertion that it's done by mistake "all the time" so where you say TGunz is correct, he in fact isn't.

Seems to me to be solely a question of whether you can print it or not and send it as an attachment, either via pdf or scanned to pdf.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS has assured me that classified information can't be sent outside it's subsystem residing on it's own network.

No I didn't!. I said documents residing on the these systems can't be emailed.

This is Fox, but I think the assertion they state says it well:

So if the Clinton denial is to be believed, individuals in her inner circle would have simply typed or scanned classified information into a non-classified system without regard for its contents. In this case, emails would have started in, and stayed in, the unclassified system -- albeit improperly, based on the findings of the intelligence inspector general. But if it turns out emails literally jumped from the classified to the non-classified system -- something the State Department claims cannot happen -- it would seem to point to Clinton's staff going to great lengths to create a work-around to do so.

Let's keep in mind it is the information which is classified, regardless of the medium it is transmitted in. So if someone takes text from a classified system and types it or the substance of it into an email to an unauthorized location, they have violated rules. It is the information which must be protected, regardless of how it is transmitted.

Her staff (and maybe others) typed information which would later be marked classified into e-mails. Such as the apparently one redacted sentence in the e-mail you linked earlier. Along with the larger block of text that Hillary seemed to put together which appears to be her own account of her meetings in Berlin.

 

[The Commish]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

This has been my general point and reason I don't care what's in the emails. Congrats on being the person who sucked me in to the email content debate. I thought I was doing pretty well staying out of it, because in the end, it doesn't matter. What DOES matter is if very sensitive data is found on this server and the server was less secure than it would be if it were on a federally secured network.

So kudos on sucking me in Won't happen again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BFS has assured me that classified information can't be sent outside it's subsystem residing on it's own network.

No I didn't!. I said documents residing on the these systems can't be emailed.

This is Fox, but I think the assertion they state says it well:

So if the Clinton denial is to be believed, individuals in her inner circle would have simply typed or scanned classified information into a non-classified system without regard for its contents. In this case, emails would have started in, and stayed in, the unclassified system -- albeit improperly, based on the findings of the intelligence inspector general. But if it turns out emails literally jumped from the classified to the non-classified system -- something the State Department claims cannot happen -- it would seem to point to Clinton's staff going to great lengths to create a work-around to do so.

Let's keep in mind it is the information which is classified, regardless of the medium it is transmitted in. So if someone takes text from a classified system and types it or the substance of it into an email to an unauthorized location, they have violated rules. It is the information which must be protected, regardless of how it is transmitted.

Her staff (and maybe others) typed information which would later be marked classified into e-mails. Such as the apparently one redacted sentence in the e-mail you linked earlier. Along with the larger block of text that Hillary seemed to put together which appears to be her own account of her meetings in Berlin.

Stop - it is the not the marking that matters. That is quiet simply incorrect. If her staff had taken that information and read it out over an unsecure line it would have been improper too. If they had left it out in their living room, or in their car, or in a cab, it would have been improper. It is the information being protected.

For instance if a source in a foreign government confides in a US agent or foreign service employee and lets them know some confidential goings on they are doing so with the expectation, the unspoken promise, that that information will be held securely. It is a minimum requirement or else if they don't know that, if they can't expect it, they don't tell us anything at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Here's the difference - Hillary only gave her email out to a small coterie of people and she retained this information on a private server. Ordinarily yes you are right, it is inappropriate to send classified emails over a gov account, however a person who does that can be punished for doing so. Who was going to punish Hillary? I can think of at least three examples now where Hillary or her aides were told they could not receive classified information over Hillary's private srever and yet they pressed to do it anyway.

In addition Hillary held privately public data and classified data on her own server some 2-5 years, depending, after the fact. In the former case it was improper, in the latter case it was illegal. The only reason she turned over the information was she was outed by Blumenthal's being hacked and because FOIA and Congressional responses proved to have little or no content from Hillary herself and from her aides for as much as 5 years. Hillary was going to hold classified data and public records, privately, in perpetuity. That was all wrong.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

 

[tommyboy]

It does matter whats in the emails. Enormously

 

[BeaverCleaver]

This is what a lot of people do trying to make sense of some

of your posts.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok I get it, I didn't realize you were quoting the Ignatius piece.

The sole - the only - expert quoted in that piece was part of the Clinton transition in 1992 and was an adviser to the Hillary campaign in 2008. And he is a criminal defense attorney who represents people in these situations. So you're telling me the criminal defense attorney who has been paid by the Clintons in the past says everyone does it? Shocking.

Tell you what find an unconnected, objective intelligence expert, not attorney, not a Hillary advisor or contributor, who says that and we'll discuss further.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Take a look at this email, which I posted further up as well:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCAll_1_1-29_JuneWEB/12_13_14/DOC_0C05760281/C05760281.pdf

- Note the declassification date.

11/9/2024

Note the date on the email - 11/10/2009.

The information remains classified for exactly 15 years after the date of the email, the transmission of the information. That is the date from which it was classified. The more sensitive the information, the longer it stays classified. Typically that is exactly 10 years, here it is 15 years.

- Note the reasons:

1.4(B)

1.4(D)

Those are the bases for the classification.

That information was there in 2009 just as it is now, nothing has changed. The information under that redaction was just as classified from the moment it was typed as it is now.

Also - again, note, that is to Sidney Blumenthal - he is outside the government. He does not have security clearance. And he is using a misleading address (_whoep) that suggests he is WH executive staff, which is something that chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and President Obama explicitly forbade.

 

[timschochet]

Gefilte fish!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Gefilte fish!

Karen TumultyVerified account ‏@ktumulty

Among those who didn't know about @HillaryClinton private email address? The Help Desk at the State Department:

https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/638531537886167040

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second - we know and agree that in March when she had that press conference that the emails were gone, right? She said she "chose" to not keep the emails. Not even Hillary claims the emails just disappeared, but the point is she said they were gone and then ....

Yet same presser she says the server contains (present tense) communications between her and Bill and that's why she could not hand over the server. She said that. -> Why?

No we don't agree. Hillary deleting the e-mails such that she no longer had them does not mean that the e-mails were no longer retrievable from the server at all. If it was the same there would have been no discussion on what "wipe" meant, jon would not have speculated that Hillary swapped out hard drives before handing the server over, Hillary would not have resisted handing over the server (with the same qualifier as before) due to privacy concerns, etc.

So let me see if I have this right - you're maintaining that Hillary was honest in saying she "chose not to keep" 30K+ personal emails about funeral condolences, wedding thank yous, yoga routines (you believe that one), and vacations with Bill, and also at the same time was honest when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill, in March 2015, because she believed that there was data that could be ultimately retrieved, ie the data she said she had not kept, she had actually kept, correct?

Hillary has got be plumb, dark, stark raving mad:

QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? ... Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance. ...

CLINTON: We did not. ...

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private...

And:

At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

I have not stated that Hillary was being honest, just that your "evidence" doesn't refute it.

My very first post stated once again-

"Her stated desire to keep data recovery experts out of her deleted personal e-mails is not inconsistent."

By the way

...The server contains personal communications from my husband and me

when she said that the server "contains" communications with Bill,

you do realize that "from" is different from "between", correct?
Hillary could delete e-mails and thus no longer have them while at the same time an independent arbitrator such as data recovery experts at the FBI could peruse those deleted private e-mails.

I'm out.

Hey BFS, follow up thought on this.

Perhaps you are right.

What if Hillary's IT team migrated the data from her server to the Foundation's server in June of 2013 (which is how the news reports have the timeline)?

That would make the two statements jibe - she deleted her emails that she did not deem "public" or "official" and yet her data would remain on the server. It just wasn't the server she handed over. If it was the Foundation's server then it would indeed contain communications from her husband. Hillary also moved over to the Foundation itself after leaving SOS, so this would make sense. - Does this seem feasible to you?

I don't think that there is any question whether or not I'm correct on the narrow point that deleting e-mails doesn't guarantee that the e-mails cannot be recovered by an "independent arbitrator" that Hillary wanted to avoid gaining access to the server for her own privacy.

Another question on this - do we know that this was a standalone and dedicated server, that is were Hillary's and Huma's various email accounts on a server dedicated solely to their email accounts?

Or could it have been on a shared server?

On the first day of Mrs. Clinton’s confirmation hearing in January 2009, a longtime aide to her husband bought the Internet domain name clintonemail.com from a company called Network Solutions in Jacksonville, Fla. The aide, Justin Cooper, then shifted management of the account to an Atlanta company called Perfect Privacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/us/hillary-clinton-emails-take-long-path-to-controversy.html?_r=1

- Technically, that's just the email URL/domain. That could be on any server anywhere, right?

Would it matter to you or the intelligence community or anyone if the email was on a server that others had access to, like say if it was on the Foundation's server?

Seems to me if so that would be another security breach.

 

[17seconds]

All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

Not new!

When I was there it was controlled by security policies and user profiles. It was all running on the same network A hole different network of routers, hard wire,servers etc seems like overkill, even by gov't standards for stuff like this but I guess it's possible if not probable.

Where is this coming from?

I used to have a clearance and we had a completely independent classified network with no external connectivity, or shared hardware with the unclassified network. That was in 1995.

 

[The Commish]

All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

Not new!

When I was there it was controlled by security policies and user profiles. It was all running on the same network A hole different network of routers, hard wire,servers etc seems like overkill, even by gov't standards for stuff like this but I guess it's possible if not probable.

Where is this coming from?

I used to have a clearance and we had a completely independent classified network with no external connectivity, or shared hardware with the unclassified network. That was in 1995.

The situation I outlined above was a project I was working on for the NSA in 2002.

 

[timschochet]

Shared server with Huma...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shared server with Huma...

Could that have extended to Anthony Weiner if she accessed her email at home? Maybe.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Huma Complained She Wasn't Paid Enough
Here's how Hillary solved that problem.

In one of the newly release Hillary Clinton emails, a mostly redacted message from Philip Gordon to Huma Abedin and Jacob Sullivan ends with, "To quote Huma, I don't get paid enough." Abedin, Clinton’s closest aide, was able to change her fortunes with a little help from friends.

In 2012, Abedin transitioned to being a "special employee," meaning she could hold several jobs in addition to her role at the State Department. Presumably, that meant she got a raise.

As the Washington Post notes,

At the time, Abedin held four jobs with four different employers — an arrangement allowed by a special government designation she held permitting outside employment.

As for one of her four jobs, the New York Post reports that Abedin received a substantial salary increase:

She reportedly raked in $355,000 as a consultant to Teneo, while simultaneously pocketing $135,000 in government pay.

...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/huma-complained-she-wasnt-paid-enough_1023502.html

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0111/DOC_0C05776507/C05776507.pdf

WaPo also points out that in addition to State, Teneo and the Foundation, Huma was also being paid by Hillary out of her own pockets.

- So I guess I have a question: if someone is being paid more than twice as much by one employer than another, who are they most beholden and loyal to?

 

[tommyboy]

what difference, at this point, does it make?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

When she was in her office in DC, which email system did she use?

Presumably her private email, as she is seen asking her aides to print emails and bring it to her. That could have been anywhere but I take it that was or could have typically been at her SOS office.

 

[Sand]

what difference, at this point, does it make?

Please bang on the table when saying that.

 

[tommyboy]

what difference, at this point, does it make?

Please bang on the table when saying that.

https://thabto.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hillary2016.jpg

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And another one - Bill Clinton resigns from Laureate International, a private global colleges corporation, where he was receiving an undisclosed salary...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-24/bill-clinton-leaves-for-profit-college-position

... supposedly Laureate had business before the administration and it's CEO had another non-profit which also received millions from State, though that is not in this Bloomberg report.

Here's the report from Bloomberg on Laureate getting millions from State. Apparently they were receiving funding before Hillary was SOS but it increased $16 million after hiring Bill when Hill became Secretary.

http://origin-www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-25/author-alleges-bill-clinton-just-quit-education-company-because-of-clinton-cash-

The author Joshua Green appeared on Msnbc recently.

Clinton Sought Invite for Laureate at State Dept. Dinner
September 2, 2015
On the campaign trail Hillary Clinton has been critical of for-profit colleges and has called for tougher regulation of the sector.

During her first year as secretary of state, however, Clinton pushed for the inclusion of a large for-profit education company at a higher education policy dinner hosted at the U.S. Department of State.

Clinton wrote in an email to a top aide that she wanted to add Laureate Education to the guest list for the event. Describing Laureate as “the fastest growing college network in the world,” Clinton said the company was “started by Doug Becker who Bill likes a lot.”

"It's a for-profit model that should be represented," she added in the August 2009 email. A senior vice president at Laureate was added to the guest list, a separate email shows.

Former President Bill Clinton several months later became an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities, a role for which he was paid $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014. Clinton stepped down from the position earlier this year.

Other attendees at the closed-door event, according to a list emailed to Hillary Clinton, included the leaders of Yale University, Cornell University, New York University, the University of California at Davis, Bryn Mawr College, Berea College and Houston Community College.

The two emails were released by the State Department last month as part of its court-ordered rolling production of messages from the personal email account Clinton used while secretary of state.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/09/02/clinton-sought-invite-laureate-state-dept-dinner

By the way have to love how Mills moves from her gov account to her personal account to work out the details.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_JulyWeb/Web_031/DOC_0C05763085/C05763085.pdf

 

[DocHolliday]

Just how wealthy are the Clintons? Seems like every day, I find out someone new is paying them millions of dollars are donating millions of dollars to their "foundation".

 

[cstu]

She was for for-profit colleges before she was against them, but only because they were paying her husband a lot of money.

 

[cstu]

Just how wealthy are the Clintons? Seems like every day, I find out someone new is paying them millions of dollars are donating millions of dollars to their "foundation".

She's no Trump.

 

[dhockster]

And another one - Bill Clinton resigns from Laureate International, a private global colleges corporation, where he was receiving an undisclosed salary...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-24/bill-clinton-leaves-for-profit-college-position

... supposedly Laureate had business before the administration and it's CEO had another non-profit which also received millions from State, though that is not in this Bloomberg report.

Here's the report from Bloomberg on Laureate getting millions from State. Apparently they were receiving funding before Hillary was SOS but it increased $16 million after hiring Bill when Hill became Secretary.

http://origin-www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-25/author-alleges-bill-clinton-just-quit-education-company-because-of-clinton-cash-

The author Joshua Green appeared on Msnbc recently.

Clinton Sought Invite for Laureate at State Dept. Dinner
September 2, 2015
On the campaign trail Hillary Clinton has been critical of for-profit colleges and has called for tougher regulation of the sector.

During her first year as secretary of state, however, Clinton pushed for the inclusion of a large for-profit education company at a higher education policy dinner hosted at the U.S. Department of State.

Clinton wrote in an email to a top aide that she wanted to add Laureate Education to the guest list for the event. Describing Laureate as “the fastest growing college network in the world,” Clinton said the company was “started by Doug Becker who Bill likes a lot.”

"It's a for-profit model that should be represented," she added in the August 2009 email. A senior vice president at Laureate was added to the guest list, a separate email shows.

Former President Bill Clinton several months later became an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities, a role for which he was paid $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014. Clinton stepped down from the position earlier this year.

Other attendees at the closed-door event, according to a list emailed to Hillary Clinton, included the leaders of Yale University, Cornell University, New York University, the University of California at Davis, Bryn Mawr College, Berea College and Houston Community College.

The two emails were released by the State Department last month as part of its court-ordered rolling production of messages from the personal email account Clinton used while secretary of state.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/09/02/clinton-sought-invite-laureate-state-dept-dinner

By the way have to love how Mills moves from her gov account to her personal account to work out the details.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_JulyWeb/Web_031/DOC_0C05763085/C05763085.pdf

Living in Houston, I have to ask: How did HCC get invited?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok I get it, I didn't realize you were quoting the Ignatius piece.

The sole - the only - expert quoted in that piece was part of the Clinton transition in 1992 and was an adviser to the Hillary campaign in 2008. And he is a criminal defense attorney who represents people in these situations. So you're telling me the criminal defense attorney who has been paid by the Clintons in the past says everyone does it? Shocking.

Tell you what find an unconnected, objective intelligence expert, not attorney, not a Hillary advisor or contributor, who says that and we'll discuss further.

Are you suggesting that the second quote is false? That is not inevitable that classified information is passed along from time to time using unsecure systems such as e-mail?

Do you grasp what this would mean? If so I'd expect a flurry of tangents.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok I get it, I didn't realize you were quoting the Ignatius piece.

The sole - the only - expert quoted in that piece was part of the Clinton transition in 1992 and was an adviser to the Hillary campaign in 2008. And he is a criminal defense attorney who represents people in these situations. So you're telling me the criminal defense attorney who has been paid by the Clintons in the past says everyone does it? Shocking.

Tell you what find an unconnected, objective intelligence expert, not attorney, not a Hillary advisor or contributor, who says that and we'll discuss further.

Are you suggesting that the second quote is false? That is not inevitable that classified information is passed along from time to time using unsecure systems such as e-mail?

Do you grasp what this would mean? If so I'd expect a flurry of tangents.

That's obviously not the point I made. The point I made was that the sole person relied upon by Ignatius was a Clinton advisor and a criminal defense attorney who (shocker) says everyone does it. I've been after some citation of an expert from the intelligence field (as opposed to here, a criminal defense attorney) who says that what Hillary did was not improper or illegal. Ignatius writes a one-off and guess who he turns to. That was my point.

But as for the substance of the 2nd quote, it may be true but I don't think that's a legal defense to the accusation. Now I will also concede that it doesn't mean that Hillary is guilty just because others have been prosecuted. - I would factor in that we are looking at 150+ instances of this happening, possible 2-3 TS/TK/SCI emails (in which case it definitely doesn't matter), and I will add that Hillary herself fired an Ambassador to Kenya who made the exact same claim but in that instance, again, it was not enough to save his job (and likely future clearance and employment near sensitive communications).

 

[MaxThreshold]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok I get it, I didn't realize you were quoting the Ignatius piece.

The sole - the only - expert quoted in that piece was part of the Clinton transition in 1992 and was an adviser to the Hillary campaign in 2008. And he is a criminal defense attorney who represents people in these situations. So you're telling me the criminal defense attorney who has been paid by the Clintons in the past says everyone does it? Shocking.

Tell you what find an unconnected, objective intelligence expert, not attorney, not a Hillary advisor or contributor, who says that and we'll discuss further.

Are you suggesting that the second quote is false? That is not inevitable that classified information is passed along from time to time using unsecure systems such as e-mail?

Do you grasp what this would mean? If so I'd expect a flurry of tangents.

So..do I understand this correctly? Your defense of Hillary is that "everyone else does it"? I just want to be clear here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok I get it, I didn't realize you were quoting the Ignatius piece.

The sole - the only - expert quoted in that piece was part of the Clinton transition in 1992 and was an adviser to the Hillary campaign in 2008. And he is a criminal defense attorney who represents people in these situations. So you're telling me the criminal defense attorney who has been paid by the Clintons in the past says everyone does it? Shocking.

Tell you what find an unconnected, objective intelligence expert, not attorney, not a Hillary advisor or contributor, who says that and we'll discuss further.

Are you suggesting that the second quote is false? That is not inevitable that classified information is passed along from time to time using unsecure systems such as e-mail?

Do you grasp what this would mean? If so I'd expect a flurry of tangents.

That's obviously not the point I made. The point I made was that the sole person relied upon by Ignatius was a Clinton advisor and a criminal defense attorney who (shocker) says everyone does it. I've been after some citation of an expert from the intelligence field (as opposed to here, a criminal defense attorney) who says that what Hillary did was not improper or illegal. Ignatius writes a one-off and guess who he turns to. That was my point.

But as for the substance of the 2nd quote, it may be true but I don't think that's a legal defense to the accusation. Now I will also concede that it doesn't mean that Hillary is guilty just because others have been prosecuted. - I would factor in that we are looking at 150+ instances of this happening, possible 2-3 TS/TK/SCI emails (in which case it definitely doesn't matter), and I will add that Hillary herself fired an Ambassador to Kenya who made the exact same claim but in that instance, again, it was not enough to save his job (and likely future clearance and employment near sensitive communications).

I don't care right now about anything other than whether or not the second quote

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

should be considered factual. I'm not using it as a defense of anything or anyone. I don't care about the biases of the person quoted. I don't care about whether or not anyone would be prosecuted. All I care about right now is whether or not this is quote is true or at least something that happens occassionally. Yes or No?