Clinton Email Controversy

Making a thread to disentangle it from the de facto all things politics thread that the election thread has become. Hopefully we can keep the two a bit segregated. If not, I tried.

For the record, Clinton is not under criminal investigation from the FBI:

And just to address the oft-offered comment “Petraeus was fired for the same thing” - not entirely true.
Petraeus admitted to sharing classified material with his biographer (with whom he had an affair.) He later plead guilty to a misdemeanor for improperly mishandling classified information.

And lastly, not that it would ever happen but I really hope I’m never tried with some of you as jurors. Apparently for some of you (and you know who you are) leaks and incomplete information reported in the media is enough evidence to assume guilt.

It make sense to store these emails. A governement must have a memory what promises are made, who is guilty to small betrayals, or these that have helped us in the past. Even a small company usually store emails for a long time (maybe with plans to automatically remove them after N years) to make sure what they actually promised to a customer and what they warned the customer about.

So is good that it was made into a law.

But is not good that this person choose to ignore it, or worse … cheated the system to avoid it, or worse… she had something really ugly to hide, or (maybe) worse, she is a incompetent. I think if you support this person, you must choose your poison: incompetent, liar, cheater. Pick one.

I don’t support her, I hate her since the Hot Coffe drama when she showed to be a populist imbecile.

…following recent reports revealing that the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has graphic pornographic content which may be unlocked by following instructions on the Internet, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people.

This is the type of politician that is ignorant about a topic, but still want to legislate about it.

For me, this piece from Politico has the email which is going to be the most trouble for clinton.

Clinton directed staffers to send talking points via nonsecure email, according to a June 2011 email chain, in which her top adviser Jake Sullivan said that staffers were experiencing difficulty sending secure fax messages.
The conversation is partially redacted, so further context is unclear based on the emails themselves, including whether the talking points themselves included any classified information.

Sullivan wrote Clinton to inform her that she would receive the documents later on the evening of June 16. The following morning, Clinton followed up to say that she had not yet received them.

“?!!! Checking,” Sullivan responded.

Minutes later, he wrote, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.”
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton wrote.

This looks to be committing a felony. I think Clinton is going to have trouble dealing with this.

And as the Washington Post points out, Clinton is not dealing with it well at all.

Yeah, and Sullivan says now that he didn’t actually send the fax unsecured - he got the secure fax working. Like we’ve been talking about for two pages. No felony.

Again dude, if you order someone to illegally remove the classification markings from documents, you’re breaking the law, even if they think better of it and don’t do it.

But if they didn’t do it, then it may be less likely to bring it against her… but there is still then the issue of what appear to be quite a lot of highly classified material on that server, despite the repeated claims by clinton that there wasn’t anything there.

Politically it doesn’t matter if it happened anyway. The poor judgement in giving the order is a McCain picking Palin levels of a mistake, actually more so in many ways, since it actually smacks of incompetence on top of poor judgement.

The GOP can, and will, hammer that nail straight into her coffin and with good reason. She’s already not liked, but accepted to be competent and smart. Take that out of the equation and remove her supposedly strong decision-making and she has nothing going for her other than a possible Trump/Cruz opponent who is so loathsome that people vote for her just to vote against them. Which doesn’t make for a very sturdy reelection foundation.

I am interested in this story but am finding it difficult to follow. I’d love to find coverage that’s as impartial as possible (ha!) since both Republicans and Democrats seem to be more interested in pushing the story they want to be told (yes, first time that’s ever happened, double ha!). I have had security clearance due to some work I have done with the government in the past but have never personally handled sensitive documents so I don’t really know what law and procedure is around it. I’d just like to know more.

For issues like this one, I like to try to find people cutting against the grain: traditionally inside-the-beltway/left-leaning sources like The Atlantic or Politico writing about how it’s a problem, and right-leaning/government-sucks sources saying it isn’t. I don’t know if I’ve come across any of the latter, though.

Please stop posting Theissen’s WaPo Opinion piece as fact. As Rumsfeld’s former speechwriter, he definitely has an agenda.

Additionally, per the Politico piece which you quoted:

Clinton directed staffers to send talking points via nonsecure email, according to a June 2011 email chain, in which her top adviser Jake Sullivan said that staffers were experiencing difficulty sending secure fax messages.
The conversation is partially redacted, so further context is unclear based on the emails themselves, including whether the talking points themselves included any classified information.

Sullivan wrote Clinton to inform her that she would receive the documents later on the evening of June 16. The following morning, Clinton followed up to say that she had not yet received them.

“?!!! Checking,” Sullivan responded.
Minutes later, he wrote, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.”
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton wrote.

The other 7 points from the Politico article don’t even allege to be about classified materials, AFAIK (unless all of Blumethal’s communications are allegedly classified, which the article doesn’t address).

My guess is that Clinton was used to a large volume of correspondence and reports, most of which was classified at some level, and much of which was probably in the judgement of her staff and probably her self over-classified. When she hit a workflow snag, she made an executive decision to expedite the flow of stuff that in her assessment didn’t warrant the level of classification it had–efficiency over procedure. That isn’t technically her call to make, depending on the level of classification, and it sets bad precedent, especially when it’s something you order subordinates to do. It’s sloppy procedure and arguably bad judgement, though not at all unusual or particularly nefarious. And in all probability, the material we’re talking about as obscure, abstruse, and opaque, and of limited interest to anyone, though I don’t have any real idea of what the material was.

From my experience, now many decades old, of dealing with highly-classified stuff, there’s a certain lassitude that enters into your day to day interaction with such stuff day in and day out. You have to make a conscious effort to maintain standards and not insert your own judgement into the equation; if it’s marked “Top Secret/Qt3 Only,” you don’t second-guess that and treat it like it was just “Confidential.” It’s one reason why your security officer is usually nagging everyone all the time, because she or he knows that, left to their own devices, the highly intelligent and energetic specialists working with classified material will, eventually, start to make their own executive decisions, and that’s a Bad Thing in the greater scheme of it all. After all, the whole point of compartments is that most people will not and cannot have the whole picture in mind, and therefore have to trust the procedures to secure the information. Clinton, as State, probably had knowledge of a lot of the pieces, but even she can’t have knowledge of it all, by design, and certainly should not be setting that sort of example.

So, yeah, it’s a black mark in terms of how she operated in a fast and loose manner, at least in some instances, but whether that is that much different from how every single head of a department like State has always acted is another thing. As is, how much it bugs you. Given how most everyone in the government at a high level at some time or another has played fast and loose with classified material for political purposes, I’m a bit jaded these days.

Which is more or less how I fall. This does not reflect well on Clinton, but we also know what she did was not unique to other recent Secretary of State’s. The reason we don’t hear more stories about the misdeeds of the Bush administration is that there isn’t a) one of them running for president b) an entire media apparatus that is ideologically devoted to attacking anything Democrat by any means possible, truth be damned.

That’s an excellent summary Wombat, and I agree with both you and Craig.

Hmm, could the difference also be that they weren’t running a private email server at home to greatly increase the risk these materials, which have the explicit potential to cause grave harm to the nation and the lives of its citizens, would fall into the wrong hands?

I love that this is a separate thread so we can focus on bashing the GOP in the other one. Surely this potential crime will have no bearing on the 2016 presidential election!

The discussion becomes fragmented and hard to follow.

And hyperbole much?
Let me answer: Yes.

Edit:

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]

I’m confused why you’re posting an example of private email server use from the other tribe as if that wins a point against me. I’m more than happy to throw the book at them too if there were extensive classified materials on a private server somewhere.

You realize that’s the issue here, right? Top secret information on a server in Chappaqua set up by some campaign staffer that may have had “amateur hour” vulnerabilities.

It’s also important to note that the law changed during the Bush Administration, I believe.

But yes, I’m sick of the idea that both sides throw out that “Hey, the other side did it too!” I don’t really care, punish them both.

Plus it always seems to miss the point. I don’t really care about private email use. I’m completely used to a lack of transparency from politicians. Sure, its a disgrace, but it’s like being angry at clouds.

When there’s a chance it could harm the nation or its citizens, and the perpetrator couldn’t care less, then I get kind of miffed. (To be honest, I’m more interested in how this affects the race, as sad as that sounds. I’m not immune to the show!)

Heck, the Republicans may have had the same kind of materials on their private servers. We don’t know.

Maybe because you pointed that out as a difference between what Clinton and other Exec branch officials did? I believe the Bush White House used the Republican Party email servers as their private domains. Who knows how secure that was? Though likely not as secure as the government servers would have been.

If a crime was committed, by all means let’s treat it as such. However, let’s not pretend that this is new or even unusual at the Cabinet level.

I’m not here to score points. The link for the Bush email story is to demonstrate Craig’s point. IIRC, nothing became of that (I might be wrong but the entire thing just disappeared so far as know) and they even outed CIA agents. And it’s not “both sides do it”, rather it’s the asymmetrical response.

Much of what is in the media right now is incomplete information, or leaks from “sources” with questionable credibility. It’s virtually impossible to know much of anything and we are going to have to wait until the process is complete (and again, unless something has changed the FBI is not conducting a criminal investigation of Clinton.) Having said that, I’m also not overly obsessed with national security, either, so there’s that.

Okay, I see what you mean now.

  1. Everybody does it
  2. Clinton obviously does it and uses a private email server
  3. Everybody uses private email servers
  4. Therefore everybody has had classified material on private email servers

Excellent. That’s at least related to the topic at hand!