Needs it's own thread.

Will DOJ press charges?

3/2/2016 1:25:12 PM

obamas doj? LOL

3/2/2016 8:20:02 PM

This is such a partisan issue. This thread is going to go to trash quick.

3/2/2016 8:44:24 PM

How is this a partisan issue?

3/2/2016 8:59:53 PM

It shouldn't be a partisan issue. Let's think objectively about the ramifications of what she did.

What kind of data was being communicated over email? At least some of it would have been highly classified information, e.g. identifying data of informants or spies.

What's the harm in Clinton self hosting her emails? It wasn't subject to the same security scrutiny as government systems, potentially being less secure. Whether it was or wasn't less secure isn't the issue; the point is that a private email hosting solution doesn't fall within the purview of the government.

Clinton puts sensitive information - that very well could have meant life or death for folks - in a compromised position. I'm not sure how anyone can believe that is acceptable.

3/2/2016 9:02:19 PM

DOJ gives immunity to State Dept staffer who set up Clinton email server

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSMTZSAPEC33FYDR8A

uh oh

[Edited on March 2, 2016 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2016 10:59:58 PM

didn't know the server was actually in her home. that's incredibly stupid on so many levels

3/2/2016 11:12:41 PM

It's clearly political douchebaggery with how the 'pubs have made such a huge stink over this...
Having said that, it still was a pretty crappy move on her part.

3/3/2016 12:54:28 AM

imagine how cocky she'll get when she starts her third of four terms next january

3/3/2016 2:49:05 AM

^^ by 'pretty crappy' do you mean 'blatantly illegal and may have jeopardized national security and human assets?'

3/3/2016 6:57:16 AM

for you guys that have been trained on this, what specific laws are we looking at?

3/3/2016 8:07:18 AM

Can someone post some (legitimate) links on what has been found so far? I know some new stuff got released, and that one email dtownral is posting everywhere looks pretty damn illegal although I'd like to see the chain of messages if possible.

My biggest question is how much of this is stuff that was classified AFTER it was sent or received and what part of it is just a pissing match between the state department and the pentagon and the FBI.

3/3/2016 8:08:35 AM

sensitive information is classified from birth, it doesn't need to be stamped. apparently this is taught to everyone who gets clearance so she would have known this. however, she definitely received, stored on her server, and sent emails that were stamped classified, example: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_Email_1_296/HRCH2/DOC_0C05739578/C05739578.pdf

and if you are talking about something like national nuclear security policy:
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05797868/C05797868.pdf
i would think that even someone untrained would know that you don't need to see a stamp to know its classified

Here is a discussion thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/47xkz1/hrc_email_release_megathread/

Here are all the emails:
https://foia.state.gov/Learn/New.aspx
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 8:29 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 8:53 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2016 8:28:36 AM

regarding if this is just a little bit sensitive or super top secret stuff, here is a good comment when someone asked how this compares to Rice and Powell

not-classified < confidential < secret < top secret < SAP
All 12 of the Rice/Powell emails are "confidential".

Clinton has 1,800 classified emails on her server. Most at confidential. But at least 40 at higher levels, including the SAP level. Hell, 88 classified emails were released just this Friday. And there are more to come on Monday!
The new release brings the total number of classified emails on the former secretary of State’s machine up to more than 1,800.

Quote :

"The vast majority of those classified emails were listed at the lowest level, that of “confidential,” but nearly two dozen were classified as “secret” and another 22 were deemed “top secret” — the highest level of classification."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271005-feds-release-more-clinton-emails-on-eve-of-sc-primary:

3/3/2016 8:35:30 AM

Here is how to understand the reason for info being redacted: https://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx

so for in my first example some parts are redacted because of B6 - personal information (in this case it is email addresses that were redacted)

Something marked B1 is redacted because it is classified information, for example this:
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08626FEB26/DOC_0C05770883/C05770883.pdf


_____________________________

Also, the more interesting investigation in my opinion is not necessarily the mishandling of classified information, but the fact that the FBI is investigating the relationship she had with the Clinton Foundation and their employees


[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 8:49 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2016 8:39:07 AM

Regarding the laws:

Everyone is citing 18 U.S.C. 793(f)

Quote :

"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

but for that i think you have to show that the the server wasn't the proper place or show that it has been stolen (which would require proving it was hacked). Since Blumenthal had his aol account hacked, if Clinton sent anything to him i think that action would probably violate this section

3/3/2016 9:01:01 AM

Hm I wonder why bbehe would start this thread, when there's already conversation on this topic in the Hillary 2016 thread.

Quote :

"If it comes down to Drumpf and Clinton, I will not vote for that race (I'll still show for the down ticket races) While I disagree with some things Bernie says, I support him and still think he has a shot, albeit extremely small. I refuse to support Clinton because of her extreme lack of integrity as well as this whole email thing. She literally instructed her staff to remove classification headings/markers to send stuff via an unsecured line. She talks in her emails about HUMINT sources and other ISR methods as well as movement of officials. These things are classified at birth, she should have known better. If I had done just a fraction of what she had done, I would have lost clearance and seen the inside of a federal jail."

Oh yeah. That's it.

3/3/2016 9:04:47 AM

let's pack it up guys, nothing to see in any of the emails or in the connection between the state department and clinton foundation, an internet thread was started because someone might not like Clinton
-FBI

3/3/2016 9:10:24 AM

Thank you, an excellent get up to speed primer. Just skimming some of that briefly indicates that I am totally ignorant of the rules surrounding classified info, and so are most of the reports I've read in the media.

This is quite the pickle for the DNC. Waiting around to see what happens is gonna kill them.

And initially, I was the most pissed about the Clinton Foundation connections, so I was following that much more closely. I've always been sketched out about its operations.






At this point, There is a fine line between Clinton Derangement Syndrome and what seems to be legit concerns/illegality/etc. I really hate even getting near that line, but Clinton, for all her supposed saviness and skill, shit the bed on this one I think.

3/3/2016 9:15:22 AM

This is probably like the UNC investigation. Lots of smoke, but ain't shit gonna come from it.


[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 9:25 AM. Reason : ^^ no it's the timing i'm questioning, not the merits]

3/3/2016 9:24:38 AM

It's not a criminal investigation at this point. Nothing is going to happen. Hillary will most likely be President.

3/3/2016 9:50:19 AM

I came to post that ^^

Every time I get the least bit excited she's going down for her shadiness, it doesn't happen. I swear she is secretly Ramses dressed in a fat suit, too much makeup, and clothes from an Asian thrift shop

3/3/2016 9:53:38 AM

Quote :

"It's not a criminal investigation at this point. "

this is a criminal investigation, there has not been a grand jury yet but the FBI is investigating potential criminal activity. we will have to wait and see if they recommend indicting anyone, but this is a real investigation not just some benign security probe


Also, the FBI just granted immunity to the staffer who setup her server

3/3/2016 10:19:58 AM

I recently spoke with a retired agent who still knows plenty of folks in the agency and apparently the evidence is rather damning and if the DOJ declines to indict there could be a major fallout of high ranking people leaving the agency.

Even if Clinton skirts this one it will still haunt her chances of winning the presidency.

3/3/2016 10:25:09 AM

even if the person you are referring to was a real person and not someone you just made up right now, they wouldn't know any kind of inside details

3/3/2016 11:08:09 AM

I don't get anything from lying about it, I'm not trying to build cred on a dying message board by making up stories, and the guy might not know the intricate details but he can know that the evidence that they should indict is strong and he can know that agents will be incredibly pissed if they don't. He is still really close with a lot of folks in the agency. I don't really give a fuck if you believe me or not but I trust this guy with what he told me so take it however you wish.

3/3/2016 11:11:52 AM

I want to believe.........

But that is almost verbatim the claim Tom Delay made two months ago. And tom delay is a known liar, extremely partisan, and just an all-around jackass. I think you can see why it might be taken with some doubts.

3/3/2016 11:18:19 AM

Sure, I completely understand. Pulling the I know a guy card isn't the most sound of references but I can't do much better and it is a legit story. His credibility on the matter is similar but he didn't have anything to gain by making something up either so I put more faith in it than not.

3/3/2016 11:23:09 AM

there are over 35k people in the FBI, he doesn't know anything special

3/3/2016 11:41:09 AM

There won't be an indictment because she didn't do anything illegal. They've been investigating this for over a year and found zero evidence to indict with. She requested this server through official channels and had it setup by an employee of the State Department. It was legal and 100% allowed by State Department regulations and policy. Was it a stupid thing to do? Yeah, it probably was, but it was also stupid for the State Department to authorize a private email server for the Secretary of State to use for official business. The idea that you're going to indict her for a handful of emails out of tens of thousands that were retroactively classified is a pipe dream.

3/3/2016 12:11:47 PM

wow, you didn't read anything in this thread and just pasted the old talking points

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 12:15 PM. Reason : old false talking points]

3/3/2016 12:13:45 PM

If nothing was illegal, why did the person who set it up plead the 5th in September, and then yesterday accept immunity in exchange for information? Shit's going down.

3/3/2016 12:17:24 PM

^^You said it yourself, even if she was communicating classified information through that server, it still wouldn't be illegal because that doesn't prove she "mishandled" the material. The server was allowed by State Department policy and setup in accordance to their regulations. It was similar to setups used by previous SoS's including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. They never ran for President though.

3/3/2016 12:50:22 PM

regarding powell and rice:

Quote :

"not-classified < confidential < secret < top secret < SAP All 12 of the Rice/Powell emails are "confidential". Clinton has 1,800 classified emails on her server. Most at confidential. But at least 40 at higher levels, including the SAP level. Hell, 88 classified emails were released just this Friday. And there are more to come on Monday! The new release brings the total number of classified emails on the former secretary of State’s machine up to more than 1,800. [quote]The vast majority of those classified emails were listed at the lowest level, that of “confidential,” but nearly two dozen were classified as “secret” and another 22 were deemed “top secret” — the highest level of classification."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271005-feds-release-more-clinton-emails-on-eve-of-sc-primary:[/quote]


in regards to legality:

i'm not a lawyer and don't know what statutes the FBI is looking at, but just based on that statute it would be illegal if any information was stolen from her server. also while her server was not against policy in regards to government communication, that doesn't mean that it is a "proper place of custody" for confidential information. not being illegal to have a server doesn't necessarily mean that using that server to store secure intelligence is legal. also, for all we know the guy who they gave immunity to is in an office right now giving details that show how insecure the server was or how no one ever maintained it or installed security updated and those are the kinds of things that could point to gross negligence if the FBI can show that those concerns were raised.


[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 1:21 PM. Reason : tl;dr Clinton is not out of the woods yet]

3/3/2016 1:17:23 PM

Hey man, let me know where I can pick up a pair of those rose-tinted glasses you're wearing.

3/3/2016 1:25:07 PM

^^Maybe not, but when we're getting to the point of analyzing individual emails for a technicality or granting immunity to low level staffers, it's clear they are grasping at straws. I mean, how likely is the scenario you just posited? Clinton getting personally involved in the technical aspects of network security? Maybe this guy did fuck up and not install the proper security certificates (which would be why he wanted immunity before talking), but that still wouldn't be on Clinton.

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2016 1:31:47 PM

I'm not sure why it's so incredibly unlikely that at some point someone talked to Clinton about her network. In just my brief time of reading emails I know that she was personally involved in email on her phone and in regards to issues when their email server went down, so it's not crazy to think that at some point during the time someone could have sent an email saying they needed to service the server or install a patch or something and at least copied her on it

but this was just one example that i pulled out of my ass of something that could potentially be used to show gross negligence, i have no idea what the FBI has but it's foolish to just decide that they have nothing because congress already questioned her or because she is so trustworthy or something

3/3/2016 2:04:24 PM

Quote :

"it's foolish to just decide that they have nothing because...she is so trustworthy or something"

lol

3/3/2016 2:06:31 PM

Welp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html

Quote :

"Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred. Security logs keep track of, among other things, who accessed the network and when. They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers."

Smoking gun! Benghazi! Traitor!

3/3/2016 5:53:05 PM

Quote :

"The question of whether Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked is separate from whether a crime occurred."

3/3/2016 5:56:52 PM

Quote :

"My biggest question is how much of this is stuff that was classified AFTER it was sent or received and what part of it is just a pissing match between the state department and the pentagon and the FBI. "

Many of the things have things she discussed were classified at birth. The email dtownral keeps parading around is the most damning thing.

Quote :

"Hm I wonder why bbehe would start this thread"

Because it should be treated differently from her campaign and is a large enough issue.

Quote :

" it still wouldn't be illegal because that doesn't prove she "mishandled" the material"

She instructed her staff to remove classification headings and send them via an unsecure fax. This is by definition mishandling. I would be in a jail cell right now if I had done that.

Quote :

" Clinton getting personally involved in the technical aspects of network security"

When you get read into SAP/TS-SCP, you are fully briefed on procedures. Classified data above certain levels is kept on an air gaped network called SIPR as opposed to the unclass network NIPR. She knew damn well that she should not have been discussing classified materials on a home server.

Quote :

"Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred"

Of course not, however, he's a fool for thinking that means anything at all. Clintons server was public facing, not only that it was pretty public knowledge that she used it for official business. As a former DoD contractor who dealt with secure communication projects (including one for the White House Communications Agency) I can almost guarantee you that server was targeted and attacked.

3/3/2016 6:06:28 PM

^^The entire legal argument against Clinton is that she criminally mishandled classified emails due to her use of an insecure private server. Seems like it was plenty secure, more secure than official State Department accounts which have been hacked. Sure, maybe a crime occurred, how are you going to prove it?

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 6:10 PM. Reason : skipping crazy]

3/3/2016 6:08:01 PM

Also, this is the guy who is claiming the logs were clean.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryan-pagliano-a8b3542

He has a BA in Political History and an MBA. He was the one who set up the server.

3/3/2016 6:08:53 PM

Shrike I'm confused at why you're missing one of the key issues.

She instructed her staff to remove classification headers from documents to send them via an unsecure fax line.

This is easily proved via email record.

3/3/2016 6:10:15 PM

^^^
It's not my job to prove it. The DOJ and FBI are working on that.

"Insecure" isn't the keyword. "Private" is. She sent classified information through a private email many, many times.

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2016 6:11:14 PM

^^Then prove it? I'm sure if it was so easily proven that she committed a crime, then the FBI would have her in handcuffs by now. Every single turn of this investigation has come up with absolutely nothing. That's the reason I don't believe a single thing you say, history suggests it's probably bullshit.

^I'm sorry the guy they gave immunity to didn't drop the bombshell you expected

Quote :

" "Insecure" isn't the keyword. "Private" is. She sent classified information through a private email many, many times."

Which apparently isn't illegal at all.

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2016 6:13:46 PM

lol it's been a day. no one expected the FBI/DOJ to give minute updates on their investigation.

And uhh what? Its definitely illegal.

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2016 6:17:48 PM

There Shrike


There, I proved she instructed staff to remove classification headings. Happy?

3/3/2016 6:19:13 PM

^
the weird thing is the PDF for that email is gone now. they removed it for some reason.

3/3/2016 6:22:47 PM

^^Great! Forward that to F.B.I.! Thank god for r/politics, saving the American taxpayer millions of dollars.

Hasn't this been known since the beginning of January? Again, I'll stand by my assertion that if there was any there there we'd have heard about it by now.

Quote :

"And uhh what? Its definitely illegal."

Apparently not if she's done it "many many many" times and everyone knows about it.

[Edited on March 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2016 6:25:59 PM